In a Socialist State would there be censorship as far as Music ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

This may be a dumb question but in a Socialist State would there be censorship as far as Music ? I listen to all kinds of Music is why Im asking. I enjoy Music but I don't think people should be making millions of dolars a year off of Music.

Marx and Engels on Music
by Mark Lindley

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/lindley180810.html

[Rafiq]

There's no telling. What is a "Socialist state" and how do you even know it could exist? The only Socialist states we know of were of the 20th century. To say there is a pure form, as Cockshott pointed out, is to take an abstract society and compare it with a real, actual existing one, which is completely Idealist.

But this doesn't require heavy thinking, really. If they would deem it necessary, for whatever reason, then yes. Socialists do not exist to ponder on what possibilities a "Socialist society" could bring about.

[Revolution starts with U]

There is no way to tell, some communities may, some may not. I would live in the communities that do not.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Not unless whatever force which brought the society into existence deemed said music a threat (in which case I would be wondering about the character of this so-called progressive force).

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Being a huge music fan I would hope not.

[NGNM85]

'Socialist state' is a contradiction in terms. Furthermore; any consistent Socialist should be categorically opposed to censorship.

[Railyon]

If I can't listen to shitty white power rock, it's not my revolution.

[Caj]

First off, "socialist state" is a contradiction. Socialism is a classless society, while the state is an organ of class rule; they are completely incompatible.

I don't see how censorship of music would really be necessary. During the revolutionary phase, I don't see how enforced censorship of music by the proletarian dictatorship could really be an effective means of combating counter-revolution. It would just be a waste of resources.

After the revolution, there's no reason music would be censored. There would, however, be a drastic change in music in response to the change of the mode of production from capialism to socialism.

[Caj]

Furthermore; any consistent Socialist should be categorically opposed to censorship.

What does opposing or advocating censorship have to do with socialism?

[BE_]

Fuck, I hope not.

[Klaatu]

In my view, no one would "make millions of dollars off of music" in a Socialist society,
because actors, musicians, and athletes would be paid some specific wage as being entertainers.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nobody is getting paid a wage in socialism.

[jookyle]

To be honest, I wouldn't really see the point.

[Yuppie Grinder]

we could do without white-power oi imo

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't see how censorship of music would really be necessary. During the revolutionary phase, I don't see how enforced censorship of music by the proletarian dictatorship could really be an effective means of combating counter-revolution. It would just be a waste of resources.



Seeing as how much music is pirated right now, I think the bolded sums up my issues with censorship.

EDIT: And it runs the danger of setting up a black "market" which undermines the whole non-market thing.

[kuriousoranj]

In a Socialist State would there be censorship as far as Music?

That'd be up to you, pal.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There is so much that just can't be known about what life and culture and society would be like after a working class revolution that was able to establish new social relations and new cooperative and democratic ways of doing things. But in this case the answer seems simple to me: NO.

Censorship comes out of the need of ruling classes to control or enforce their values and preferences, or ones they want the general population to adopt because it helps bolster that class rule. This can be direct or indirect, soft or hard censorship, but in general this is where I think it comes from. So censorship of pornography, for example, is a moralistic bourgeois attempt to sanitize an "sharp edge" that developed as a consequence of market logic. Sexual exploitation comes out of the way the system turns everything and anything into a commodity. Victorians or Evangelical Christians today can't argue that capitalism is virtuous unless the commodification of sex (prostitution or the porn industry) to the point where it can actually be stolen (rape, forced prostitution) is seen in society at large as a consequence of moral failings, rather than a natural consequence of profits, inequality, poverty, and so on.

Other times it's more direct such as political censorship. Obviously a ruling class that feels somewhat insecure or that their rule is not 110% solid, does not want seditious materials gaining traction. So this is directly a ruling class - usually using the state - that's enforcing it's viewpoints (threats to our rule are not good!) onto society.

So, right after a revolution, workers may need to directly censor things that are a direct threat to the new proletarian society. Since workers would be a majority and their "values" would be directed towards preserving an order that doesn't need to exploit others, I think this form of censorship would be democratically agreed on, transparent and unambiguous. I think in a post-revolutionary situation, this "censorship" would be as "commonsensical" as it would be for people after the Hatian Revolution voting to ban pro-slavery pamphlets.

So if there were white-power songs, or explicitly counter-revolutionary posters or symbols then it would be the content which would be restricted, not the form. There is no reason to ban music, there is no such thing as inherently reactionary notes or melodies. There are melodies which have taken on reactionary connotations and symbolic meaning, but again it's not the music that's the issue it's the particular message being conveyed.

So if there was a counter-revolutionary movement that was engaging in antisemitic attacks and using Wagner songs, then maybe workers would decide that these songs shouldn't be played in public because it will terrorize people and embolden counter-revolutionaries. But if there was no anti-semetic movement using these songs in a symbolic manner, then there'd be no reason to ban Wagner music even though he was a reactionary and anti-semite as a person.

My personal opinion is that workers would want to stay away from banning anything that wasn't explicit because we wouldn't want to spend the resources on censorship and would only deal with it when it became an obvious issue with real potential ramifications like neo-nazi posters going up or pamphlets trying to organize counter-revolutionary terror or whatnot. I think workers should stay away from seeking coded or implicitly reactionary messages in things and I don't think there'd be much incentive for that given that worker's power has been fully established. But there's no way to know for sure how people would handle this, so this is just my speculation.

Eventually even this transparent and democratically agreed upon censorship wouldn't even be necessary. With class differences eliminated then it would be possible to have a kind of universal human common-sesne where there is only personal preference.

[Le Penseur Libre]

I don't see the point in censoring music but i agree with you, nobody should make millions of music or even sports

[Klaatu]

Nobody is getting paid a wage in socialism.

I think you mean Communism.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

First off, "socialist state" is a contradiction. Socialism is a classless society, while the state is an organ of class rule; they are completely incompatible.


No, communism is the classless society. There is still classes in socialism (remember that socialism is the stage in which classes are being eliminated).

[Caj]

No, communism is the classless society. There is still classes in socialism (remember that socialism is the stage in which classes are being eliminated).

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the stage in which classes are being eliminated. Communism and socialism refer to the same stage of society.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think you mean Communism.

Lenin's a revisionist.


The dictatorship of the proletariat is the stage in which classes are being eliminated. Communism and socialism refer to the same stage of society.

Yup

[Misanthrope]

wage [/B]

wat

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I hate how Caj gets us quibbling over semantics. Socialism or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Who gives a shit? We all know what each other means. Different people and different tendencies traditionally use a different one of these two words to describe the same stage in societal development.

[Caj]

I hate how Caj gets us quibbling over semantics. Socialism or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Who gives a shit? We all know what each other means. Different people and different tendencies traditionally use a different one of these two words to describe the same stage in societal development.

Actually, it was TheGodlessUtopian who started quibbling over semantics, but whatever.

[Revolution starts with U]

Because it's
1) wrong
2) confusing

[Bostana]

Assuming by 'Socialist State' you mean it by the contradictory terms; then no. I don't think any Comrade here support censorship.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the stage in which classes are being eliminated. Communism and socialism refer to the same stage of society.

The DotP is socialism with said socialism being the "lower phase of communism."

It is hardly semantics, but whatever, what Vyacheslav Brolotov said in regards to tendencies.

[Caj]

The DotP is socialism with said socialism being the "lower phase of communism."

It is hardly semantics, but whatever, what Vyacheslav Brolotov said in regards to tendencies.

The confounding of the lower phase of communism with the dictatorship of the proletariat is just absurd. It shows that one clearly hasn't read the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The confounding of the lower phase of communism with the dictatorship of the proletariat is just absurd. It shows that one clearly hasn't read the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

It is what it always has been referred to as, as much as I have been aware. Far from absurd.

I will get around to re-reading said programme again later,last time I read it was when I was first learning, but I can't say I have much desire to argue such a topic with you.

[Psychedelia]

It would look the same as now,
you will have two options buy original cd's go to their concerts,buy their t-shirts,....
or you can download them from online site.

And pirate music is an good think,it helps the artist to expend global

You download some albums,and you like them,so you are going by a music store and you see their cds so you say wow cool of monstreal new album im going to buy them,...

Also musicians must not play for money they should be happy to make music and bring happines to each other

An perfect example were The Grateful Dead their concerts were cheap very cheap,you can make pirate copies,at their concerts,.... grateful dead were the best


Im going to miss you Jerry Garcia

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I would hope not...but who knows..'states' always have some rules and ideas about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to any kind of art-form..whatever form a 'socialist state' takes will no doubt have it's notions about what is and isn't ok

[Kronsteen]

If a state censors music...

If a state fears creative people...

If a state is so fearful that it might be torn apart by someone singing a song, and can conceive no other response than to silence the singer...

Then that is not a socialist state.

[Rooster]

I think you mean Communism.

I think you don't know what you think you mean.


I hate how Caj gets us quibbling over semantics. Socialism or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Who gives a shit? We all know what each other means. Different people and different tendencies traditionally use a different one of these two words to describe the same stage in societal development.

It matters because if you equate the lowest stage of communism with the DotP then you're basically a reformist. Marx and Engels never used the terms in a different way.


The DotP is socialism with said socialism being the "lower phase of communism."

It is hardly semantics, but whatever, what Vyacheslav Brolotov said in regards to tendencies.

I agree, it's hardly semantics. What's important is the issue of class and revolution which the equation of the DotP with the lowest stage of socialism obfuscates.


It is what it always has been referred to as, as much as I have been aware. Far from absurd.

I will get around to re-reading said programme again later,last time I read it was when I was first learning, but I can't say I have much desire to argue such a topic with you.

There's a problem with your first statement; socialism has meant different things at different times and most of that time, it's meant a utopianist socialism, that chapter in the manifesto that's sadly overlooked. And it was called that for a reason. So it hasn't always meant what it's meant.

[Bostana]

I love how we have gone from Censorship to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I might as well just ask something here anyway. As Engels said, the Commune De Paris was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. And Marx says that the Commune De Paris "Wasn't Socialist nor could it be." So I am a little confused here

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

It matters because if you equate the lowest stage of communism with the DotP then you're basically a reformist. Marx and Engels never used the terms in a different way.

You are such a fucking dumbass that it hurts.

Yeah, because if you don't call something exactly what Marx and Engels called it, but you still advocate the same revolutionary path to it, you are a reformist. You make absolutely no fucking sense.

[Rooster]

You are such a fucking dumbass that it hurts.

Yeah, because if you don't call something exactly what Marx and Engels called it, but you still advocate the same revolutionary path to it, you are a reformist. You make absolutely no fucking sense.

lol if you advocate just a reform from capitalism to socialism then you're a reformist.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

lol if you advocate just a reform from capitalism to socialism then you're a reformist.

Where the fuck did I ever say that, you piece of shit? I clearly said, and I quote, "REVOLUTIONARY PATH." I never advocated a reformist path from capitalism to socialism, stupid. That is literally impossible, and I acknowledge that.

[Rooster]

Where the fuck did I ever say that, you piece of shit? I clearly said, and I quote, "REVOLUTIONARY PATH." I never advocated a reformist path from capitalism to socialism, stupid. That is literally impossible, and I acknowledge that.

Lead me through your conception of revolution then.

And please, conduct yourself in civil discourse. I could go on all day how you're the fucking idiot piece of shit who's never read anything.

[Sea]

If a state censors music...

If a state fears creative people...

If a state is so fearful that it might be torn apart by someone singing a song, and can conceive no other response than to silence the singer...

Then that is not a socialist state.

Something to add to that, if anyone ever finds themselves thinking "Hmm.. We could sure use some censorship right now.", I can pretty much guarantee you that sort of thought wouldn't be based on any perceived merits of censorship, but on a deep flaw somewhere else in society.

"The spiritual development of Germany has gone forward not owing to, but in spite of, the censorship."
--Marx regarding the press, but the same idea applies here.

[Klaatu]

Let us not then say "wage," let us say "labor certificate." Sounds less "capitalist."


I think you don't know what you think you mean.


:confused:

[Hexen]

First of all "Socialist State" is a oxymoron and also under socialism/communism, all forms of property including copyrights would be abolished which would mean people would be free to download and perform any formerly copyrighted music (akin to picking apples out of a tree or drinking water out of a stream which is the main bases of what socialism/communism is about in a nutshell which everything is available for everyone instead of putting fences around declaring this is for "Individual Proprietary Ownership" like a total asshole...) without the fear of being sued or worse.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What kind of music are you guys talking about?:lol:

Now this is what I call a properly derailed thread.

[Klaatu]

With due respect to the OP, I reiterate here:

No one would "make millions of dollars off of music" (or anything else for that matter) in a Socialist society. Nor would any art form be censored.

[gozai]

There should't be any form of censorship in any society.

[l'Enfermé]

Hopefully our revolutionary scoialist overlords will ban trash music, like rap and whiny shit.

[Revolution starts with U]

Rap as a lyrical style cannot be topped by singing, imo. It's just "rap culture" that drags it down.

[Che a chara]

Music, culture etc. within decadent capitalist society is a way of either making an easy buck through watered down, pissy, lifeless and soulless trash or as a way of escaping alienation.

During the stage of socialism the law of value is not determined by the capitalists, therefore the relations as to how one is with the environment and conditions in society should negate any capitalist influence in their musical/artistic output, but socialism as an infant stage would still have musicians with bourgeois consciousness, I would expect education and their own gaining of class consciousness instead of censorship to be a means of eradicating idealism and material necessity in their being and output.

[Book O'Dead]

Has anyone here mentioned polka? After the revolution polka will be made the official music of society and anyone who opposes it will be reprogrammed.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Can we just censor the shitty music?

[Che a chara]

Can we just censor the shitty music?

I don't honestly see why there would be a need for them shitty reality TV programmes like American/British Idol, whoever's Got Talent etc. Maybe Justin Beiber could be shafted too :lol:

[Zealot]

All music, except for metal and its derivatives, should be heavily censored.

And Nazi music, even though it's shit anyway. I doubt even Nazis listen to it.

[Klaatu]

All music, except for metal and its derivatives, should be heavily censored.

And Nazi music, even though it's shit anyway. I doubt even Nazis listen to it.

:laugh::lol:

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I don't honestly see why there would be a need for them shitty reality TV programmes like American/British Idol, whoever's Got Talent etc. Maybe Justin Beiber could be shafted too :lol:

We can only hope, but those proletariat love American Idol.

Actually, can we keep American Idol, but only the part with the bad singers?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fuck censorship. People should be judged by their actions, not by what ideas and concepts they choose to express and/or experience.

It's also fundamentally backwards. Artistic and political expression isn't something that arises ex nihilo - more often than not it serves to reflect one or more aspects of the individual(s) that created it, the social circles the creator moves in, and the society that the creator lives in.

Censorship won't hide that, it will just cause it to be expressed in more surreptitious and roundabout ways.

[NGNM85]

There are only two positions on free speech; you defend it for speech you find, personally, abhorrent, or you accept fascist standards. Mussolini was in favor of speech he agreed with. For Radicals to be opposing feee speech, especially when generations of Radicals, such as Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, Victor Berger, etc., sacrificed so much, and were so instrumental in establishing the broad perameters of free speech under which we conduct these little discussions, is as absurd as it is tragic.

[Proukunin]

I know one thing..I love music with all my heart and everything..but hopefully after the revolution these Disney and Nickelodeon sponsored artists will cease to be..along with every other artist who is out there for the money.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

I would say censor music that would be counter revolutionary, but as not to start a tendency war, in a socialist state their would be music. Who knows maybe even the quality of the music would increase given the profit motive would no longer exist. Music from China during Mao's time, and Soviet music (Both are quite good actually) as well as music from across the Communist bloc flourished during the middle Cold War period, so I'd doubt there wouldn't be music.

[znk666]

I don't think socialism necessarily asserts whether or not there's going to be censorship within a state.

[Cheung Mo]

Under a socialist state, anyone who purges Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, or the Jonas Brothers gets a nice Dacha from their local commisar. :D

[Rafiq]

'Socialist state' is a contradiction in terms. Furthermore; any consistent Socialist should be categorically opposed to censorship.

That is, if they're universal moralists with a structurally Liberal based framework.

Honestly, how the hell do you take yourself serioulsy? NGNM, regurgitation of Chomsky, whom apparently holds the great Inquisitive hammer of judgement, to decide what "Any consistent socialist should be"

[Prometeo liberado]

If you define Celine Dion and Kenny G. as music then I wouldn't mind so much.

[NGNM85]

That is, if they're universal moralists with a structurally Liberal based framework.

I'm not going to get sucked into this nonsense, again. I'm not going to divert the thread debunking your 'anti-moralist' bullshit. Especially since RGacky did a pretty good job of that.



Honestly, how the hell do you take yourself serioulsy?

I often wonder the same thing about you.


NGNM, regurgitation of Chomsky, whom apparently holds the great Inquisitive hammer of judgement, to decide what "Any consistent socialist should be"

If you'd prefer, I could choose any number of others; Emma Goldman, Howard Zinn, etc., etc. It really doesn't matter. First; because the assertion that Socialism is fundamentally antithetical to censorship is not an opinion, it is a fact. Second; because I've long ago learned the futility of trying to reason with you.

[seventeethdecember2016]

I doubt misogynistic, or the like, music will be allowed to continue.

[eric922]

That is, if they're universal moralists with a structurally Liberal based framework.

Honestly, how the hell do you take yourself serioulsy? NGNM, regurgitation of Chomsky, whom apparently holds the great Inquisitive hammer of judgement, to decide what "Any consistent socialist should be"
This right here is the pot calling the kettle black. I've seen several posts where you call out various posters as non-Marxist, non-materialist, non-socialist, moralist etc. So, perhaps you should put down your "Inquisitive hammer of judgement" before you accuse others of doing so.

[Rafiq]

I'm not going to get sucked into this nonsense, again. I'm not going to divert the thread debunking your 'anti-moralist' bullshit. Especially since RGacky did a pretty good job of that.

When? As far as I'm concerned, Gacky's lost virtually every debate I've got into with him.


I often wonder the same thing about you.


Except I'm not a Liberal.


If you'd prefer, I could choose any number of others; Emma Goldman, Howard Zinn, etc., etc.

Howard Zinn was 100% Liberal with some social democratic and anti imperialist tendencies (Similar to that of Oliver Stone, Parenti, and so on).

I
t really doesn't matter. First; because the assertion that Socialism is fundamentally antithetical to censorship is not an opinion, it is a fact.

The "Assertion" of socialism is what? Socialism is the embodiment of the interests of hte proletarian class, which seeks to destroy the Bourgeois state and repress the enemy class at all costs. Hardly some universal moralist ideology structured against what Liberals like NGNM find "Oppressive".

Censorship is necessary to the "Assertion" (in reality) of socialism (The proletarian dictatorship).

To oppose the revolution for your Bourgeois liberal convictions sais enough about how "Socialist" you are.


Second; because I've long ago learned the futility of trying to reason with you.


You mean when you got your ass handed to in that old thread?

[Rafiq]

This right here is the pot calling the kettle black. I've seen several posts where you call out various posters as non-Marxist, non-materialist, non-socialist, moralist etc. So, perhaps you should put down your "Inquisitive hammer of judgement" before you accuse others of doing so.

Indeed, these are accurate judgement. To say "Everyone who doesn't agree with X Liberal moral isn't a Socialist" is not only unique to the user saying it, bizarre, and so on, it's laughable.

[CyricTheMad]

Hello. I don't believe we have met. I am Cyric.

If they would deem it necessary, for whatever reason, then yes.So, in essence, you have nothing against censorship?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Censorship is necessary to the "Assertion" (in reality) of socialism (The proletarian dictatorship).

How?

[Revolution starts with U]

The important thing about freedom of speech is the freedom to speak the truth. It's not important to protect the freedom to lie. What makes protecting that freedom is in the arbitrary nature of statism, iow who decides what is truth.

[Rafiq]

Hello. I don't believe we have met. I am Cyric.
So, in essence, you have nothing against censorship?

No. I don't mind censoring the counter revolution.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

How?

It is a measure that may be necessary to protect the revolution. The point is this: If you call yourself a socialist and want revolution, you have to be willing to accept what may be neccesary to protect the revolution, including censorship.

So the assertion of socialism must be followed with an acceptance of censorship.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[NGNM85]

The important thing about freedom of speech is the freedom to speak the truth. It's not important to protect the freedom to lie. What makes protecting that freedom is in the arbitrary nature of statism, iow who decides what is truth.

No; you either support free speech, which means you defend the right of others to express views you find, personally abhorrent, or you oppose it. It's that simple.

[Revolution starts with U]

No; you either support free speech, which means you defend the right of others to express views you find, personally abhorrent, or you oppose it. It's that simple.

Did you even read what I wrote before you jumped into this knee-jerk parroting of Chomsky? Be more original, comrade. You're supposed to be an anarchist.

Again, the freedom of people to lie is irrelevant. The only reason one need to protect the freedom to lie is that truth can be very subjective and it is difficult and dangerous to allow one entity to have the final say on truth.

... Science damn this copy-paste culture we live in! :lol:

[NGNM85]

Did you even read what I wrote before you jumped into this knee-jerk parroting of Chomsky?

Yes.

I’m really unmoved by your jab because it completely misses the point. It is that simple, (Few things in life are, this is one exception.) and there really isn’t any other way to see it.


Be more original, comrade. You're supposed to be an anarchist.


‘Originality’ is somewhat subjective. Regardless; this is not a sufficient condition of Anarchism. As to this bogus meme that I’m not a ‘real’ Anarchist, you should note that I seem to be the only one advocating the traditional, historical position of Anarchism. In fact; it's the only position consistent with Anarchism. Check the canon, if you like.



Again, the freedom of people to lie is irrelevant. The only reason one need to protect the freedom to lie is that truth can be very subjective and it is difficult and dangerous to allow one entity to have the final say on truth.

... Science damn this copy-paste culture we live in!

Again; you can’t parse it. It’s irreducible.

[Revolution starts with U]

If we had a "truth meter" that could objectively verify the truth of someone's words, the freedom of liars at that point would become irrelevant. The only people who would protect such a right are liars and out of touch dogmatics.

You spend far too much time trying to defend yourself against the bourgeois M-Ls on this site to realize that just because one doesn't have "anarchism" as their tendency doesn't mean they disagree with you.

Again, I agree that freedom of speech in its totality is presently necessary... to a certain extent, I really see no problem punishing fascists, misogynists, etc as long as they have the freedom (in larger society) to express themselves before the punishment... but not for any idealistic reasons.
The protection of lying is a necessary offshoot, not a foundation of free speech. We protect speech because a class has power over the decision of truth. We protect it because the bourgeois will ruthlessly crack down on union and working class organizers if need be. We protect it for reasons that actually pertain to actual people, not some transcendent realm of "freedom" that creates and influences the modern world.

[Azraella]

@RSWU


No; you either support free speech, which means you defend the right of others to express views you find, personally abhorrent, or you oppose it. It's that simple.

Which isn't even Chomsky's position RSWU. Chomsky is way more nuanced than that and I actually agree with Chomsky's position on it. Chomsky says that freedom of speech isn't a universal maxim. If it would infringe on someone's rights then it is in confllict with someone's rights to not be oppressed.* This is why some anarchist boards on the internet have strict anti-oppressive speech policies.


*I am having a hard time expressing that differently.

[NGNM85]

@RSWU



Which isn't even Chomsky's position RSWU. Chomsky is way more nuanced than that and I actually agree with Chomsky's position on it. Chomsky says that freedom of speech isn't a universal maxim. If it would infringe on someone's rights then it is in confllict with someone's rights to not be oppressed.* This is why some anarchist boards on the internet have strict anti-oppressive speech policies.


*I am having a hard time expressing that differently.

No, this is completely wrong. You're having difficulty expressing it because you're mangling it. If you read what he actually said, slowly, you'll see I'm right. However; whether or not Chomsky believes that (He does.) is of little importance, what matters is that it's true.

There's no such thing as 'oppressive speech.'

I was banned from a, supposedly, 'Anarchist webforum for having the temerity to advocate free speech. (They've since passed a rule that doing so is grounds for an immediate ban.) All that proves is that there are plenty of nimrods out there calling themselves; 'Anarchists.'

[Azraella]

From Chomsky himself:

Man: What about things like sexual harassment?
Chomsky: That's a different story. See, there are conflicting rights. Rights aren't an axiom system , and if you look closely at them, they often conflict — so you just have to make judgments between them in those cases. And like freedom of speech, another right that people have is to work without getting harassed. So I think laws against sexual harassment in the workplace are perfectly reasonable, because they follow from a reasonable principle — namely, you should be able to work without harassment, period. Sexual or any other kind. On the other hand, sexual harassment in the streets is another story, and I think it has to be treated differently.
Look, in the real free speech discussions, there is nobody who's an absolutist on free speech. People may pretend to be, but they're not.
Like, I've never heard of anybody who says that you have a right to come into my house and put up a Nazi poster on the wall. Well, ok, blocking you from doing that is an infringement on your freedom of speech, but it's also a protection of my right to privacy. And those rights sometimes conflict, because rights do conflict, so therefore we just have to make judgments between them — and those judgments are often not easy to make. But I think we should be extremely wary of placing the power to make those determinations in the hands of authorities, who are going to respond to the distribution of power in the society as they carry them out.
— Chomsky, [I]Understanding Power, ch. 8
...
Penn: He defends speech codes by citing the example of putting up a Nazi poster in your bedroom:

Chomsky: My freedom of speech doesn't extend that far. And there's something analogous that happens in a college. The kinds of speech, behavior, various actions that take place are entering into the home of the student.

— Penn & Teller, "Bullshit!" (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20050530.htm)

[Revolution starts with U]

^ I think it's quite clear Chomsky holds a material basis for his belief in free speech. His isn't one of idealism, but of the real awareness of how power relations function in society, and who decides what is truth.

He also talks extensively about the "sacred right to lie" for the state. It's clear in these discussions he doesn't particularly like their right to lie, but recognizes no singular entity should have the authority to decide what is truth.

Restricting disgusting views is far different than restricting liars... neither of which should be done in society at large (no problems with a particular part of society doing it, Revleft for example; as Chomsky says, I wouldn't allow a NAZI the "freedom of expression" to hang Hitler posters up in my house). Nevertheless they are wildly different.

Chomsky's position (for example) on holocaust deniers is that the state should not repress them, acting as the arbiter of truth. But he personally would not engage in debate with them, or allow them "in his house."

[Rafiq]

It isn't at all about the 'right' to lie or tell the truth. It's about supressing the speech of potential counter revolutionaries, that of whom in doing so could threaten the Proletarian State and the revolution itself.

Take for example White Army scum spreading their propaganda throughout the streets of St. Petersburg, or counter revolutionaries calling for a return to the Tzar, and so on. Such couldn't be tolerated.

[eric922]

It isn't at all about the 'right' to lie or tell the truth. It's about supressing the speech of potential counter revolutionaries, that of whom in doing so could threaten the Proletarian State and the revolution itself.

Take for example White Army scum spreading their propaganda throughout the streets of St. Petersburg, or counter revolutionaries calling for a return to the Tzar, and so on. Such couldn't be tolerated.
Here what worries me and probably others, is there is a risk of going too far. Is holding a different view of socialism considered counter-revolutionary? What if the country is, just for sake of example, a Trotskyist state, should those advocating Maoism or anarchism be censored and suppressed? I would say no, but I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

[Revolution starts with U]

It isn't at all about the 'right' to lie or tell the truth. It's about supressing the speech of potential counter revolutionaries, that of whom in doing so could threaten the Proletarian State and the revolution itself.

Take for example White Army scum spreading their propaganda throughout the streets of St. Petersburg, or counter revolutionaries calling for a return to the Tzar, and so on. Such couldn't be tolerated.

If it was you making the decisions on whose speech should be tolerated I would trust that system even less than the Revleft BA. Notice you [B]had[B] to say "potential."
It's a paranoid nature that sees ghosts around every corner.

Meanwhile the politburo executes traditional leftists while openly making deals with the national bourgeoisie. Such is the history of authoritarian "socialism."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is a measure that may be necessary to protect the revolution. The point is this: If you call yourself a socialist and want revolution, you have to be willing to accept what may be neccesary to protect the revolution, including censorship.

So the assertion of socialism must be followed with an acceptance of censorship.

You've already said that censorship may be necessary, I know that. My problem is that you seem to think that "anything that threatens the revolution" is a sufficiently detailed policy, whereas I think that such a wide-ranging policy is needlessly vague, to point of justifying any crap some self-appointed vanguard decides to try and shovel onto the rest of us.


Take for example White Army scum spreading their propaganda throughout the streets of St. Petersburg, or counter revolutionaries calling for a return to the Tzar, and so on. Such couldn't be tolerated.

Why not? Coming down on them like a ton of bricks forces them underground, where it's harder to keep track of them. And underground they will go, if the revolution is a genuinely popular one. The resources and manpower spent suppressing them would be better spent on operations against counter-revolutionary activity which materially hurts the cause, like sabotage and terrorism.

Then there is the question of how these peeps get their message out. Printers, radio and TV stations, ISPs and webhosts, all of these should be the target of pro-revolutionary propaganda and "soft power" actions intended to win them over or at least encourage them to stop spreading counter-productive messages.

[l'Enfermé]

Here what worries me and probably others, is there is a risk of going too far. Is holding a different view of socialism considered counter-revolutionary? What if the country is, just for sake of example, a Trotskyist state, should those advocating Maoism or anarchism be censored and suppressed? I would say no, but I'm curious to hear what you have to say.
Of couse they should be, everyone opposing the Revolution should be suppressed. Why would the Proletariat not suppress it's enemies? I'm surprised you'd even bring that up.

Anyways, "Trotskyist" state? What the fuck does that even mean? The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is neither Marxism, Trotskyist nor Luxemburgist.

[eric922]

Of couse they should be, everyone opposing the Revolution should be suppressed. Why would the Proletariat not suppress it's enemies? I'm surprised you'd even bring that up.

Anyways, "Trotskyist" state? What the fuck does that even mean? The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is neither Marxism, Trotskyist nor Luxemburgist.
Now you are just arguing semantics. It should be fairly clear that by "Trotskyist state" I meant a socialist state, assuming it hasn't withered away yet, that was based on the theories and polices of Leon Trotsky.

This issue does need to be raised. Are we going to arrest workers who are socialists, but don't agree with the majority view of socialism?

[Revolution starts with U]

Of couse they should be, everyone opposing the Revolution should be suppressed. Why would the Proletariat not suppress it's enemies? I'm surprised you'd even bring that up.

Anyways, "Trotskyist" state? What the fuck does that even mean? The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is neither Marxism, Trotskyist nor Luxemburgist.

1) The problem again resides in who is deciding what is for/against the Revolution. The ideologues in control of the state are obviously going to think their "socialism" is Socialism. That's how "genuine leftists" (supposedly such as yourself) get gulagged.
Are you really against this kind of stuff, or only when it happens to you?

2) I had a 2, but it's really irrelevant. Unless and until #1 is taken care of, the free speech issue will still remain an issue.

[eric922]

1) The problem again resides in who is deciding what is for/against the Revolution. The ideologues in control of the state are obviously going to think their "socialism" is Socialism. That's how "genuine leftists" (supposedly such as yourself) get gulagged.
Are you really against this kind of stuff, or only when it happens to you?

2) I had a 2, but it's really irrelevant. Unless and until #1 is taken care of, the free speech issue will still remain an issue.
Thanks you made my point better than I could.

[l'Enfermé]

Who decides? Ideologues who control the State? The Proletariat controls the State, thus Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I didn't realize it takes a genius to spot counter-revolutionaries, when they are generally fighting on the side of the counter-revolution and spread counter-revolutionary propaganda.

Those who stand in opposition to the Revolution and the Proletarian Dictatorship are those that get suppressed and repressed.

[Revolution starts with U]

Who decides? Ideaologies who control the State? The Proletariat controls the State, thus Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I didn't realize it takes a genius to spot counter-revolutionaries, when they are generally fighting on the side of the counter-revolution and spread counter-revolutionary propaganda.

Those who stand in opposition to the Revolution and the Proletarian Dictatorship are those that get suppressed and repressed.

Yes, well, enjoy your restriction. In one of our mods own words (paraphrased) you're a reactionary (standing in opposition to the Revolution), which we can tell because you've been restricted, and as such deserve to rot alongside all the other counterrevs.

(If there's a state, it's doubtful the proletariat actually controls it.)

I'm glad to know you're thinking about this logically, and not just pissed because it happened to you.

[Rafiq]

Here what worries me and probably others, is there is a risk of going too far. Is holding a different view of socialism considered counter-revolutionary? What if the country is, just for sake of example, a Trotskyist state, should those advocating Maoism or anarchism be censored and suppressed? I would say no, but I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

You're missing the point, and it's largely thanks to your incompetence in breaking from the constraint of Idealist thought.

Firstly, a "Trotskyist state" can never exist and will never exist. It's not about battling Ideas or Ideologies, it's about battles between actual existing classes, of which ideologies are a reflection.

So when I say censorhip may very well be necessary to protect a proletarian revolution, I mean it.

[Rafiq]

If it was you making the decisions on whose speech should be tolerated I would trust that system even less than the Revleft BA. Notice you [B]had[B] to say "potential."
It's a paranoid nature that sees ghosts around every corner.

Meanwhile the politburo executes traditional leftists while openly making deals with the national bourgeoisie. Such is the history of authoritarian "socialism."

Your rhetoric is exclusive to very specific historical circumstances (I.e. Soviet Union) in which those conditions existed external from Authoritarianism, but thanks to something entirely different. You've failed to provide anyone any distinction between you and the other common, populist Liberal rabble on this site by resorting to such low attacks.

[Rafiq]

You've already said that censorship may be necessary, I know that. My problem is that you seem to think that "anything that threatens the revolution" is a sufficiently detailed policy, whereas I think that such a wide-ranging policy is needlessly vague, to point of justifying any crap some self-appointed vanguard decides to try and shovel onto the rest of us.

You seem to be under the impression there can exist such a "vanguard" external from the affairs of every day classes. Ironically, one of the reasons the Bolsheviks were seen as divorced from the masses was because of their firm proletarian base (Which was a minority).

You also seem to be under the impression that a vanguard would carry out such policies for fuck all reason. This wasn't even the case in regards to the Bolsheviks, where each and every one of their policies had a reason of sorts.


Why not? Coming down on them like a ton of bricks forces them underground, where it's harder to keep track of them. And underground they will go, if the revolution is a genuinely popular one.

That's generally why counter revolutionaries, in times of desperate struggle, would be automatically shot without trial. Their only class basis is with the Bourgeois (Petite) classes, the former ruling classes and so on. Suppressing them isn't going to boost support on behalf of the proletariat for the reaction, as this was never the case, even when the Cheka was running amok.

After all, it's the proletariat whom will be the champions of the revolution, the revolutionaries themselves. It is not as if we communists are here to use them to achieve our own sick ideological ends.


The resources and manpower spent suppressing them would be better spent on operations against counter-revolutionary activity which materially hurts the cause, like sabotage and terrorism.


Seizing the property of the bourgeois class, as Lenin pointed out, also meant seizing their means of distributing media. That means press, or television sets, and so on, would be revoked from the counter revolution.

To formally identify with the counter revolution in times of such crises would, with no doubt, imply you're willing to suffer the same fate.


Then there is the question of how these peeps get their message out. Printers, radio and TV stations, ISPs and webhosts, all of these should be the target of pro-revolutionary propaganda and "soft power" actions intended to win them over or at least encourage them to stop spreading counter-productive messages.


Encouragement, in this case, comes out of the barrel of a gun. Sorry, there isn't going to be any reasoning with SF scum.

[eric922]

You're missing the point, and it's largely thanks to your incompetence in breaking from the constraint of Idealist thought.

Firstly, a "Trotskyist state" can never exist and will never exist. It's not about battling Ideas or Ideologies, it's about battles between actual existing classes, of which ideologies are a reflection.

So when I say censorhip may very well be necessary to protect a proletarian revolution, I mean it.
Tell me Rafiq can you ever make your point without resorting to insults? Perhaps, you should try it. You should really work on you debating and people skills, because you win no allies with the constant insults. When adults debate we tend to use logic and rational arguments based on fact, instead of throwing around words like "incompetence", "idealist", "moralist", etc. words to you that seem to mean anyone who disagrees with Rafiq.

[Pretty Flaco]

Tell me Rafiq can you ever make your point without resorting to insults? Perhaps, you should try it. You should really work on you debating and people skills, because you win no allies with the constant insults. When adults debate we tend to use logic and rational arguments based on fact, instead of throwing around words like "incompetence", "idealist", "moralist", etc. words to you that seem to mean anyone who disagrees with Rafiq.

lol bro i dont know what people you know.

[eric922]

lol bro i dont know what people you know.
Yeah, my bad. I keep forgetting we are on the internet and the majority of people seem to be required to be assholes, but still even by the internet's low standards Rafiq's attitude is pretty bad. He could make his points a lot more effectively if he'd leave out the insults and just focus on what is being debated. He could have responded to my post by arguing that my view was rooted in idealism and then explain why. However, he choose to throw around childish insults so I really have no reason to respect his opinion if he isn't capable of communicating his ideas in a mature manner.

[Pretty Flaco]

Yeah, my bad. I keep forgetting we are on the internet, but still even by the internet's low standards Rafiq's attitude is pretty bad. He could make his points a lot more effectively if he'd leave out the insults and just focus on what is being debated. He could have responded to my post by arguing that my view was rooted in idealism and then explain why. However, he choose to throw around childish insults so I really have no reason to respect his opinion if he isn't capable of communicating his ideas in a mature manner.

i wasn't talking about just on the internet. i mean im not attacking you or anything but saying all adults have intelligent debates and conversations?

[eric922]

i wasn't talking about just on the internet. i mean im not attacking you or anything but saying all adults have intelligent debates and conversations?
I'll admit I was a bit unclear in that post. Not adults all do, but when you are trying to convince someone of your position intelligent conversation works a lot better than insulting someone. Insulting people simply turns them off to your position, no matter how correct it might be.

As an example, look to this conversation. You pointed out that I was wrong about how a lot of people debate without resorting to insults and I admitted you were right, I was unclear and made that post rather hastily without really thinking though everything I was typing.

[Rafiq]

Tell me Rafiq can you ever make your point without resorting to insults? Perhaps, you should try it. You should really work on you debating and people skills, because you win no allies with the constant insults. When adults debate we tend to use logic and rational arguments based on fact, instead of throwing around words like "incompetence", "idealist", "moralist", etc. words to you that seem to mean anyone who disagrees with Rafiq.

Trust me, if I was going to insult you, a Trotskyist, I would have done a much better job.

[eric922]

Trust me, if I was going to insult you, a Trotskyist, I would have done a much better job.
God, I really need to change that tendency. Just for the record, I'm not a Trotskyist, I used to consider myself one, but I really don't agree with them on all that much anymore.

Furthermore, I'm done talking to you. You've proven countless times on this forum that you are immature, misguided, and have some obsession with authoritarianism and violence that shows you really don't understand either, because if you did you would not be glorifying them the way you do. Go ahead call me a liberal, moralist, or whatever other leftist buzzword insult you think makes you sound good, I really could not care less so don't waste your time replying, because I won't be replying to anything else you post. Other people on this forum have already done a much better job than I could of countering your views and its clear you respect no one's opinion but your own.

[Rafiq]

Who did a better job?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Revolution starts with U]

God, I really need to change that tendency. Just for the record, I'm not a Trotskyist, I used to consider myself one, but I really don't agree with them on all that much anymore.

Furthermore, I'm done talking to you. You've proven countless times on this forum that you are immature, misguided, and have some obsession with authoritarianism and violence that shows you really don't understand either, because if you did you would not be glorifying them the way you do. Go ahead call me a liberal, moralist, or whatever other leftist buzzword insult you think makes you sound good, I really could not care less so don't waste your time replying, because I won't be replying to anything else you post. Other people on this forum have already done a much better job than I could of countering your views and its clear you respect no one's opinion but your own.
A clear sign that he should really hold no power in society, ever. Unfortunately, also a sign of a person people just line up to follow.


Your rhetoric is exclusive to very specific historical circumstances (I.e. Soviet Union) in which those conditions existed external from Authoritarianism, but thanks to something entirely different. You've failed to provide anyone any distinction between you and the other common, populist Liberal rabble on this site by resorting to such low attacks.
Omg I suggested people often think they are right... I must be a liberal populist! Boo! A ghost around every corner...
It's clear you just couch your idealism in materialist language. You idealize violence just as much as a hippy idealizes peace. To be sure, you'll fall back on "I'm just saying it might be necessary." But that will be between your various calls to "liquidate the bourgeoisie," or "counterrevs will likely be shot without trial."
Oh woe! The socialist movement would be more in power if these liberals would just be more violent you think. Just like hippies absolve the Dalai Llama of his violent crimes as a "victim of historical circumstance" you absolve the purveyors of senseless violence in the USSR as "due to external forces."

Soviet Union would have worked if the revolution had just spread. The problems of isn't internal to its structure, it's all those stupid Germans fault for going fascist.

You should stick to your "we shouldn't predict the future." It's the only time you actually make sense. Maybe when you acknowledge that there is such a thing as a megalomaniac and a political opportunist, we can talk. Until then, you're every bit as much of an idealist as the people you claim to despise.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You seem to be under the impression there can exist such a "vanguard" external from the affairs of every day classes. Ironically, one of the reasons the Bolsheviks were seen as divorced from the masses was because of their firm proletarian base (Which was a minority).

Perhaps so, but that hardly speaks to later periods when more of the USSR's population was working class.


You also seem to be under the impression that a vanguard would carry out such policies for fuck all reason. This wasn't even the case in regards to the Bolsheviks, where each and every one of their policies had a reason of sorts.

And people can't be mistaken about the reasons for their actions?


That's generally why counter revolutionaries, in times of desperate struggle, would be automatically shot without trial. Their only class basis is with the Bourgeois (Petite) classes, the former ruling classes and so on. Suppressing them isn't going to boost support on behalf of the proletariat for the reaction, as this was never the case, even when the Cheka was running amok.

If someone is accused of counter-revolutionary activity, a trial is necessary to see if it can be determined that the accused actually committed the crime. Otherwise one ends up with a situation where people are labelled counter-revolutionary for reasons other than that of verifiable fact.


After all, it's the proletariat whom will be the champions of the revolution, the revolutionaries themselves. It is not as if we communists are here to use them to achieve our own sick ideological ends.

Individual proletarians are not immune to accusation, and I do not remotely feel comfortable condemning to death those who never deserved it.


Seizing the property of the bourgeois class, as Lenin pointed out, also meant seizing their means of distributing media. That means press, or television sets, and so on, would be revoked from the counter revolution.

How would you recognise that? It's not as if counter-revolutionaries have it written on their foreheads.


To formally identify with the counter revolution in times of such crises would, with no doubt, imply you're willing to suffer the same fate.

So you're saying that being a reactionary loudmouth alone is deserving of a summary capital sentence? I think that's a mistake.


Encouragement, in this case, comes out of the barrel of a gun. Sorry, there isn't going to be any reasoning with SF scum.

You mean StormFront? They're not the only kind of people who might need persuasion of some kind or another. I don't think you can lump them in with the same people who may be opposed for other reasons, or who may have genuine doubts that it would be worthwhile in allaying.

[Revolution starts with U]

If someone is accused of counter-revolutionary activity, a trial is necessary to see if it can be determined that the accused actually committed the crime. Otherwise one ends up with a situation where people are labelled counter-revolutionary for reasons other than that of verifiable fact.


Guy stole your girlfriend? Denounce as counterrev, problem solved.
Rival philosopher/politician/artist stealing your thunder? Counterrev.
Someone wrote a better song than you? Counterrev.


"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." They say. Vanguardists would be well served looking up Marius and Sulla.

[eric922]

Guy stole your girlfriend? Denounce as counterrev, problem solved.
Rival philosopher/politician/artist stealing your thunder? Counterrev.
Someone wrote a better song than you? Counterrev.


"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." They say. Vanguardists would be well served looking up Marius and Sulla.
I think they might be well served to look at the Salem witch trials and see what happens when you make life or death decisions on things as arbitrary defined as "counter-revolutionary" or a "witch." I have no doubt that some people would throw the term "counterrev" around as quickly as some threw the word "witch" around. Ultmately that's what they run the risk of turning any potential revoution into. A "revolutionary" "materialist" witch hunt.

[Revolution starts with U]

Just a look into the history of the US Bill of Rights, who supported/opposed it, and why it was implemented teaches this lesson. It was mostly the common people demanding right to trial by jury, and a right to free speech (specifically to "petition the government for redress of grievance). Just as it was mostly the existing power structure opposing it.

The only reason one would oppose a rule of laws is to silence and deligitimize one's opposition. This sounds well enough, for protecting the revolution. But when one further looks into it, one can easily see that it easily creates just the situation a counterrevolutionary would need to hijack the Revolution.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Tell me Rafiq can you ever make your point without resorting to insults? Perhaps, you should try it. You should really work on you debating and people skills, because you win no allies with the constant insults. When adults debate we tend to use logic and rational arguments based on fact, instead of throwing around words like "incompetence", "idealist", "moralist", etc. words to you that seem to mean anyone who disagrees with Rafiq.

There was no insult in that post, though

[NGNM85]

From Chomsky himself:

Man: What about things like sexual harassment?
Chomsky: That's a different story. See, there are conflicting rights. Rights aren't an axiom system , and if you look closely at them, they often conflict — so you just have to make judgments between them in those cases. And like freedom of speech, another right that people have is to work without getting harassed. So I think laws against sexual harassment in the workplace are perfectly reasonable, because they follow from a reasonable principle — namely, you should be able to work without harassment, period. Sexual or any other kind. On the other hand, sexual harassment in the streets is another story, and I think it has to be treated differently.
Look, in the real free speech discussions, there is nobody who's an absolutist on free speech. People may pretend to be, but they're not.
Like, I've never heard of anybody who says that you have a right to come into my house and put up a Nazi poster on the wall. Well, ok, blocking you from doing that is an infringement on your freedom of speech, but it's also a protection of my right to privacy. And those rights sometimes conflict, because rights do conflict, so therefore we just have to make judgments between them — and those judgments are often not easy to make. But I think we should be extremely wary of placing the power to make those determinations in the hands of authorities, who are going to respond to the distribution of power in the society as they carry them out.
— Chomsky, [I]Understanding Power, ch. 8
...
Penn: He defends speech codes by citing the example of putting up a Nazi poster in your bedroom:
Chomsky: My freedom of speech doesn't extend that far. And there's something analogous that happens in a college. The kinds of speech, behavior, various actions that take place are entering into the home of the student.
— Penn & Teller, "Bullshit!" (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20050530.htm)


I could tell by your avatar that you were going to be a pain in the ass. None of this conflicts with what I said. Your problem, or, rather, one of your problems, is you, apparently, don’t understand the meaning of; ‘free speech.’ Regardless; what is at issue, specifically, in this conversation, is the right of individuals to express political ideas, in the commons, without being censored (Or, perhaps, even summarily executed.) on the basis of ideology. Chomsky is unequivocally against that. So am I. As should every Anarchist, every Socialist, etc.

[Rafiq]

Omg I suggested people often think they are right... I must be a liberal populist! Boo! A ghost around every corner...


If it was you making the decisions on whose speech should be tolerated I would trust that system even less than the Revleft BA. Notice you had[B] to say "potential."
It's a paranoid nature that sees ghosts around every corner.


Yeah, that's exactly what you said :rolleyes:


It's clear you just couch your idealism in materialist language. You idealize violence just as much as a hippy idealizes peace. To be sure, you'll fall back on "I'm just saying it might be necessary." But that will be between your various calls to "liquidate the bourgeoisie," or "counterrevs will likely be shot without trial."

I'd like you to point out one post where one can come to the conclusion that I "Idealize" violence (You mean Romanticize? Dumbass. There's more to Idealism than that).

If you can't, I'd like you to apologize for talking out of your ass. Someone with their head up their ass, smelling flowers and what not, could easily romanticize "peace". Everyone wants peace. I want peace. I don't like violence at all. It's beyond me why you'd accuse me of "romanticizing" it. Perhaps it's because your soft Liberal heart is shocked by the fact that the Bourgeois class isn't going to hold hands with us and sing songs.


Oh woe! The socialist movement would be more in power if these liberals would just be more violent you think.

No. The point is that Liberals themselves, violent or not, are an enemy.


Just like hippies absolve the Dalai Llama of his violent crimes as a "victim of historical circumstance" [B]you absolve the purveyors of senseless violence in the USSR as "due to external forces."


Senseless violence in the USSR? I've never said that before, but yes, I don't alleviate the USSR under Lenin of violence, I fully understand it existed. And I fully support it, none the less.

I said that the Soviet Union collapsed and failed due to something external from it being Authoritarian. That's hardly anything that can fall in correlation with the horse shit you've just said.

But anyway, the only accounts of senless violence were indeed the Great Purges, which didn't occur because a proletarian state wanted to protect itself, but to alleviate the insecurity of capital. I love how you disdain from recognizing the material froces at hand, and instead blame "Just paranoia".

Reminds me of the Trotskyist The Marxist Historian who credits the material conditions of the USSR in full correspondence with the magical free will of the workers, as if the USSR is except from material analysis and conditions.


Soviet Union would have worked if the revolution had just spread. The problems of isn't internal to its structure, it's all those stupid Germans fault for going fascist.


The problem indeed had a lot to do with it's structure (Not Authoritarianism) but the point is that this structure came about not based on the will of the Bolsheviks, but in direct response to the isolation of the revolution. Why is that far fetched? Why is that so hard to grasp? It's accepted by virtually all Left Communists, as a matter of fact. You know very well you're twisting my words. So you've proven not only there can be no distinction between you and the Liberals, but that you're also an immature troll. Really, piss off, if you're going to make this atrocious interperitation of my views.


You should stick to your "we shouldn't predict the future." It's the only time you actually make sense.

What the fuck? Are you just going on and trying to insult me in the best way you can? You've clearly deviated from the topic all together. In short, I don't care, and fuck you, Liberal scum.


Maybe when you acknowledge that there is such a thing as a megalomaniac and a political opportunist, we can talk.

Maybe you can acknowledge that these individuals are powerless without a firm class basis, and them acting on behalf of a class. There is no political without a class basis to support it. That means if there is a megalomaniac, then there's a class of megalomaniacs behind him. That means if there's an opportunist, there's a class behind him with opportunist motives (Usually the petite bourgeois).

But no, continue to adhere to bullshit Liberalist analysis of politics. Really, and you call yourself a materialist? You don't even know what Idealism is, so how can you say you are exempt from such a label? You think Idealism means "Idealizing" things. Pathetic.

Until then, you're every bit as much of an idealist as the people you claim to despise.

[Rafiq]

Perhaps so, but that hardly speaks to later periods when more of the USSR's population was working class.

That's a whole other story. Yes, the state was divorced from the proletariat, and starting from the twenties it was heading in that direction. But this was due to the state's degeneration into a different class, external from the Bourgeois class and Proletarian class. Some call it a "Manager Class" and so on. This is why I refrain from adhering to the notion of state capitalism.

Such a mutation only existed, though, due to the necessity of a manager class to "Build socialism" in an isolated state with a Peasant majority. I doubt every vanguard would end up in the same way.


And people can't be mistaken about the reasons for their actions?


It's intention, in this regards, that counts. The Bolsheviks didn't create policies external from the interests of the proletariat until they were devoured by Capital (Again, due to isolation, the inability of surpassing the capitalist mode of production, and so on).



If someone is accused of counter-revolutionary activity, a trial is necessary to see if it can be determined that the accused actually committed the crime. Otherwise one ends up with a situation where people are labelled counter-revolutionary for reasons other than that of verifiable fact.


The Cheka seemed to handle the counter revolution just fine (Without trial). It's just too bad by the time they were finished the revolution had been isolated.

Now, of course things can change, but if you analyze the situation, there isn't always time for a trial. In these times, though, perhaps...



Individual proletarians are not immune to accusation, and I do not remotely feel comfortable condemning to death those who never deserved it.


Sometimes in order to protect the revolution people have to do things they aren't comfortable with. Mao said a revolution isn't a dinner party, and he was (surprisingly) right. A revolution isn't always kept in check with whatever ethical views one might have.

Again, if Trial is possible, and doesn't waste war resources or time (like it did during the Russian Civil War) then I don't see a reason why it wouldn't exist. But if it can't, that isn't a signification that we should all dump the revolution.


How would you recognise that? It's not as if counter-revolutionaries have it written on their foreheads.


The Property of Bourgeois-media industries would be seized. Usage on the internet can't be regulated, but if you're with twenty fascists marching through the streets of the revolutionary capital during a war, you're asking for it.



So you're saying that being a reactionary loudmouth alone is deserving of a summary capital sentence? I think that's a mistake.


The mass spreading of propaganda (in mass numbers) may very well be. It doesn't matter if some asshole Ayn rand asslicker is complaining in public or whatever, it's the spreading of mass propaganda that counts. Even in Bolshevik Russia, people weren't killed merely for holding counter revolutionary views. It's when they took action (Both militantly or agitation) that they were in deep shit.


You mean StormFront? They're not the only kind of people who might need persuasion of some kind or another. I don't think you can lump them in with the same people who may be opposed for other reasons, or who may have genuine doubts that it would be worthwhile in allaying.


In times of desperate crises, people will have to take sides. That means all of the irrelevant internet ideologies would dissapear, and immediately take a side.

To encourage the distributors of counterrevolutionary propaganda can only be done through the barrel of a gun. With Proletarians, perhaps it's different. Former Members of the ruling class, though...

[Rafiq]

Guy stole your girlfriend? Denounce as counterrev, problem solved.
Rival philosopher/politician/artist stealing your thunder? Counterrev.
Someone wrote a better song than you? Counterrev.

Even in the worst times of paranoia in the Soviet Union, similar cases never happened. You're just spewing horse shit, is all. So personal.. I don't think you understand how politicians work, none the less the function of the state. (Hint: it isn't a single guy sitting on his ass getting people into trouble for wronging them in personal life).



"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." They say. Vanguardists would be well served looking up Marius and Sulla.


Fine, Vanguardists were the only ones in history to successfully carry out a proletarian revolution. To dismiss the Vanguard because of what happened in Bolshevik Russia is ludicrous. You may as well dismiss mathematics as well, as I'm sure it was used vehemently in Russia during war time and construction. Yup, the failure of the revolution was due to mathematics, not the isolation of the revolution or, you know, the invasion by the allies and so on, but MATHEMATICS! Prove me wrong!

[Rafiq]

I think they might be well served to look at the Salem witch trials and see what happens when you make life or death decisions on things as arbitrary defined as "counter-revolutionary" or a "witch." I have no doubt that some people would throw the term "counterrev" around as quickly as some threw the word "witch" around. Ultmately that's what they run the risk of turning any potential revoution into. A "revolutionary" "materialist" witch hunt.

Why don't you fucking just look at the Russian Civil War instead? It was very successful in destroying the counter revolution. Think about it. A bunch of ragged Bolsheviks fending off all of the allied powers and their dogs. State Terror is a necessity, and that includes creating a paranoid atmosphere. If you want to sit on your ass, smoke pot, grow a beard and play the ukulele, revolution isn't for you.

But no, every time Revolutionary Terror is deployed, the Salem Witch trials happen :rolleyes:

Why don't you learn from Noxion and actually make substantial arguments instead of spouting out irrelevant nonsense? So far he's the only one who is actually sticking to debate.

[Rafiq]

Just a look into the history of the US Bill of Rights, who supported/opposed it, and why it was implemented teaches this lesson. It was mostly the common people demanding right to trial by jury, and a right to free speech (specifically to "petition the government for redress of grievance). Just as it was mostly the existing power structure opposing it.

The U.S. bill of righst was fully done so on behalf of the aristocratic class in the United States, not the masses. It was them, the petty bourgeois, who were rallying for free speech, and so on. What a shit example you're using.


The only reason one would oppose a rule of laws is to silence and deligitimize one's opposition.

Yeah and shove your bourgeois laws up your ass. You sound like the moralist scum who ejaculate over "LAWS ARE THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF SOCIETAH!" instead of real material forces in which the laws are merely a response.

I mean, how do you come off as a socialist, anyway? What right do you have to say that your laws shouldn't be opposed, but that the "Rule of Laws" of Fascist Hungary should be? You've gone through a massive intellectual degeneracy since the last time I've spoke to you. Wow. I'm disappointed.


This sounds well enough, for protecting the revolution. But when one further looks into it, one can easily see that it easily creates just the situation a counterrevolutionary would need to hijack the Revolution.


Too bad, historically, that's never happened. Challenge me. Go ahead. Name one event and I'll shove it in your face that it's never happened.

Too bad Individuals can't hold power, or state power, and can't create history. It's classes that do these things, not individuals with individual interests. You're like the negative Great Man theorist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's a whole other story. Yes, the state was divorced from the proletariat, and starting from the twenties it was heading in that direction. But this was due to the state's degeneration into a different class, external from the Bourgeois class and Proletarian class. Some call it a "Manager Class" and so on. This is why I refrain from adhering to the notion of state capitalism.

The point is that the vanguard approach has gone wrong in the past and will doubtless go wrong in the future if it's ever tried again.


Such a mutation only existed, though, due to the necessity of a manager class to "Build socialism" in an isolated state with a Peasant majority. I doubt every vanguard would end up in the same way.

Well, quite apart from the impossibility of "building socialism" in such a situation, there's more than one potential reason why a hypothetical vanguard could end up becoming the very beasts they sought to slay.


It's intention, in this regards, that counts. The Bolsheviks didn't create policies external from the interests of the proletariat until they were devoured by Capital (Again, due to isolation, the inability of surpassing the capitalist mode of production, and so on).

Good intentions are not enough, the proverbial road to Hell is paved with them, remember? One must also be willing to admit that one might be wrong, which is why things like trials are so fucking important.


The Cheka seemed to handle the counter revolution just fine (Without trial). It's just too bad by the time they were finished the revolution had been isolated.

Without trials, how the fuck can we tell how many people who recieved the attentions of the Cheka really warranted that kind of scrutiny?


Now, of course things can change, but if you analyze the situation, there isn't always time for a trial. In these times, though, perhaps...

Completely unacceptable. If there is "no time" for a trial, then detain the accused until the soonest time one can conduct it.


Sometimes in order to protect the revolution people have to do things they aren't comfortable with. Mao said a revolution isn't a dinner party, and he was (surprisingly) right. A revolution isn't always kept in check with whatever ethical views one might have.

Allow me to rephrase; I find the idea of condemning an innocent person to death to be a morally repulsive act of the highest order. I'm in favour of capital punishment only on the basis that is carried out with the support of physical evidence beyond all sane and reasonable doubt, presented during a fair trial.


Again, if Trial is possible, and doesn't waste war resources or time (like it did during the Russian Civil War) then I don't see a reason why it wouldn't exist. But if it can't, that isn't a signification that we should all dump the revolution.

I don't buy the "limited time/resources" canard. A genuinely popular revolution would have no shortage of manpower for the execution of trials involving a minority of the population (the former ruling class).


The Property of Bourgeois-media industries would be seized. Usage on the internet can't be regulated, but if you're with twenty fascists marching through the streets of the revolutionary capital during a war, you're asking for it.

With the collapse of the bourgeois regulatory bullshit, pretty much anyone would be able to get on the airwaves. In such a situation things would not be as clear-cut as you seem to imagine; the fascists marching down the street represent merely one extreme of the multidimensional political spectrum.


The mass spreading of propaganda (in mass numbers) may very well be. It doesn't matter if some asshole Ayn rand asslicker is complaining in public or whatever, it's the spreading of mass propaganda that counts. Even in Bolshevik Russia, people weren't killed merely for holding counter revolutionary views. It's when they took action (Both militantly or agitation) that they were in deep shit.

Things are a little different today. The internet and the proliferation of wireless technology means that one crackpot can find over a hundred fans of their work, whereas someone more reasonable (or at least less obviously nutsoid) could get a thousand or more. That's more than enough grounds for some commissar-wannabe to start getting ideas when it comes to someone expressing things they find inconvenient, political or otherwise. Perhaps they might even say that there was no time for a trial, they just had to shoot that counter-revolutionary bastard before he could do more damage.

I admit I would shed no tears if Rupert Murdoch got blown away, but that's because organisations under his control have actually hurt people and it seems unlikely that he will be taken to account for that. But aside from that kind of thing?


In times of desperate crises, people will have to take sides. That means all of the irrelevant internet ideologies would dissapear, and immediately take a side.

Your snipe at "irrelevant internet ideologies" ignores the fact that political reality is not black and white and never is, no matter how politically expedient it may be to pretend so. This is a consequence of the fact that people have different opinions on pretty much everything.


To encourage the distributors of counterrevolutionary propaganda can only be done through the barrel of a gun. With Proletarians, perhaps it's different. Former Members of the ruling class, though...

I'll go with what works. When it comes to political organisation, history suggests that those who rely primarily on deadly force to achieve their aims... don't turn out well.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yeah, that's exactly what you said :rolleyes:

Ya, it is.


I'd like you to point out one post where one can come to the conclusion that I "Idealize" violence (You mean Romanticize? Dumbass. There's more to Idealism than that).

Did I say your idealism was limited solely to your idealize/romanticizing violence?
I can just point you to your posts in this very thread to prove you romanticize the hell out of violence, as if there is not enough of it in the world.


If you can't, I'd like you to apologize for talking out of your ass. Someone with their head up their ass, smelling flowers and what not, could easily romanticize "peace". Everyone wants peace. I want peace. I don't like violence at all. It's beyond me why you'd accuse me of "romanticizing" it.
Perhaps because you never miss a chance to remind everyone that we're going to execute suspected counterrevolutionaries without trial.

Perhaps it's because your soft Liberal heart is shocked by the fact that the Bourgeois class isn't going to hold hands with us and sing songs.

Ya, I'm a peacenik because I don't jump at any opportunity to "remind" everyone how violent the Revolution is supposedly going to be...
(I don't want to pull the e-thug card but, I'd be willing to stake my life's savings that says I've been in far more violent situations than you irl... probably why I don't glorify it...)


No. The point is that Liberals themselves, violent or not, are an enemy.

Why don't we just execute anyone who ever says anything liberal? :rolleyes:
"You catch more flies with honey" they say. I'll come back to this later.


Senseless violence in the USSR? I've never said that before, but yes, I don't alleviate the USSR under Lenin of violence, I fully understand it existed. And I fully support it, none the less.

So you fully support the kidnapping of innocent people like:

Lenin: After the expiration of the seven-day deadline for deserters to turn themselves in, punishment must be increased for these incorrigible traitors to the cause of the people. Families and anyone found to be assisting them in any way whatsoever are to be considered as hostages and treated accordingly.[2]
(Note the bolded)

Checka: Yaroslavl Province, 23 June 1919. The uprising of deserters in the Petropavlovskaya volost has been put down. The families of the deserters have been taken as hostages. When we started to shoot one person from each family
Or

At his public trial in 1938, the former People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs, Genrikh Yagoda, pleaded guilty to having arranged the murder of his predecessor, Vyacheslav Menzhinsky, in order to secure his own promotion to a post which gave him control over the Soviet security services. He then, according to his own admission, used this position to protect the terrorists responsible for the murder of prominent Marxist-Leninists close to Stalin — including the Leningrad Party Secretary, Sergei Kirov, and the famous writer Maksim Gorky.

And in order that the security services should not appear idle, Yagoda arranged for the arrest of many people who were not conspirators, but had merely been indiscreet.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1999/x01/x01.htm
(Mind you, this is by a proud Stalinist, not some bourgeois intellectual)
This

Once Stalin had defeated Trotsky's Left Opposition, he turned on all his opponents, including his allies on the Right. The victory of the apparatus was to culminate in the infamous Moscow Trials of 1936-38 where the 'Old Bolsheviks', including Trotsky, who led the October Revolution, were accused of counter-revolutionary activity, sabotage, murder, and collaboration with fascism.

Most of the accused were subsequently broken by the secret police, the NKVD, forced to give to give false confessions about themselves and others, and then shot. By 1940, out of the members of Lenin's Central Committee of 1917, only Stalin remained. Trotsky himself was assassinated by a Stalinist agent in August 1940.
Obviously by a Trotskyist (note that I am avoiding bourgeois historians as much as possible).


I said that the Soviet Union collapsed and failed due to something external from it being Authoritarian. That's hardly anything that can fall in correlation with the horse shit you've just said.

Yes, and when pressed on what those outside factors are, you give the obligatory "failure of the revolution to spread," but not much more..


But anyway, the only accounts of senless violence were indeed the Great Purges, which didn't occur because a proletarian state wanted to protect itself, but to alleviate the insecurity of capital. I love how you disdain from recognizing the material froces at hand, and instead blame "Just paranoia".

Do you not see the contradiction here? Do I blame their failure, according to you, on "the state wanting to protect itself" or "pure paranoia?" Those ARE two different things.
This isn't the only case of senseless violence anyway. Whether or not a certain amount of "red terror" was necessary, the scope of the actual terror was clearly senseless and often politically motivated. The Show Trials were pretty senseless too...


The problem indeed had a lot to do with it's structure (Not Authoritarianism) but the point is that this structure came about not based on the will of the Bolsheviks, but in direct response to the isolation of the revolution.
You keep saying this... but you never elaborate.

Why is that far fetched? Why is that so hard to grasp? It's accepted by virtually all Left Communists, as a matter of fact.
So? 80million deaths at the hands of Stalin is accepted by virtually every neocon... why should that matter to me?

You know very well you're twisting my words. So you've proven not only there can be no distinction between you and the Liberals, but that you're also an immature troll. Really, piss off, if you're going to make this atrocious interperitation of my views.

I've done no such thing.


What the fuck? Are you just going on and trying to insult me in the best way you can? You've clearly deviated from the topic all together. In short, I don't care, and fuck you, Liberal scum.
Perhaps I did deviate from the topic. I apologize if so.
Either way, love you too, comrade :D


Maybe you can acknowledge that these individuals are powerless without a firm class basis, and them acting on behalf of a class. There is no political without a class basis to support it. That means if there is a megalomaniac, then there's a class of megalomaniacs behind him. That means if there's an opportunist, there's a class behind him with opportunist motives (Usually the petite bourgeois).

And? What difference does that make? Ceaser firmly placed himself on the side of the plebian class... was he not a megalomaniac and political opportunist?

But no, continue to adhere to bullshit Liberalist analysis of politics. Really, and you call yourself a materialist?
You throw that word on anyone who disagrees with you. It's safe to say it's lost any meaning coming from you long ago.

You don't even know what Idealism is, so how can you say you are exempt from such a label?
Did I exempt myself of that label? I consider myself a materialist, but it's not as if that comes naturally. I am willing to admit I can make mistakes.

You think Idealism means "Idealizing" things. Pathetic.

I think idealizing things is a tenet of being idealist. Nowhere did I say it's the only one.


Even in the worst times of paranoia in the Soviet Union, similar cases never happened. You're just spewing horse shit, is all.
Is there any other case I need to bring up other than Trotsky? Or was he a "liberal counterrevolutionary" as well? Was he not exiled and assassinated for a personal/political grudge between him and Stalin?
The Moscow Show Trials are another great example of this exact thing happening.

So personal.. I don't think you understand how politicians work, none the less the function of the state. (Hint: it isn't a single guy sitting on his ass getting people into trouble for wronging them in personal life).

Omfg that is exactly how politics works! It isn't the entirety of politics, but anyone with a cursory interest in the subject that holding grudges and acting upon them is a foundation of history.
It's obvious you don't really know how politics works, else you might realize that summary executions and the lack of a rule of law are most likely a large factor in the failure of the Revolution to spread...

It's funny that you call everybody a liberal idealist, but yet don't actually realize that most people are idealists....


Fine, Vanguardists were the only ones in history to successfully carry out a proletarian revolution.
It would appear to me they successfully carried out a revolution. But since the proletariat quickly lost any political power it gained in the Revolution, I'm not so sure I would call it a successful "proletarian" Revolution.

To dismiss the Vanguard because of what happened in Bolshevik Russia is ludicrous. You may as well dismiss mathematics as well, as I'm sure it was used vehemently in Russia during war time and construction. Yup, the failure of the revolution was due to mathematics, not the isolation of the revolution or, you know, the invasion by the allies and so on, but MATHEMATICS! Prove me wrong!
That is possibly the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever posted on this site. :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

The U.S. bill of righst was fully done so on behalf of the aristocratic class in the United States, not the masses. It was them, the petty bourgeois, who were rallying for free speech, and so on. What a shit example you're using.

That's bs and any introductory student to American history knows it. The Constitution would not have been ratified without the BoR, and ratification was a democratic vote, not representative (as far as democracy could go in those days)... requiring a 75% majority nonetheless.


Yeah and shove your bourgeois laws up your ass. You sound like the moralist scum who ejaculate over "LAWS ARE THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF SOCIETAH!" instead of real material forces in which the laws are merely a response.

You see a ghost around every corner, comrade...
I just see everything as a material force, even laws. I'm not some rhetoric-spouting sociopath who just shouts "material forces!" without ever really explaining what those forces are. Do you not think the way law functions impacts how people view themselves within society?

I mean, how do you come off as a socialist, anyway?
Because I stand on the side of the proletariat at all times. Not just when they agree with my ideology... you would not only liquidate the bourgeoisie, but the working class too, if they were deemed "not socialist enough" for you.

What right do you have to say that your laws shouldn't be opposed, but that the "Rule of Laws" of Fascist Hungary should be?
Do you even know what the rule of law means? I'm almost certain Fascist Hungary didn't have it...

You've gone through a massive intellectual degeneracy since the last time I've spoke to you. Wow. I'm disappointed.

Good thing I don't worry about your respect.


Too bad, historically, that's never happened. Challenge me. Go ahead. Name one event and I'll shove it in your face that it's never happened.

The USSR. I win :rolleyes:
Napoleon for two.

The Constitution of the Year VIII (French: Constitution de l'an VIII) was a national constitution of France, adopted December 24, 1799 (during the Year VIII of the French Revolutionary Calendar), which established the form of government known as the Consulate. The coup of 18 Brumaire (November 9, 1799) effectively gave all power to Napoleon Bonaparte, and in the eyes of some, ended the French Revolution.
After the coup, Napoleon and his allies legitimized his position by creating the "short and obscure Constitution of the Year VIII" (as Malcolm Crook has called it[1]). The constitution tailor-made the position of First Consul to give Napoleon most of the powers of a dictator. It was the first constitution since the Revolution without a Declaration of Rights.
It's not as if this is anything not known. History is full of tyrants first subverting any semblance of a rule of law before establishing themselves as dictator.

Too bad Individuals can't hold power, or state power, and can't create history. It's classes that do these things, not individuals with individual interests. You're like the negative Great Man theorist.
Are you suggesting that classes exist independent of the actual individuals which make up that class? Classes are abstractions of individuals, friend.

[Revolution starts with U]

It doesn't matter if the tyrant who is seen to be ruler has a class basis. The fact remains that subverting the rule of law gives that class just the situation it needs to hijack a revolution. If you can make up the laws and punishments on the fly, all one need do is play the part of Revolutionary till they have enough political support to start executing their political opponents en masse.

[Rafiq]

The point is that the vanguard approach has gone wrong in the past and will doubtless go wrong in the future if it's ever tried again.

It's never gone wrong. You can't hold Vanguardism accountable for the failure of the USSR, just as you can't hold the usage of mathematics accountable for the failure of the USSR.


Well, quite apart from the impossibility of "building socialism" in such a situation, there's more than one potential reason why a hypothetical vanguard could end up becoming the very beasts they sought to slay.


I'll ask you a question. The Bourgeois class, sometimes, sets up the most vicious and authoritarian of states. Why do these states not become a class external from their masters, and turn into the very "beasts" they sought to slay (I.e. For example, Beasts being someone like Allende)?


Good intentions are not enough, the proverbial road to Hell is paved with them, remember? One must also be willing to admit that one might be wrong, which is why things like trials are so fucking important.


Again, the fending off of the counter revolution in Russia was quit successful.


Without trials, how the fuck can we tell how many people who recieved the attentions of the Cheka really warranted that kind of scrutiny?


You make it as if the Cheka had the time and resources for a trial. They didn't. When you're faced in a situation where there can be no trial, do you dump the revolution for the several ethical convictions you might have?


Completely unacceptable. If there is "no time" for a trial, then detain the accused until the soonest time one can conduct it.


Quite expensive feeding them and taking care of them, managing them and so on.


Allow me to rephrase; I find the idea of condemning an innocent person to death to be a morally repulsive act of the highest order. I'm in favour of capital punishment only on the basis that is carried out with the support of physical evidence beyond all sane and reasonable doubt, presented during a fair trial.


If it's possible, then sure.


I don't buy the "limited time/resources" canard. A genuinely popular revolution would have no shortage of manpower for the execution of trials involving a minority of the population (the former ruling class).


Except the former ruling class would still have a boatload of influence on other classes, plus, not to mention collaborators. Put it this way: In the United States, the proletariat makes up 2/3rds of the population. But even if we pretend the Petite Bourgeoisie is fine with the revolution, maybe 10 percent of the population is Bourgeois, which would be around four million people. In Russia's case, you had a good chunk of the Peasant class, the whole ruling classes armies, collaborators, and then the allies.


With the collapse of the bourgeois regulatory bullshit, pretty much anyone would be able to get on the airwaves. In such a situation things would not be as clear-cut as you seem to imagine; the fascists marching down the street represent merely one extreme of the multidimensional political spectrum.


The means of distributing propaganda would be seized and would be reserved only for the Proletarian state. That means freedom of press and so on can't be tolerated.


Things are a little different today. The internet and the proliferation of wireless technology means that one crackpot can find over a hundred fans of their work, whereas someone more reasonable (or at least less obviously nutsoid) could get a thousand or more.

In times of such revolutionary struggle, I'd imagine all of the internet rabble would fade away. But yes, this does count as the distribution of counter revolutionary propaganda, and indeed, there can be consequences, perhaps.


That's more than enough grounds for some commissar-wannabe to start getting ideas when it comes to someone expressing things they find inconvenient, political or otherwise. Perhaps they might even say that there was no time for a trial, they just had to shoot that counter-revolutionary bastard before he could do more damage.

There may be time for a trial, especially nowadays. But if there isn't, for some reason (Just like in Russia) then the revolution must be protected at all costs.


I admit I would shed no tears if Rupert Murdoch got blown away, but that's because organisations under his control have actually hurt people and it seems unlikely that he will be taken to account for that. But aside from that kind of thing?


If he takes action against the revolution, then yes.


Your snipe at "irrelevant internet ideologies" ignores the fact that political reality is not black and white and never is, no matter how politically expedient it may be to pretend so. This is a consequence of the fact that people have different opinions on pretty much everything.


The Russian situation used to be quite ecclectic as well, however, when the revolution occurred, people quickly too a shade of either white or black.



I'll go with what works. When it comes to political organisation, history suggests that those who rely primarily on deadly force to achieve their aims... don't turn out well.


Such is the nature of war. I beg to differ.

[Revolution starts with U]

Mathematics and Vanguardism are two different theories, dealing with entirely different things.
It's like saying "you can't blame bourgeois republicanism for US Imperialism just like you can't blame agriculture."

[Rafiq]

Ya, it is.

Not even close. I mean, fuck, all you said was that you wouldn't want to see me in power.


Did I say your idealism was limited solely to your idealize/romanticizing violence?


You seem to think that "Idealizing" is even a thing. You mean romanticism? Sure, politically, it's Idealist.


I can just point you to your posts in this very thread to prove you romanticize the hell out of violence, as if there is not enough of it in the world.


Again, a Liberal scum like you would interperate as romanticism because your pacifist brain can't articulate the fact that someone like me isn't logically intimidated by violence. So, re post the actual post, and we'll get some members of RevLeft to come in and judge as to whether it's romanticism.


Perhaps because you never miss a chance to remind everyone that we're going to execute suspected counterrevolutionaries without trial.


Perhaps because people take so keen in talking about revolution and socialism, without even dare trying to imagine what might be necessary to allow them to exist. As soon as something happens, they will be morally devastated and join the counter revolution. That's why.


Ya, I'm a peacenik because I don't jump at any opportunity to "remind" everyone how violent the Revolution is supposedly going to be...
(I don't want to pull the e-thug card but, I'd be willing to stake my life's savings that says I've been in far more violent situations than you irl... probably why I don't glorify it...)

Having some guy whoop your ass on the sidewalk isn't a "violent" situation in comparison to what I've experienced. I highly doubt you have. The New Age types usually don't.


Why don't we just execute anyone who ever says anything liberal? :rolleyes:
"You catch more flies with honey" they say. I'll come back to this later.


You still miss the point. To be a liberal is to embody the interests of the proletariat class within your political views, which implies which side you've taken on the class war. That's why they're the enemy. I mean, who gives a fuck about their Ideological rhetoric? I don't. It's what that represents, is what counts.


So you fully support the kidnapping of innocent people like:


I fully support these actions, 100%. Because I'm willing to go to the end and say that any action whatsoever that could protect the revoltuion, to crush counter revolutionary uprisings, will be deployed. When I say I want revolution, I'm willing to back that up and go to any length to protect it.

I'm not going to be like the scum in the French Revolution who cried for Liberty, but when came time for the necessity of Terror, crawled back in their caves. Cowards, they are.


(Note the bolded)


That's why romanticism is bullshit. A revolution isn't the embodiment of your ethical convictions and certainly isn't a moral re assurance. Horrible things happen in times of revolution, Bourgeois, or not. Sometimes horrible things are necessary.

Or


http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1999/x01/x01.htm
(Mind you, this is by a proud Stalinist, not some bourgeois intellectual)
This


Ha, what? So? Do you think I give a shit? Does that really morally offend you or something? That wasn't senseless violence, that was a state trying to protect capital by any means necessary. Which isn't senseless. (Note how I never displayed support for the Stalinist state).


Obviously by a Trotskyist (note that I am avoiding bourgeois historians as much as possible).


Firstly, Trotskyists are Bourgeois, anyway, but I'll just assume it's correct, what was written.

You seemed to be shocked by the fact that states devoured by capital use violence in order to serve capital. The actions by the Cheka were to protect the revolution, not feed capital (Like the NKVD did). It was only after the Cheka was done, where Capital devoured the USSR.


Yes, and when pressed on what those outside factors are, you give the obligatory "failure of the revolution to spread," but not much more..


Fuck, we've been over this a thousand times. The isolation of the revolution gave birth to the other factors. There were other factors (Such as the class nature of the Russian empire, the Feudalism and so on) but the key factor was the isolation.


Do you not see the contradiction here? Do I blame their failure, according to you, on "the state wanting to protect itself" or "pure paranoia?" Those ARE two different things.


How?


This isn't the only case of senseless violence anyway. Whether or not a certain amount of "red terror" was necessary, the scope of the actual terror was clearly senseless and often politically motivated.

Because the Bolsheviks were just bloodthirsty violence who jacked off to killing people? The Bolsheviks tried to minimilize the violence as much as possible. If you compare the statistics between the amount of actual people (including soldiers, and so on) in general, it was thousands per year on behalf of the Cheka. The counter revolution, on the other hand, had tens of thousands of innocent blood on their hands.... Makes you think that the Cheka were fucking moralists, actually, as any intelligence force would have killed much more counter revolutionaries, with the kind of massacres that the (counter revolution) were carrying out. I can post statistics if you find them necessary/


The Show Trials were pretty senseless too...


It's called paranoia. Anyway, why can you not make the distinction between Red Terror and Show Trials? The former was conducted to protect the interests of the proletarian class.


You keep saying this... but you never elaborate.


Are you really that stupid?

Why does a revolution need to spread, especially in Russia's case?

1. Feudalism was thriving. Without the economic aid of industrialized countries, this could not be surpassed beyond capital.

2. The impossibility of surpassing capital in one country, largely due to the need of foreign trade and so on.

3. Being surrounded by hostile powers would necessiate alliances with Bourgeois states. This would in turn make it necessary for the State, which is already turning into a manager class, to pave way for capital to devour the nation

4. The impossibility of socialism in one country, especially a Feudal country. Without a proletarian class in large numbers, industrialization (Which is necessary to fend off hostile powers) in the most efficient way possible would be necessary, which would in turn necessaite the creation of a proletariat, and to create a proletariat requires capital, and so on.

Let's see what might have happened, should the German revolution have succeeded:

1. A massive industrial power would help Russia fend off the counter revolution, which would have prevented the famine, prevented most of the crises and provide adaquet war suplies

2. The Bolsheviks would not end up in such a paranoid situation, surrounded by hostile powers. This would in turn allow the construction of socialism without the necessity of foring alliances with Bourgeois states. The hostile powers would largely be ceceptable to revolution, as all revolutions spread.

3. The capitalist mode of production would not have been a necessity, and capital could have eventually been surpassed.

4. The degeneration of the revolution would not occur, as it spread.

etc. etc. etc.



So? 80million deaths at the hands of Stalin is accepted by virtually every neocon... why should that matter to me?


The point is simply that Left Communists, whom are considered "Ultra Left" by many, whom distance themselves from me, even agree with the points I've deployed. Are they, now, bloodthirsty authoritarians as well?


I've done no such thing.


Point out where I said "It's the stupid Germans fault for going fascist". You're just slinging shit. The "Germans" (Bourgeoisie) went fascist, not the proletariat. Had the proletariat overthrew the state, such would have never existed.


Perhaps I did deviate from the topic. I apologize if so.
Either way, love you too, comrade :D


You're turning this into some kind of personal issue. It's like you've held back all of this nonsense out of gratitude, and now you're letting your heart pour out. I still don't like you, and I don't care about whatever spontaneous emotional outbursts you would choose to deploy in your posts.


And? What difference does that make? Ceaser firmly placed himself on the side of the plebian class... was he not a megalomaniac and political opportunist?


Caesar was the embodiment of a class collaboration, and no, he wasn't a megalomaniac or a political opportunist.


You throw that word on anyone who disagrees with you. It's safe to say it's lost any meaning coming from you long ago.


Liberalism refers to the dominate ideas in modern day western society. A lot of pressuposions are carried by people on this site, including you, about power corrupts nonsense and so on, and the great man theory. Usually when I disagree with people on this site, it's because their still drenched in Liberalism.


Did I exempt myself of that label? I consider myself a materialist, but it's not as if that comes naturally. I am willing to admit I can make mistakes.


You're an Idealist. You attribute history to single men, i.e. "Bad Men" who can threaten a revolution.


I think idealizing things is a tenet of being idealist. Nowhere did I say it's the only one.


Romanticism isn't a tenet of Idealism. Idealism supposes Ideas, Thought, and Will come before material and productive forces, and that the former gives birth to the latter. As if it's the "Will" of the Bolshevik party to degenerate the revolution, external from the material conditions which necessitated, shaped and formed that will.


Is there any other case I need to bring up other than Trotsky? Or was he a "liberal counterrevolutionary" as well? Was he not exiled and assassinated for a personal/political grudge between him and Stalin?

Fuck no. Trotsky and Stalin were both factions of Soviet Capital, not as individuals, but as groups. The former group wanted to feed capital in a different way than the latter. That's why they had a political fallout. You seem to think that the various battles between factions of a ruling class must be reduced to personal feuds by the "leaders" of each. There are no enemies in the rule of Capital, only rivals. That means Obama may very well personally, fucking hate Sarkozy for fucking his wife, but as he represents the American ruling class, he can't do shit about it, or he'll get deposed. The policies of classes, and states, are never carried out based on the personal issues one might have with another. Actually, several presidents hate each other, but the states are allies.


The Moscow Show Trials are another great example of this exact thing happening.


Never was a case filed in the Moscow trials because some guy had a personal grudge against another. They occurred because yes, there was indeed sabotage and so on occurring in the Soviet Union on behalf of the opponents of the ruling Beurocracy. Such paved way for Paranoia, about who was a foreign agent or not. Things like Sabotaging of the economy and infiltration by foreign powers did exist. To deny that they did is ludicrous.


Omfg that is exactly how politics works!

Examples?


It isn't the entirety of politics, but anyone with a cursory interest in the subject that holding grudges and acting upon them is a foundation of history.

Really? Last time I checked, personally, Nixon and Bhreznev were good friends, yet their nations were bitter enemies. Last time I checked, Stalin shook hands with Nazis one day and engaged in war with those same leaders another day. When someone gets into politics, their personal convictions are swapped aside and it then becomes your task to serve the interests of whatever class put you in a position of power.

So, although you great men theorists like to attribute individual interests, divorced from class, as a "foundation of history", facts show otherwise.


It's obvious you don't really know how politics works, else you might realize that summary executions and the lack of a rule of law

Rule of law is a bourgeois concept. Laws must be changed in accordance to material conditions. Never has a state with a "rule of law" existed.


are most likely a large factor in the failure of the Revolution to spread...


What the fuck do the internal political structures in place in Russia (assuming you're correct about them, which you're not) have to do with the revolutionary strategy deployed by the German proletariat? (Which by the way, failed because the USAGE OF THE VANGUARD was scrapped, because, fuck, exactly the reasons you've mentioned, because Luxembourg adopted the bakuninist bullshit about "Power corrupts" and so on)


It's funny that you call everybody a liberal idealist, but yet don't actually realize that most people are idealists....


Most people are non communists, what the fuck does that mean to me? I call myself a materialist because Idealism is so abundant. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have to bother calling myself one.


It would appear to me they successfully carried out a revolution. But since the proletariat quickly lost any political power it gained in the Revolution, I'm not so sure I would call it a successful "proletarian" Revolution.


Explain how the Vanguard strategy had anything to do with the failure of the Russian revolution?

I can go on for several, several fucking paragraphs explaining how the factors were external from this, if you want me to, so long as you respond to them.

I can go in depth and explain how the failure of the vanguard destroyed the German revolution, though. Your libertarian model is the real failure.


That is possibly the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever posted on this site. :rolleyes:


It does bother you, no? Using your logic, mathematics can be attributed as the failure, simply because it was something that was deployed to carry out a revolution which would later fail. Why is it a ridiculous argument? Explain.

[Rafiq]

That's bs and any introductory student to American history knows it. The Constitution would not have been ratified without the BoR, and ratification was a democratic vote, not representative (as far as democracy could go in those days)... requiring a 75% majority nonetheless.

The Bourgeois class in America devised several options, and the masses chose one of the options presented. Hardly a representation of their interests.

No, the democratic party is inherently proletarian, because they were voted by majority proletarians who actually voted? :rolleyes:



You see a ghost around every corner, comrade...
I just see everything as a material force, even laws.

Laws are not material forces. They are superstructural. Do you know what a material force is? It's something inherent to relations to the mode of production, which exist entirely different from the political structure. Laws change and mode of production and class relations in that context preceded them, therefore they are interchangeable, therefore they are not material forces.


I'm not some rhetoric-spouting sociopath who just shouts "material forces!" without ever really explaining what those forces are.

I'm such a sociopath.

But anyway, material forces are not actual "matter" (that's more of a metaphysical debate), they are concrete economic forces divorced from the political, which necessitate and shape the political (which is super structural to the base).

Fact before Ideas, matter before thought.

Mode of Production before Political structure, Classes before Laws. That's how it works.


Do you not think the way law functions impacts how people view themselves within society?


Where do these laws come from?


Because I stand on the side of the proletariat at all times. Not just when they agree with my ideology...

That's funny, considering you and a boatload of other "Communists" cling to the Communism of the 20th century and think as if the proletariat is a force which is merely going to execute your ideological perversions.


you would not only liquidate the bourgeoisie, but the working class too, if they were deemed "not socialist enough" for you.


I am not the revolution, and I am not the grand inquisitor of the revolution. That's up to the proletariat. But should they deem it necessary, like they did in Russia, then I am not going to run back to my cave, I'll fully support them and the revolution, because I'm consistent, and I go to the end.


Do you even know what the rule of law means? I'm almost certain Fascist Hungary didn't have it...


Yes it did. So does the United States and several European countries. Do you have anything you'd like to say to the BA here about your views on those states? Go ahead, let's hear it: ...


Good thing I don't worry about your respect.


Why did you pm me asking me for my insight on your paper, or whatever?


The USSR. I win :rolleyes:


No one hijacked the revolution in the USSR. It naturally degenerated due to the several conditions and forces at hand. Bordiga said Stalin was the gravedigger of the revolution, not the killer of it. And he was right.


Napoleon for two.


Napoleon didn't Hijjack the revolution for his "Own personal interests", he did so because he realized the proletariat was getting all too powerful, and the Bourgeoisie deployed him as their white knight to put an end to the Jacobin "madness" that was thought to have given birth to the commune. That's why Napoleon did away with the Liberty nonsense, because the Bourgeoisie will only deploy such rhetoric when they see fit, but when time comes to defend their interests, they'll deploy a Napoleon. This is why the Jacobins were consistent members of the Bourgeoisie, they were willing to go to the end and protect the Bourgeois liberty at all costs. They knew that it was necessitated for the revolutionary spirit to die, but could never.


It's not as if this is anything not known. History is full of tyrants first subverting any semblance of a rule of law before establishing themselves as dictator.


Rule of law are the laws deployed by the ruling classes. For a member of such not to be consistent about it is hardly an abomination. The rule of law doesn't exist, never existed, and only exists in your abstract mythical universe of Liberalism. Fuck your bourgeois rhetoric, and shove your precious laws up your ass.

Who are you to decide what is the "Objective" set of laws, passed down from the gods, as a rule? You aren't. Shove your objective morality up your ass.


Are you suggesting that classes exist independent of the actual individuals which make up that class? Classes are abstractions of individuals, friend.


But those individuals, when in political power, act upon the interests of their own classes as a collective, always, you fuck.

[Rafiq]

It doesn't matter if the tyrant who is seen to be ruler has a class basis. The fact remains that subverting the rule of law gives that class just the situation it needs to hijack a revolution. If you can make up the laws and punishments on the fly, all one need do is play the part of Revolutionary till they have enough political support to start executing their political opponents en masse.

Here we go again with your Idealist rubbish. Do you really think a magical, objective "rule of law" exists? Or are you saying when one breaks from the political consistency? Either way, it's horse shit. Laws change in accordance to material conditions, external from the super structural remnants.

You still have failed to give me an example of a person, acting on the interests of himself and not his class, "Hijacking a revolution" because he was "power hungry".

Fact of the matter is that never in history has the second fragment of your fragment existed. Never. There was always a material conditino preceding it, something which not only paved the way for it, but made it inevitable. A Stalin was inevitable, therefore the act of him doing what he did is irrelevant, as it was pre determined.

[Rafiq]

Mathematics and Vanguardism are two different theories, dealing with entirely different things.
It's like saying "you can't blame bourgeois republicanism for US Imperialism just like you can't blame agriculture."

Yet both were deployed. I like how you entirely miss the point: That the failure was external from Vangaurdism. It's not as if the whole of the Russian revolutionary situation was merely revolving around the grand Nucleus of Vangaurdism. Vangaurdism was merely a component of revolutionary strategy. You like to pick and choose what you deem as a key factor in the failure, as we've seen with your analogy.

Fact of the matter is that like mathematics, vangaurdism is necessary, as it's a mere form of organisation. They are different, but they are both necessary. Do you even have the potential to articulate actual analogies?

What the fuck gives you the right to claim Vangaurdism was to the Russian Revolution's failure as the American Bourgeoisie is to Imperialism (Ironically enough, Republicanism has nothing to do with Imperialism, anyway)? That was the point, it was me challenging that very pressupossions.

With all the factors at hand in Russia, a backward Feudal country, with no international revolutionary support by ohter states, constantly under seige, with all of that, what gives you the right to deem Vangaurdism as a key factor? There are not much other factors in the United States to necessitate Imperialism other than the capitalist mode of production.

You can either roll that up and smoke it, or fuck off. It's not my fault you don't understand analogies.

[Rafiq]

Here's the point: Vangaurdism had just as much to do with the failure of the Russian revolution as the usage of fucking agriculture to grow food to feed the masses.

[Revolution starts with U]

You seem to think that "Idealizing" is even a thing. You mean romanticism? Sure, politically, it's Idealist.

Language is not a thing that exists in a realm of its own. Idealizing is a thing
1) because spell check recognizes it
2) because people use it often in everyday conversations.


Again, a Liberal scum like you would interperate as romanticism because your pacifist brain can't articulate the fact that someone like me isn't logically intimidated by violence. So, re post the actual post, and we'll get some members of RevLeft to come in and judge as to whether it's romanticism.



Perhaps because people take so keen in talking about revolution and socialism, without even dare trying to imagine what might be necessary to allow them to exist. As soon as something happens, they will be morally devastated and join the counter revolution. That's why.

This is what I mean about being paranoid. I fully support violent revolution, I realize we will have to use violence, I have absolutely no problems with that. But because I don't take every oppurtunity I can to prove how much bloodlust I have I will "be morally devastated and join the counterrevolution!"
It's absurd.
A person who thinks "maybe we're taking this violence too far" is tantamount to saying "we shouldn't even revolt" is a delusional person.

Having some guy whoop your ass on the sidewalk isn't a "violent" situation in comparison to what I've experienced. I highly doubt you have. The New Age types usually don't.

I don't want to discuss our ethuggery any further. I shouldn't even have brought it up. We can discuss all day who's been in more dangerous situations, it will change nothing. I made a passing pre-judgement, which I still believe to be right, but irrelevant... so I'll just drop it.



You still miss the point. To be a liberal is to embody the interests of the proletariat class within your political views, which implies which side you've taken on the class war. That's why they're the enemy. I mean, who gives a fuck about their Ideological rhetoric? I don't. It's what that represents, is what counts.

Can you rephrase that? "To be liberal is to embody the interests of proles w/in your political views"


I fully support these actions, 100%. Because I'm willing to go to the end and say that any action whatsoever that could protect the revoltuion, to crush counter revolutionary uprisings, will be deployed. When I say I want revolution, I'm willing to back that up and go to any length to protect it.

Even offering no apology for the kidnapping and/or murder of innocents? How does the kidnapping and murder of innocents "protect the revolution?"
And no, the USSR never established a successful revolution, and only bourgeois historians think they did. Whatever revolution was in the works was quickly hijacked by the bureaucratic elites and turned to state CAPITALISM.


I'm not going to be like the scum in the French Revolution who cried for Liberty, but when came time for the necessity of Terror, crawled back in their caves. Cowards, they are.

Good for you.


That's why romanticism is bullshit. A revolution isn't the embodiment of your ethical convictions and certainly isn't a moral re assurance. Horrible things happen in times of revolution, Bourgeois, or not. Sometimes horrible things are necessary.

Sometimes they may be. That doesn't make them good. And some of those actions can be counterproductive to the Revolutionary effort.


Ha, what? So? Do you think I give a shit? Does that really morally offend you or something? That wasn't senseless violence, that was a state trying to protect capital by any means necessary. Which isn't senseless. (Note how I never displayed support for the Stalinist state).

Did it protect the revolution?


Firstly, Trotskyists are Bourgeois, anyway, but I'll just assume it's correct, what was written.

You seemed to be shocked by the fact that states devoured by capital use violence in order to serve capital. The actions by the Cheka were to protect the revolution, not feed capital (Like the NKVD did). It was only after the Cheka was done, where Capital devoured the USSR.

Except here, again, we have no way of knowing how much they actually helped the Revolution, ie how many people were entirely innocent of the charges for which they were sentenced to death.
Do you agree with the statement that "it is better for 100 innocents to be put to death than 1 counterrevolutionary go free?"



Fuck, we've been over this a thousand times. The isolation of the revolution gave birth to the other factors. There were other factors (Such as the class nature of the Russian empire, the Feudalism and so on) but the key factor was the isolation.

Fair enough. Thank you for expanding. I don't see how it's isolation gave birth to the class nature of Russia or Feudalism but.. I see where you're going.


How?

Paranoia; everyone is out to get me
state self protection; my position cannot be challenged


Because the Bolsheviks were just bloodthirsty violence who jacked off to killing people?
I've never heard of a single person called "the Bolsheviks." Who is this one person you speak of?

The Bolsheviks tried to minimilize the violence as much as possible.
By their own words, no the didn't. I've just shown you that they kidnapped and sometimes murdered the families of counterrevs, whether or not those family members themselves were involved.

If you compare the statistics between the amount of actual people (including soldiers, and so on) in general, it was thousands per year on behalf of the Cheka. The counter revolution, on the other hand, had tens of thousands of innocent blood on their hands.... Makes you think that the Cheka were fucking moralists, actually, as any intelligence force would have killed much more counter revolutionaries, with the kind of massacres that the (counter revolution) were carrying out. I can post statistics if you find them necessary/

I'm always down for people to post data. But in this case it would be irrelevant. "The reactionaries started it" or "the reactionaries did it worse" doesn't forgive the murder of innocents by either party.


It's called paranoia. Anyway, why can you not make the distinction between Red Terror and Show Trials? The former was conducted to protect the interests of the proletarian class.

It's not that I don't make a distinction. I just don't take intentions for results. Did the Red Terror protect the Revolution? I'm sure for the most part it did. But how can we know without fair trials of the accused?
Don't you see; a nominally socialist government could do anything it wanted under cover of "protecting the revolution" if we all had this mindset.


Are you really that stupid?

Maybe. I don't claim to be a genius... or even necessarily right.

Why does a revolution need to spread, especially in Russia's case?

1. Feudalism was thriving. Without the economic aid of industrialized countries, this could not be surpassed beyond capital.

2. The impossibility of surpassing capital in one country, largely due to the need of foreign trade and so on.

3. Being surrounded by hostile powers would necessiate alliances with Bourgeois states. This would in turn make it necessary for the State, which is already turning into a manager class, to pave way for capital to devour the nation

4. The impossibility of socialism in one country, especially a Feudal country. Without a proletarian class in large numbers, industrialization (Which is necessary to fend off hostile powers) in the most efficient way possible would be necessary, which would in turn necessaite the creation of a proletariat, and to create a proletariat requires capital, and so on.

Again, thank you for elaborating. I'm sure we can all learn something here.

The point is simply that Left Communists, whom are considered "Ultra Left" by many, whom distance themselves from me, even agree with the points I've deployed. Are they, now, bloodthirsty authoritarians as well?

Maybe. Do they openly support the kidnapping and/or murder of innocent people, regardless of any actual involvement in the counterrevolution?

I don't get this ultra-left thing. Is there something wrong with being left of pseudo-leftists?

Point out where I said "It's the stupid Germans fault for going fascist". You're just slinging shit. The "Germans" (Bourgeoisie) went fascist, not the proletariat. Had the proletariat overthrew the state, such would have never existed.

Perhaps I misspoke. You blame the failures largely on the Rev not spreading to Germany (or any industrialized country, but that would've most likely been German) and the Germans went fascist. That's the point I was getting across.


You're turning this into some kind of personal issue. It's like you've held back all of this nonsense out of gratitude, and now you're letting your heart pour out. I still don't like you, and I don't care about whatever spontaneous emotional outbursts you would choose to deploy in your posts.

Perhaps I have made this personal. I didn't mean too... sometimes one just doesn't have the energy to not succumb to his base desires. This is why I've been trying to post less (which hasn't been working), so that i can regain control of my unconscious mind.
My apologies.

Caesar was the embodiment of a class collaboration, and no, he wasn't a megalomaniac or a political opportunist.

I would implore you to study up on your Ceasar. He most certainly was both of those, tho I do have a certain amount of respect for him.


Liberalism refers to the dominate ideas in modern day western society. A lot of pressuposions are carried by people on this site, including you, about power corrupts nonsense and so on, and the great man theory. Usually when I disagree with people on this site, it's because their still drenched in Liberalism.

I don't believe power corrupts or that great men move history... so...


You're an Idealist. You attribute history to single men, i.e. "Bad Men" who can threaten a revolution.

I attribute the movement of history to people. Whether or not an opportunist has a class basis behind him, in no way lessens him and that class from moving history.



Romanticism isn't a tenet of Idealism. Idealism supposes Ideas, Thought, and Will come before material and productive forces, and that the former gives birth to the latter. As if it's the "Will" of the Bolshevik party to degenerate the revolution, external from the material conditions which necessitated, shaped and formed that will.

1) I believe ideas, thougts, and will are "material and productive forces"
2) Whether or not the "external conditions" create the actions of people doesn't change those actions



Fuck no. Trotsky and Stalin were both factions of Soviet Capital, not as individuals, but as groups. The former group wanted to feed capital in a different way than the latter. That's why they had a political fallout. You seem to think that the various battles between factions of a ruling class must be reduced to personal feuds by the "leaders" of each. There are no enemies in the rule of Capital, only rivals. That means Obama may very well personally, fucking hate Sarkozy for fucking his wife, but as he represents the American ruling class, he can't do shit about it, or he'll get deposed. The policies of classes, and states, are never carried out based on the personal issues one might have with another. Actually, several presidents hate each other, but the states are allies.

Maybe I'm just reading too much Roman history right now, but this stuff happens all the time in it. The ideologies of both Stalinist and Trotskyist factions are not all that different, as you said, they both wanted to feed capital. It seems to be more of a battle between who should control the state than any kind of ideological battle.



Never was a case filed in the Moscow trials because some guy had a personal grudge against another.
How can we know if the trials were "unfair" (for lack of a better term, you know "fair trial") and the admissions of guilt brought about through torture?
How do we know the counterrev activity a person engaged in wasn't "banging a cop's wife?"
That's the problem with a lack of fair trial. It's left up to either you believe the state, or you don't. I don't... always anyway.

They occurred because yes, there was indeed sabotage and so on occurring in the Soviet Union on behalf of the opponents of the ruling Beurocracy. Such paved way for Paranoia, about who was a foreign agent or not. Things like Sabotaging of the economy and infiltration by foreign powers did exist. To deny that they did is ludicrous.

What I am denying is that we can ever know who/how many were innocent/guilty without proper trials... even proper trials can often go wrong. But at least it gives us an objective basis to stand on.



Examples?

See, history. Again, we can go back to Stalin/Trotsky, which really didn't have all that much difference in their ideological outlook or class basis.
Or Ceaser/Pompey. Or Marius/Sulla... possibly even Hamilton/Burr.



Really? Last time I checked, personally, Nixon and Bhreznev were good friends, yet their nations were bitter enemies. Last time I checked, Stalin shook hands with Nazis one day and engaged in war with those same leaders another day. When someone gets into politics, their personal convictions are swapped aside and it then becomes your task to serve the interests of whatever class put you in a position of power.

Ya, that is often the case. It doesn't mean it's always the case, and it certainly doesn't mean they aren't just waiting for an opportunity to discredit/punish their enemies.

So, although you great men theorists like to attribute individual interests, divorced from class, as a "foundation of history", facts show otherwise.

No, we just don't divorce individuals from history. I mean, it seems you're basically saying propaganda doesn't work, that leaders of movements cannot shape the direction of those movements. That's absurd.


Rule of law is a bourgeois concept. Laws must be changed in accordance to material conditions. Never has a state with a "rule of law" existed.

Laws should not be changed in accordance with the passing fancy of the members of the state. I don't know where you got the idea that the Rule of Law means all laws should be the same forever...
Rule of law means everybody is subject to the same laws, and state actions must be done in a lawful manner (that the state is not above the law).

What the fuck do the internal political structures in place in Russia (assuming you're correct about them, which you're not) have to do with the revolutionary strategy deployed by the German proletariat? (Which by the way, failed because the USAGE OF THE VANGUARD was scrapped, because, fuck, exactly the reasons you've mentioned, because Luxembourg adopted the bakuninist bullshit about "Power corrupts" and so on)

I think the largest problem between our discussion comes in here;
Did, in your opinion, the Bolsheviks ever establish a proletarian state?
I'm of the opinion that at no time did they do so.
So perhaps, in seeing the brutal repression of innocents the Soviet state was engaging in is exactly what drove others to adopt the "power corrupts" view.


Most people are non communists, what the fuck does that mean to me? I call myself a materialist because Idealism is so abundant. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have to bother calling myself one.

Yes, now relate the idea of "most people are idealists" to the Germans adopting a "power corrupts" view.



Explain how the Vanguard strategy had anything to do with the failure of the Russian revolution?

The vanguard thought itself above the law, becoming so entrenched in the idea that it knew what the correct socialism was that it began executing en masse not only counterrevs, but sincere leftists which questioned it. This lead to a dramatic drop in world proletariat support for Vanguardist policy and governments (note prole support, not "socialist party" support). This isolated the Russian Revolution, leaving it with far fewer friends with which to challenge capital.

I can go on for several, several fucking paragraphs explaining how the factors were external from this, if you want me to, so long as you respond to them.

Ok

It does bother you, no? Using your logic, mathematics can be attributed as the failure, simply because it was something that was deployed to carry out a revolution which would later fail. Why is it a ridiculous argument? Explain.[/QUOTE]
See above.

[Revolution starts with U]

The Bourgeois class in America devised several options, and the masses chose one of the options presented. Hardly a representation of their interests.

So now the USSR was functioning on direct democracy? The CP/Bolsheviks were not a representative party?


No, the democratic party is inherently proletarian, because they were voted by majority proletarians who actually voted? :rolleyes:

I have no reason to believe women and blacks would have voted any different. The BoR had nothing to do with either party as it was a democratic vote, not a representative one.


Laws are not material forces. They are superstructural. Do you know what a material force is? It's something inherent to relations to the mode of production, which exist entirely different from the political structure. Laws change and mode of production and class relations in that context preceded them, therefore they are interchangeable, therefore they are not material forces.

If we're not calling everything that exists a material force, we are severely changing the meaning of "material."


I'm such a sociopath.

But anyway, material forces are not actual "matter" (that's more of a metaphysical debate), they are concrete economic forces divorced from the political, which necessitate and shape the political (which is super structural to the base).

Again, you're severely changing the definition of the word "material." Perhaps this is the cause of some of our confusion.

Fact before Ideas, matter before thought.

Thoughts are matter.

Mode of Production before Political structure, Classes before Laws. That's how it works.

I see it more as a feedback loop, but ok



Where do these laws come from?

Does that matter? Answer the question.


That's funny, considering you and a boatload of other "Communists" cling to the Communism of the 20th century and think as if the proletariat is a force which is merely going to execute your ideological perversions.

Do I? I don't. Nor do I particularly care for the pseudo-communism of the 20th century.



I am not the revolution, and I am not the grand inquisitor of the revolution. That's up to the proletariat. But should they deem it necessary, like they did in Russia, then I am not going to run back to my cave, I'll fully support them and the revolution, because I'm consistent, and I go to the end.

Did the proles deem it necessary? Or did the Bolsheviks deem it necessary on behalf of the proles?
IOW: are you of the opinion that workers which went on strike in the USSR were counterrevs? If a state merely names itself a proletarian state, does that mean any prole movement against it is reactionary?


Yes it did. So does the United States and several European countries. Do you have anything you'd like to say to the BA here about your views on those states? Go ahead, let's hear it: ...

No, in fact it didn't... nor does the US often stick to it (like the Patriot Act, etc). The leaders of the fascist government could basically make up laws on the fly, and imprison whomever they wanted without trial.

Nice try on baiting me into something tho. Perhaps if you weren't so paranoid about "liberal idealists" you would see that just because the US government supports something I support does not mean I support the US government.
That's called being illogical... the same kind of logic that leads people to say the USSR and NAZI Germany were the same thing because they both had secret police and concentration camps.

Why did you pm me asking me for my insight on your paper, or whatever?

Your insight and your respect are two different things. Also, my not caring about your respect does not mean I don't want it.


No one hijacked the revolution in the USSR. It naturally degenerated due to the several conditions and forces at hand. Bordiga said Stalin was the gravedigger of the revolution, not the killer of it. And he was right.

Millions of those "several conditions" were actual people making actual decisions.
Why do you completely divorce people from history and attribute EVERYTHING to "material forces"? (As if people's actions are not material forces :rolleyes: )


Napoleon didn't Hijjack the revolution for his "Own personal interests", he did so because he realized the proletariat was getting all too powerful, and the Bourgeoisie deployed him as their white knight to put an end to the Jacobin "madness" that was thought to have given birth to the commune.
I'm sure Napoleon didn't put himself in that situation for the power and riches that came with it... :rolleyes:

That's why Napoleon did away with the Liberty nonsense, because the Bourgeoisie will only deploy such rhetoric when they see fit, but when time comes to defend their interests, they'll deploy a Napoleon.
Napoleon didn't make any actual decisions, didn't put himself in position to be their white knight?
Again, we can substitute "Napoleon" for Napoleonic faction of the bourgeoisie" and nothing in the critique will change.


Rule of law are the laws deployed by the ruling classes.
Usually in practice this is the case. Just as in practice, vanguardism has led each and every time to state capitalism. That changes nothing about the theory.


For a member of such not to be consistent about it is hardly an abomination. The rule of law doesn't exist, never existed, and only exists in your abstract mythical universe of Liberalism.
Rule of Law, like most issues, is not so black and white as you want to make it out to be. "Only a sith deals in absolutes" they say. There are countries with stronger and weaker rule of law. That doesn't mean it never existed.

Fuck your bourgeois rhetoric, and shove your precious laws up your ass.

Mother was a housewife, dad's been a lifelong factory worker, and I"m unemployed. Bourgeois? I stand for direct democracy and universal suffrage? Is that bourgeois? I am wholeheartedly against private property and capital's existence, not only in my politics but in my personal life... is that bourgeois?


Who are you to decide what is the "Objective" set of laws, passed down from the gods, as a rule? You aren't. Shove your objective morality up your ass.

Who is the vanguard?
I am not to decide any of this, and this should be clear based on my many posts on this site. The difference between you and I is that I am not willing to give up proletarian power to people if they just claim they represent their interests.
Next thing you'll be accusing me of supporting Obama because I was against the Iraq War...


But those individuals, when in political power, act upon the interests of their own classes as a collective, always, you fuck.
No they act on what they perceive to be the interests of their class. There's a big difference.

[Revolution starts with U]

Here we go again with your Idealist rubbish. Do you really think a magical, objective "rule of law" exists?
There have been varying degrees to which states have abides by the rule of law in different times.

Or are you saying when one breaks from the political consistency? Either way, it's horse shit. Laws change in accordance to material conditions, external from the super structural remnants.

Superstructural remnants are a material condition.


You still have failed to give me an example of a person, acting on the interests of himself and not his class, "Hijacking a revolution" because he was "power hungry".

And I've said that whether or not it was him or his class that was power hungry doesn't change the critique. Whether or not individuals or the figureheads of classes hijacked the Revolutions doesn't change the fact that they were hijacked.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yet both were deployed. I like how you entirely miss the point: That the failure was external from Vangaurdism. It's not as if the whole of the Russian revolutionary situation was merely revolving around the grand Nucleus of Vangaurdism. Vangaurdism was merely a component of revolutionary strategy. You like to pick and choose what you deem as a key factor in the failure, as we've seen with your analogy.

Fact of the matter is that like mathematics, vangaurdism is necessary, as it's a mere form of organisation. They are different, but they are both necessary. Do you even have the potential to articulate actual analogies?

What the fuck gives you the right to claim Vangaurdism was to the Russian Revolution's failure as the American Bourgeoisie is to Imperialism (Ironically enough, Republicanism has nothing to do with Imperialism, anyway)? That was the point, it was me challenging that very pressupossions.

With all the factors at hand in Russia, a backward Feudal country, with no international revolutionary support by ohter states, constantly under seige, with all of that, what gives you the right to deem Vangaurdism as a key factor? There are not much other factors in the United States to necessitate Imperialism other than the capitalist mode of production.

You can either roll that up and smoke it, or fuck off. It's not my fault you don't understand analogies.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u0bihnEnYQo/TlxWHOSo23I/AAAAAAAAAPQ/Z1I6pLAM5bw/s1600/billy_madison_principal_no_points_mercy_soul_movie _image_01+%25281%2529.jpg

That about sums up my response.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's never gone wrong. You can't hold Vanguardism accountable for the failure of the USSR, just as you can't hold the usage of mathematics accountable for the failure of the USSR.

Uhm, you've just admitted that most people in the USSR weren't workers at the time the Bolsheviks took power. How is that not a vanguard?


I'll ask you a question. The Bourgeois class, sometimes, sets up the most vicious and authoritarian of states. Why do these states not become a class external from their masters, and turn into the very "beasts" they sought to slay (I.e. For example, Beasts being someone like Allende)?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. How does a "state" become a "class"? It's quite obvious that by the time workers were a majority in the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks had become a bunch of institutionalised Party fat-cats. Fucking bureaucrats.


Again, the fending off of the counter revolution in Russia was quit successful.

Which is why the Soviet Union is currently a worker's paradise... wait, it doesn't even exist any more. Hmm.


You make it as if the Cheka had the time and resources for a trial. They didn't. When you're faced in a situation where there can be no trial, do you dump the revolution for the several ethical convictions you might have?

What was it exactly preventing the Cheka putting people on trial like they should have been doing?


Quite expensive feeding them and taking care of them, managing them and so on.

Yeah, it's so much easier just to shoot people. :rolleyes:


Except the former ruling class would still have a boatload of influence on other classes, plus, not to mention collaborators. Put it this way: In the United States, the proletariat makes up 2/3rds of the population. But even if we pretend the Petite Bourgeoisie is fine with the revolution, maybe 10 percent of the population is Bourgeois, which would be around four million people.

Still a minority. Also, not all bourgeois/petit-bourgeois will be engaged in counter-revolutionary activity, just like not all proletarians will be loyal to their class even during a revolution. Class background can give statistical likelihoods, but when you get down to individual people, all sorts of other influences and factors come into play and by necessity we must judge each case on their individual merits. Let's also not forget about the increasing wealth gaps which are squeezing more and more people out of the petite-bourgeois class.

Come on, even the imperialists pay lip service to the concept of "winning hearts and minds", because everyone else tends to find the concept of shooting up entire neighbourhoods in the service of capital to be revolting. If we want to genuinely succeed in the long term, we must do more than pay lip service to the concept of winning people over - we must actually do it.


In Russia's case, you had a good chunk of the Peasant class, the whole ruling classes armies, collaborators, and then the allies.

It's looking worse and worse for the Bolsheviks. A minority taking power in the name of the majority? Sounds like the same old shit.


The means of distributing propaganda would be seized and would be reserved only for the Proletarian state. That means freedom of press and so on can't be tolerated.

Fuck that. Why the fuck would I throw off one set of chains just to put myself in another? I don't want to have to justify my possession of media equipment to some chump ideologue who thinks I might use it to spread counter-revolutionary propaganda. Try putting yourself in the shoes of an actual proletarian, instead of some Party operative.


In times of such revolutionary struggle, I'd imagine all of the internet rabble would fade away. But yes, this does count as the distribution of counter revolutionary propaganda, and indeed, there can be consequences, perhaps.

The internet is a means of communication. Just because society is undergoing a revolution doesn't mean people will stop communicating. If anything, they would be doing more communicating. When the potential for socioeconomic re-organisation is genuinely on the cards, people are going to turn to the communications medium least likely to have them ending up with some Party official or whatever breathing down their neck, and the internet can be pretty good for that.


There may be time for a trial, especially nowadays. But if there isn't, for some reason (Just like in Russia) then the revolution must be protected at all costs.

The moment we make a policy of shooting people for no good reason is the moment the revolution is lost, as far as I am concerned. Because in such a scenario it is inevitable that power ends up collecting in the hands of those calling the shots, and also that innocent proletarians end up getting ganked by the very people professing to be their liberators. Screw that, comrade.


If he takes action against the revolution, then yes.

He's already hurt people, I was thinking more along the lines that I'd be unmoved if some person snapped and decided to shoot off his ugly mug.


The Russian situation used to be quite ecclectic as well, however, when the revolution occurred, people quickly too a shade of either white or black.

You're right in that the Bolsheviks fought with others against the Whites. But once the Bolsheviks had secured their power base, that's when they started coming down on the likes of anarchists and uppity sailors at Kronstadt.


Such is the nature of war. I beg to differ.

The class war is fought in arenas other than the field of battle, you know. In fact I would be bold enough to say that socioeconomic factors are more decisive in class struggle than force of arms.

[l'Enfermé]

Uhm, you've just admitted that most people in the USSR weren't workers at the time the Bolsheviks took power. How is that not a vanguard?

Eh, you're completing misunderstanding the meaning of the Kautsky-Lenin vanguard. I mean, assuming the Anarchist/Left-Com misunderstanding of what the Kautskyist-Leninist vanguard is is correct, then the CNT-FAI and the entire anarcho-syndicalist movement is infinitely more "vanguardist" than the Bolsheviks in 1917.



I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. How does a "state" become a "class"? It's quite obvious that by the time workers were a majority in the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks had become a bunch of institutionalised Party fat-cats. Fucking bureaucrats.
The Bolshevik leaders that survived the 1920s were almost completely executed and assassinated in the 1930s. Regarding the party "fat-cats" argument, after Stalin's death the bureaucracy and intelligentsia was stripped of many of it's privileges and material advantages, though it did compensate for that with massive and historically unprecedented corruption. I think it would be fair to say that at the time that the Proletariat began to outnumber the peasantry, materially the bureaucracy and the working class were on a rather similar level of existence, disregarding corruption.



Which is why the Soviet Union is currently a worker's paradise... wait, it doesn't even exist any more. Hmm.
The fact that the Soviet Union is not currently a worker's paradise is no fault of the Bolsheviks or the Soviet Union.



What was it exactly preventing the Cheka putting people on trial like they should have been doing?
The aim of the Chekist methods was to terrorize enemies and potential enemies of the Revolution. Revolutionary terror is a good way of achieving that aim.


Yeah, it's so much easier just to shoot people. :rolleyes:
You remind me of Roberspierre's famous question to the opportunists, "did you want a revolution without a revolution?"




It's looking worse and worse for the Bolsheviks. A minority taking power in the name of the majority? Sounds like the same old shit.
The Bolsheviks enjoyed the support of the majority of the Proletariat(a notable exception would be Georgia where the Mensheviks were the majority, and the Caucasus in general, where nationalist and chauvinist tendencies prevailed). The peasantry is absolutely irrelevant.



The moment we make a policy of shooting people for no good reason is the moment the revolution is lost, as far as I am concerned. Because in such a scenario it is inevitable that power ends up collecting in the hands of those calling the shots, and also that innocent proletarians end up getting ganked by the very people professing to be their liberators. Screw that, comrade.
Shooting friends of the counter-revolution is a very good reason.



You're right in that the Bolsheviks fought with others against the Whites. But once the Bolsheviks had secured their power base, that's when they started coming down on the likes of anarchists and uppity sailors at Kronstadt.
Are you high? The Bolshevik destruction of the Anarchist movement began only after the Anarchists initiated terror and assassination campaigns against the Bolsheviks. Until that point the Bolshevik policy towards the Anarchists was that of conciliation.

[Revolution starts with U]

You also terrorize potential allies.

Also... idk why you guys keep bringing up the leaders of failed revolutions, who through their actions showed themselves to be pro-capitalist opportunists, and thinking this helps your point.

[l'Enfermé]

You also terrorize potential allies.

Also... idk why you guys keep bringing up the leaders of failed revolutions, who through their actions showed themselves to be pro-capitalist opportunists, and thinking this helps your point.
Potential allies? What sort of nonsense is that? What "potential allies" are you talking about? Social-patriots, social-chauvinists, Anarchist bandits and counter-revolutionaries, Mensheviks? What "potential allies"?

Failed revolutions? Pro-capitalist opportunists? You are truly clueless.

[Revolution starts with U]

Potential allies? What sort of nonsense is that? What "potential allies" are you talking about? Social-patriots, social-chauvinists, Anarchist bandits and counter-revolutionaries, Mensheviks? What "potential allies"?

Failed revolutions? Pro-capitalist opportunists? You are truly clueless.

Actual proletari that have a lack of class consciousness, bourgeois potential class traitors... christ man, how do you plan to carry out a succesful revolution by alienating the mass of the population?

Yes, the French and Russian Revolutions failed. Is this any surprise?! Lenin and Robespierre both implemented capitalist policies. Is this not true?

Open your eyes, comrade. The kool-aid is spiked.

[NGNM85]

When? As far as I'm concerned, Gacky's lost virtually every debate I've got into with him.

The operative phrase being; 'as far as I'm concerned..'

I was referring to this thread;
http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-strict-anti-t166276/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-strict-anti-t166276/index.html)


Except I'm not a Liberal.

Neither am I. Of course; this presumes you're employing it in the literal sense, which, of course, you aren't.


Howard Zinn was 100% Liberal with some social democratic and anti imperialist tendencies (Similar to that of Oliver Stone, Parenti, and so on).


Howard Zinn was an Anarchist. I don't see any connection to Oliver Stone, or Michael Parenti, although, admittedly; I'm only vaguely familiar with his work.



The "Assertion" of socialism is what? Socialism is the embodiment of the interests of hte proletarian class, which seeks to destroy the Bourgeois state and repress the enemy class at all costs. Hardly some universal moralist ideology structured against what Liberals like NGNM find "Oppressive".
Censorship is necessary to the "Assertion" (in reality) of socialism (The proletarian dictatorship).

I was referring to the assertion, the truth claim, that I made; that censorship of the kind you were advocating is fundamentally antithetical to Socialism. I stood by that, and I still do.


To oppose the revolution for your Bourgeois liberal convictions sais enough about how "Socialist" you are.

That's not my revolution. That's not the revolution I want any part of.


You mean when you got your ass handed to in that old thread?

You did nothing of the sort.

[l'Enfermé]

Actual proletari that have a lack of class consciousness, bourgeois potential class traitors... christ man, how do you plan to carry out a succesful revolution by alienating the mass of the population?

Yes, the French and Russian Revolutions failed. Is this any surprise?! Lenin and Robespierre both implemented capitalist policies. Is this not true?

Open your eyes, comrade. The kool-aid is spiked.
No, enough bullshit please. Please. The vast majority of workers and soldiers(especially in the western front) was swayed by the Bolsheviks, they were not "potential allies", they were already the agents of the Revolution. I'm really amused by your attack on Lenin, you call him an opportunist while you try to convince us of the importance of doing our most to attract "potential" bourgeoisie traitors to our cause...I hope the irony isn't lost on you.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure I understand your reason for calling the October Revolution a "failed" Revolution(even though it was quite successful), but I don't understand your reason for calling the the French Revolution a failure(I'm assuming you're talking of the 1789 Revolution). The French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution that swept aside and destroyed the old feudal order and spread it's ideas and institutions over the rest of Europe. It's simply the most important and greatest event in world history and the greatest achievement of Western society until that point. Just in what way was it a failure?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Eh, you're completing misunderstanding the meaning of the Kautsky-Lenin vanguard. I mean, assuming the Anarchist/Left-Com misunderstanding of what the Kautskyist-Leninist vanguard is is correct, then the CNT-FAI and the entire anarcho-syndicalist movement is infinitely more "vanguardist" than the Bolsheviks in 1917.

Well, we never got to see how the CNT-FAI approach played out in the long term, but we did for the Bolsheviks.


The Bolshevik leaders that survived the 1920s were almost completely executed and assassinated in the 1930s.

You don't think that was symptomatic of the Bolshevik failure?


The fact that the Soviet Union is not currently a worker's paradise is no fault of the Bolsheviks or the Soviet Union.

Well, either the Bolsheviks had no chance in the long term and were thus doomed from the start in terms of establishing a genuine proletarian powerbase, or there were things they could have done but didn't, for whatever reason.


The aim of the Chekist methods was to terrorize enemies and potential enemies of the Revolution. Revolutionary terror is a good way of achieving that aim.

Begging the question. If you want to terrorise people, then executing them without trial is a good way of achieving that. But that doesn't speak to the necessity of such terror tactics in the first place.


You remind me of Roberspierre's famous question to the opportunists, "did you want a revolution without a revolution?"

In what way is wanting to make certain that we get the right people "opportunist"?


The Bolsheviks enjoyed the support of the majority of the Proletariat(a notable exception would be Georgia where the Mensheviks were the majority, and the Caucasus in general, where nationalist and chauvinist tendencies prevailed). The peasantry is absolutely irrelevant.

Are you seriously writing off an entire class of the oppressed?


Shooting friends of the counter-revolution is a very good reason.

Again, without a fair trial how would you know which ones are the "friends of counter-revolution"?

[Rafiq]

Long delay for replies, but they're incoming tonight and tommarow. Some saved on notepad

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[l'Enfermé]

Well, we never got to see how the CNT-FAI approach played out in the long term, but we did for the Bolsheviks.
The Bolsheviks copied their "approach" from the revolutionary wing of the German Social-Democracy.



You don't think that was symptomatic of the Bolshevik failure?
It only proved that the Bolsheviks in the Russian Empire were not magicians and couldn't bring about a successful socialist revolution in the heart of the capitalist world. The degeneration of the Soviet State was caused by the failure of the Western proletariat to overthrow it's exploiters, it wasn't the failure of the Bolsheviks.



Well, either the Bolsheviks had no chance in the long term and were thus doomed from the start in terms of establishing a genuine proletarian powerbase, or there were things they could have done but didn't, for whatever reason.
I don't understand what you mean when you write about establishing a "genuine proletarian powerbase". The Bolshevik's proletarian powerbase is what allowed them to overthrow the Russian bourgeoisie and win against the Whites during the Russian Civil War and the Imperialist Intervention.



Begging the question. If you want to terrorise people, then executing them without trial is a good way of achieving that. But that doesn't speak to the necessity of such terror tactics in the first place.
Any decent study of the period would lead everyone to the same conclusion: the tactics of the Bolsheviks and specifically the Cheka were completely necessary in order to defeat the counter-revolution.



In what way is wanting to make certain that we get the right people "opportunist"?

That's completely off-topic, you were complaining about just shooting people.


Are you seriously writing off an entire class of the oppressed?
The petty-bourgeois are also an oppressed class, I "write them off" too. The peasantry is only a revolutionary class under rare conditions.



Again, without a fair trial how would you know which ones are the "friends of counter-revolution"?
Obviously it's understandable where your feelings on this subject are coming from, and to an extent I agree, but unfortunately under the circumstances the Bolsheviks weren't afforded the luxury prosecuting lengthy, "fair" trials and naturally they compensated. Either way, friends of the revolution obviously weren't killed by the Bolsheviks during the Revolution, as they were busy killing her enemies, of course. And whoever was left, well, if they weren't friends, that clearly makes them enemies.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, enough bullshit please. Please. The vast majority of workers and soldiers(especially in the western front) was swayed by the Bolsheviks, they were not "potential allies", they were already the agents of the Revolution. I'm really amused by your attack on Lenin, you call him an opportunist while you try to convince us of the importance of doing our most to attract "potential" bourgeoisie traitors to our cause...I hope the irony isn't lost on you.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure I understand your reason for calling the October Revolution a "failed" Revolution(even though it was quite successful), but I don't understand your reason for calling the the French Revolution a failure(I'm assuming you're talking of the 1789 Revolution). The French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution that swept aside and destroyed the old feudal order and spread it's ideas and institutions over the rest of Europe. It's simply the most important and greatest event in world history and the greatest achievement of Western society until that point. Just in what way was it a failure?

You can ask Mozart to what extent some people in Europe saw the French revolution as a genuine people's revolt. Imagine his surprise when he learned it was merely a palace coup. The french common people, like the commoner of Russia, rose up in disillusionment, only to have the movement hijacked by groups of people too wrapped up in their own partisanship to see that just maybe their vision of society is not sacrosanct.

"The vast majority" of PEOPLE are non-partisan, preferring to ride out the tides of history in secure and comfortable obscurity. This has been true throughout all of history. They will join, leave, and rejoin whichever side looks like it might bring the civil strife to an end, in the hopes of returning quietly to their home and raising their families.
As soon as genuine worker antagonisms began to threaten the order being established by the central powers, the Bolsheviks moved swiftly to crush them... conveniently at the same time making deals with the bourgeoisie. It wasn't Socialism they set out to develop, it was their strict version of socialism.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Revolution, with or without the Bolsheviks, would have had to have seen its suspensions of habeus corpus and general disregard of the law. Nor do I doubt that in times of any genuine times of social upheaval this will be the case. Yet it should be universally understood that this is at best a necessity, and should be an act undertaken only as a last resort. The growing Party dictatorship simply used this truism as an excuse and a cover to ruthlessly oust all potential opposition, friend or foe alike.

[Rafiq]

Language is not a thing that exists in a realm of its own. Idealizing is a thing
1) because spell check recognizes it
2) because people use it often in everyday conversations.

It's Bourgoies terminology, or, at best, philisophically mediocre and simplistic. "Idealizing" something is just as much to Idealism as "Materialism" (In the American sense, i.e. caring too much about consumer goods) is to Marxian Materialism.

That's what you have to understand. The words may be similar, but their usage in this context is completely different.



This is what I mean about being paranoid. I fully support violent revolution, I realize we will have to use violence, I have absolutely no problems with that. But because I don't take every oppurtunity I can to prove how much bloodlust I have I will "be morally devastated and join the counterrevolution!"
It's absurd.

The reason I point it out, again, is people forget. I'd go as far as saying is without these accusations put forward by me, we'd have more pacifists on the forum. Really, about a year ago, where I had a radical change in political views, that's pretty much what the forum looked like. Now, not so much.


A person who thinks "maybe we're taking this violence too far" is tantamount to saying "we shouldn't even revolt" is a delusional person.


We aren't taking anything "too far", if not, the opposite.


I don't want to discuss our ethuggery any further. I shouldn't even have brought it up. We can discuss all day who's been in more dangerous situations, it will change nothing. I made a passing pre-judgement, which I still believe to be right, but irrelevant... so I'll just drop it.

So, you've just mentioned it just so I'd ponder upon it, and now you seek to just "end it"?


Can you rephrase that? "To be liberal is to embody the interests of proles w/in your political views"


Sorry. The Liberal holds the ideological embodiment of the Bourgeois class. Whether it be Conservative of something else is irrelevant. That's why they're an enemy. When someone calls themselves a Liberal or holds Liberal views, they are representing the enemy classes interest. It is, by no means, not about some kind of ideological war or some kind of debate in regards to academia. It's a real, class struggle.


Even offering no apology for the kidnapping and/or murder of innocents? How does the kidnapping and murder of innocents "protect the revolution?"

Yes, I support those actions. The Terrorizing of the enemies was a necessity. Like I said, the revolution is not hte embodiment or re assurance of your moral views.


And no, the USSR never established a successful revolution, and only bourgeois historians think they did.

I'd beg to differ. The proletariat overthrew the state. Call what you want afterwards whatever you'd like, but that's a concrete proletarian revolution.


Whatever revolution was in the works was quickly hijacked by the bureaucratic elites and turned to state CAPITALISM.


Oh no, you'd expect a semi feudal, isolated, constantly under seige, backward, war torn country like Russia to come out of the smoke with a successful proletarian dictatorship? Or no, continue to blame Authoritarianism, as if those factors don't overridden it automatically.

Capitalism was a necessity for Russia at that time. There can be no socialism in one country, and the Bolsheviks knew it... Unless you'd think otherwise..

Tell me, RSWU, do you think socialism in one country is possible?


Good for you.


Not for you, though.


Sometimes they may be. That doesn't make them good. And some of those actions can be counterproductive to the Revolutionary effort.


You still miss the point. Some things have to be done that aren't "good" but will still aid the revolution and protecting the proletarian dictatorship. We may not like doing them, and they may be horrible. But they are necessary.


Did it protect the revolution?


The revolution was long dead by the Moscow Trials.. What the fuck are you getting at?


Except here, again, we have no way of knowing how much they actually helped the Revolution, ie how many people were entirely innocent of the charges for which they were sentenced to death.

Of the small number of total deaths (for an actual war) carried out by the Cheka, I'd hardly suspect a good portion were innocent. When Felix Dzerzhinsky said that the Cheka judges quickly, what this meant was that you'd have to be caught in deep shit if you were put to death, and there would have to be a good reason. Felix himself was a moral-fetishizer himself, more than any Bolshevik.


Do you agree with the statement that "it is better for 100 innocents to be put to death than 1 counterrevolutionary go free?"


Again, most of the deaths carried out were guilty of counter revolution.


Fair enough. Thank you for expanding. I don't see how it's isolation gave birth to the class nature of Russia or Feudalism but.. I see where you're going.


It didn't give brith to the class nature of Russia or Feudalism, it just made the situation worse. So much so that there was no longer any hope, and that degeneration was inevitable, i.e. A man like Stalin, inevitable.


Paranoia; everyone is out to get me
state self protection; my position cannot be challenged


State is paranoid that there are forces which could threaten to undermine itself, there fore is protecting itself in a paranoid manner.

How are those different?


I've never heard of a single person called "the Bolsheviks." Who is this one person you speak of?


Oh, I forgot you're a great man theorist.

Do you think the Bolsheviks were composed of individuals who sought to maximize violence because they enjoyed it?


By their own words, no the didn't. I've just shown you that they kidnapped and sometimes murdered the families of counterrevs, whether or not those family members themselves were involved.


If the Boslheviks didn't want to minimilize violence, they would have massacred far more populations. Those specific occurances was the examplification of the Bolshevik desperation to win the war. Statistics show that the Bolsheviks didn't even murder a quarter of what the counter revolution did. The point being is that the counter revolution was a monster which needed to be put down by any means necessary (including the sword falling upon the innocent sometimes).


I'm always down for people to post data. But in this case it would be irrelevant. "The reactionaries started it" or "the reactionaries did it worse" doesn't forgive the murder of innocents by either party.


It wasn't out of revenge. It was necessary for the war effort, and the Terror was necessary to combat White Terror, something a lot of people forget about.


It's not that I don't make a distinction. I just don't take intentions for results. Did the Red Terror protect the Revolution? I'm sure for the most part it did. But how can we know without fair trials of the accused?

You do realize that a whopping majority of those who died were members of the former ruling class and elite, right? They did kill the Romanov Family, but as far as former dogs of the Tzar go, they didn't start the arrests until the Terror.


Don't you see; a nominally socialist government could do anything it wanted under cover of "protecting the revolution" if we all had this mindset.


Do you not see the Idealism in this little snip? The point is that conditions would have to give birth to a state of affaris where an entity (State) would start using excuses to have it's way. In this case, it was feeding and serving capital, and what necessaited that was... Bum bum bum, Isolation, Feudalism, and so on. "So? couldn't they just keep capital under control?"

Ha! Any Marxist knows why that's impossible: Capital devours and consumes. Capital is like a beast, and it cannot be tamed. Once you open the doors for it, you became a slave for it, and indeed, Stalin, and his circle, were slaves of capital.

Otherwise, a regulated form of capitalism would be the solution to the world's problems.


Maybe. I don't claim to be a genius... or even necessarily right.


What are you debating for, then, if you aren't even sure of what you are spouting out?


Again, thank you for elaborating. I'm sure we can all learn something here.


I would be understanding of this little snip, if I haven't fucking said this before thousands of times.


Maybe. Do they openly support the kidnapping and/or murder of innocent people, regardless of any actual involvement in the counterrevolution?


Again, a reason would necessaite this. Unless you think people like the Bolsheviks thought it was fun to kidnap or murder innocent people who had no involvement in the counter revolution.

Devil's advocate: Even if we assume the Bolsheviks were evil motherfuckers, they still needed support. Any faction would.


I don't get this ultra-left thing. Is there something wrong with being left of pseudo-leftists?


"Ultra Left" is an empty term which only exists within Bourgeois terminology. Marxists say there is only Bourgeois and Proletarian. And indeed, a lot of "Ultra 'Leftists'" (so called ones, you namely) are just as Bourgeois as Stalinists.

It is not about being "More Left" and so on, it's the class nature of the tendency.


Perhaps I misspoke. You blame the failures largely on the Rev not spreading to Germany (or any industrialized country, but that would've most likely been German) and the Germans went fascist. That's the point I was getting across.


By the time the Germans were Fascist, Capital had almost completely devoured Russia.


Perhaps I have made this personal. I didn't mean too... sometimes one just doesn't have the energy to not succumb to his base desires. This is why I've been trying to post less (which hasn't been working), so that i can regain control of my unconscious mind.
My apologies.


You can;t control the unconscious directly. It's impossible. If you hold an "official view", but deep down, it may be something otherwise. What this means is that if you say you're a materialist, but are still mystified ideologically by Idealism, as soon as you forget about the core tenets of Materialism, your unconscious will take hold and replace it.

On an unrelated note: Insecure Dawkins esque Atheists are really Theists deep down, and still believe.


I would implore you to study up on your Ceasar. He most certainly was both of those, tho I do have a certain amount of respect for him.


I've done my fair studies of Caesar. Parenti spoke the truth when he said 95% of the accounts of Caesar were of the ruling classes of Rome, and other reactionaries. Caesar was the most progressive thing to happen to that Empire, aside from Spartacus.


I don't believe power corrupts or that great men move history... so...


Here we go, you don't "officially", but you do unconsciously. Your posts show that.


I attribute the movement of history to people. Whether or not an opportunist has a class basis behind him, in no way lessens him and that class from moving history.


"Him" is a person, and political power stems from class. There exists no such thing as a single man opportunist, or a man whose opportunism stems from full self interest without a collective class behind him that is benefiting him, and himself. If he is Bourgeois and the class he is representing is Bourgeois, he is acting upon self interest because he is Bourgeois, not because of his interests external from class (Which do not exist politically).


1) I believe ideas, thougts, and will are "material and productive forces"


Well, then you're not a materialist. You're an Idealist. They are not material and productive forces at all. They are products of those.


2) Whether or not the "external conditions" create the actions of people doesn't change those actions


What? What the fuck are you getting "External actions" from? It does. Say a person in Fascist Germany holds reactionary views. What are you going to hold accountable, him himself, or the society, the structure, and the conditions which gave birth to those views?


Maybe I'm just reading too much Roman history right now, but this stuff happens all the time in it. The ideologies of both Stalinist and Trotskyist factions are not all that different, as you said, they both wanted to feed capital. It seems to be more of a battle between who should control the state than any kind of ideological battle.

Ideological battles do not exist. It was a rivalry between two factions who thought they would be better at feeding capital, nothing more.


How can we know if the trials were "unfair" (for lack of a better term, you know "fair trial") and the admissions of guilt brought about through torture?

The Cheka never used torture for confessions of being a counter revolutionary. If the Cheka was torturing you, they were doing so because you most likely had information in regards to enemy spies, plans, bases, and so on. By the time you were tortured, you were already a counter revolutionary.


How do we know the counterrev activity a person engaged in wasn't "banging a cop's wife?"


There are zero historical accounts of that happening in Bolshevik Russia, through Lenin's time or after.


That's the problem with a lack of fair trial. It's left up to either you believe the state, or you don't. I don't... always anyway.


It would seem you have zero knowledge on the situation in Bolshevik Russia. I'd suggest reading "Ten days that shook the world". If you were a counter revolutionary, it wasn't a secret. All of those Mensheviks, Left Social Revolutionaries and so on were open collaborators with the white movement. Unless, of course, John Reed constitutes as the Bolshevik state as well.

There was no abundance of resources for "Fair trial".


What I am denying is that we can ever know who/how many were innocent/guilty without proper trials...

We can make a rough estimate. Again, it wasn't of issue. The majority of innocents that perished did so not by imprisonments or torture via the Cheka, but in the actual war itself (Villages, and so on).


even proper trials can often go wrong. But at least it gives us an objective basis to stand on.


Your argument would make at the least some sort of sense if we were talking about Stalinist show trials, where the resources did indeed exist for fair trial. By then, the revolution had been dead (Unlike during the Russian civil war).


See, history. Again, we can go back to Stalin/Trotsky, which really didn't have all that much difference in their ideological outlook or class basis.

Trotsky was a Neo Menshevik and a Bourgeois economist. I'd choose Stalin over that bastard any day. At least Stalin was honest about being a bastard.


Or Ceaser/Pompey. Or Marius/Sulla... possibly even Hamilton/Burr.


Pompey's class basis was with the aristocratic class, and so on. What the fuck are you going on about?


Ya, that is often the case. It doesn't mean it's always the case, and it certainly doesn't mean they aren't just waiting for an opportunity to discredit/punish their enemies.


It is always the case. Their "enemies" are the enemies of their whole class all together. If they are simply personal enemies, it will do nothing to get rid of them without the class basis concuring.


No, we just don't divorce individuals from history.

What does the quote "It is not consciousness that determines social being, but social being that determines consciousness" mean to you?

Individuals do undoubtedly exist and history is made by individuals, but not as an expression of their will. Individuals are agents, products of their environments.


I mean, it seems you're basically saying propaganda doesn't work, that leaders of movements cannot shape the direction of those movements. That's absurd.


Of course they can symbolically. But the point is that the only reason anythign was shaped was because those leaders were necessitated by the class that put them in power. Nixon would have been totally different had he been some kind of party leader of a proletarian state.


Laws should not be changed in accordance with the passing fancy of the members of the state.

Never have. Ever.


I don't know where you got the idea that the Rule of Law means all laws should be the same forever...

That there should be consistancy with laws? This pressuposes laws are objective universal "laws" in themselves. The point is that laws change. They always will. Therefore a "rule of law" is nonsense, as members of the ruling class don't need to be "above" laws to get their way, they simply change them.

The point is that in Russia's case, policies were changed in accordance to several material developments. I don't know where you're getting this liberalist bullshit from (Probably a direct response to you adopting the ideological opposite of me).


Rule of law means everybody is subject to the same laws, and state actions must be done in a lawful manner (that the state is not above the law).


Sorry to break it to you, but the State is law. Laws are nothing, just like morals are nothing. They are super structural, no matter how many times you like to cover your bullshit Idealism with supposed materialist terminology (Your categorization of Ideas, will and Laws as material forces is downright absurd.)


I think the largest problem between our discussion comes in here;
Did, in your opinion, the Bolsheviks ever establish a proletarian state?

Yes.


I'm of the opinion that at no time did they do so.


I recall reading earlier one of the biggest criticisms laid out by the peasants, cossacks and so on, even put forth by the White army forces as propaganda, was that the Bolsheviks Establishment a dictatorship of the industrial proletariat. It was a dictatorship of the proletariat, it was just "Undemocratic" because the Peasants constituted 80% of the population.


So perhaps, in seeing the brutal repression of innocents the Soviet state was engaging in is exactly what drove others to adopt the "power corrupts" view.


Luxembourg, actually, held the ludicrous views she did long before the Revolution. Fuck you too. There wasn't a brutal repression of innocents on behalf of the Soviet state. What a disgusting, overly emotionalist exaggeration. Not even members of the allies would dare stoop to such stupidity in accusing them of such.

As a matter of fact, in Saint Petersburg, center of operations for the Bolsheviks, before the civil war, there were loads of counter revolutionaries who openly did whatever they wanted. I'm sure if they were such bloodthirsty montsers, they wouldn't have to wait until a civil war broke out and the whites started to massacre workers to start cracking down on the counter revolution. But to say they killed "innocents" for fuck all's sake, to make it as if it was a large historical phenomena in regards to the Bolsheviks... Well, the likes of even Richard Pipes would laugh in your face.


Yes, now relate the idea of "most people are idealists" to the Germans adopting a "power corrupts" view.


Who are the "Germans"?

Luxembourg wasn't an idiot. There was a bigger revolutionary Marxist scene in Germany, and most Marxists opposed Idealism. As if I fucking invented materialism.


The vanguard thought itself above the law,

:laugh:

I'm not even being an asshole, either. I really just did laugh for about fifteen seconds. This is fucking ludicrous.

There was no "law". The only source of order and stability was with the State. What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you even know what a law is? Why is it you believe in objective morality/laws?


becoming so entrenched in the idea that it knew what the correct socialism was

:laugh:

Historian, are we? There were no talks about "WELL, THE CORRECT FORM OF SOCIALISM WE MUST IMPLEMENT, BLAH BLAH BLAH"

It was implenting the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the bolsheviks were an instrument. Every Marxist was in concurance, from Luxemburg to Lenin, about what "Socialism" was. There was never more than one socialism, so to say a "Correct" socialism exists is fucking ludicrous beyond belief.

Fucking Idealist shitbag... Can you not even see beyond the constraints your Liberal gods have set in place for you? What makes you think the Bolsheviks were acting on behalf of Ideas instead of real, material forces (A class)? You can't. Because you're an Idealist.


that it began executing en masse not only counterrevs, but sincere leftists which questioned it.

Name me one sincere Leftist murdered by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War.


This lead to a dramatic drop in world proletariat support for Vanguardist policy and governments

Yeah, just like the world proletariat disbanded mathametics as well. I can't even articulate how much of a moron you are. Don't you fucking know that in virtually every industrialized country there were actual attempts of revolution?


(note prole support, not "socialist party" support). This isolated the Russian Revolution, leaving it with far fewer friends with which to challenge capital.


Matter before thought.

Isolation before policies which were divorced from the proletariat.

You've failed to address it, you've only asserted ahistorical, baseless nonsense.

The difference between your theory and mine is simply that mine was developed over a long period of time through brutal analysiation (I was a fucking Libertarian, like you) and research on the subject which is in full historical correspondence, while yours, you took out of your ass.

1. The failure had nothing to do with the party thinking itself to be "above the law". You're the first person to ever assert that, and you're going to have to provide sources and statistics if you're going to be so... Original in such a thesis. I mean, do you not see how ridiculous that assertion was? Laws are estabilsiehd as a direct reflection of a class's interest. That means any Law changed, revoked, and so on was done in the interest of hte proletarain class. Call it undemocratic (As it was not done so in the Peasant's) but I give fuck all. And to be fair, the Bolsheviks did attempt to give the goddamn Peasants what they wanted, and establish policies in their favor.

2. The World Proletariat Never had dissatisfaction with the actions of the Bolsheviks. Luxembourg and the Germans had devised their revolutionary strategy (I'm talking about the KAPD) long before hte Bolshevik revolution. So it hardly took a "Oh my god, the vanguard doesn't work, it went all wrong!" for them to adopt the ludicrous strategy that they did, as they've always held it. The difference, of course, was that the Bolsheviks actually carried out Revolution while the Germans failed.

3. The Bolshevik Revolution was the most influential in the world. New Vanguard parties were estabilished in all corners of Earth. Hardly a demonstration of any dissatisfaction with vangaurdism.

To say vanguardism caused the "harshness" which could shock some, excluding the civil war and white terror, invasion by the allies and so on, is fucking ludcirous.

Why was it that only during the Civil War, after the White Terror, specifically the massacre of Petograd workers, that the Bolsheviks started to use the iron fist? Tell me, you fuck. And don't ignore this snip.


Ok


Is that a yes?



See above.



:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

What the fuck

I'm looking "above" and see nothing in relation to my snip.

You've made absolutely no attempt in addressing it. Not one.

[Rafiq]

So now the USSR was functioning on direct democracy? The CP/Bolsheviks were not a representative party?

The Bolsheviks were delegates, instruments of class rule. That's different from the Bourgeois state telling the proletariat "Listen up you little fucks, you can either have me fuck you in this position, or another position".



I have no reason to believe women and blacks would have voted any different.

Black Panther party and several feminist movements beg to fucking differ.


The BoR had nothing to do with either party as it was a democratic vote, not a representative one.


Had nothing to do with the Democratic Party and Republicans (As this is a recent historical phenomena) but no, it wasn't a "democratic" vote. The masses did not devise this and say "LISTEN BOURGEOIS STATE, CARRY THIS OUT FOR US". They simply agreed to it, and if they didn't, they would have gotten something worse.


If we're not calling everything that exists a material force, we are severely changing the meaning of "material."


Indeed. It's blatantly fucking obvious that everything is made of matter. "Material Forces" are strictly economic (In relation to the mode of production).


Again, you're severely changing the definition of the word "material." Perhaps this is the cause of some of our confusion.


I'm deploying the Marxist definition in regards to Materialism. No one in their right mind believes the computer you're on isn't made of matter.


Thoughts are matter.


:laugh: No, they're not. Thoughts are product of "matter". But that's metaphysical. I'm talking about real, pragmatic materialism, i.e. Thoughts are shaped in direct reflection to the material world (mode of production and it's relations). It's not the other way around.


I see it more as a feedback loop, but ok


Not necessarily.


Does that matter? Answer the question.


Of course laws impact the way people behave. So does religion. That doesn't mean they don't rely on material forces to exist. That means the Bourgeois class will change the laws, and in turn, these laws will alter the original way they behave. Meaning Laws are not a material force, they are useless in the face of what necessitated them. Laws are interchangeable, but the Bourgeois class is not.


Do I? I don't. Nor do I particularly care for the pseudo-communism of the 20th century.


I'm talking about the Communist movement as a whole, including Anarchist movements.


Did the proles deem it necessary? Or did the Bolsheviks deem it necessary on behalf of the proles?


They did. They deemed it necessary when their brothers were massacred by White Terror. If the Bolsheviks did nothing, they would have been overthrown. Maybe you'd approve of workers getting massacred to protect your sacred Liberalist morality, but fuck you.


IOW: are you of the opinion that workers which went on strike in the USSR were counterrevs?

The USSR, you mean, after the revolutionary period? They were not counter revolutionaries. There was no revolution anymore to birth a "counter" revolution.


If a state merely names itself a proletarian state, does that mean any prole movement against it is reactionary?


The Bolsheviks didn't "name" the state a proletarian state. It was one by default, in practice. The "Prole" movements against it? You mean the Menshevik scum? Hardly revolutionaries. They were dogs of the kornilovists and the counter revolution.


No, in fact it didn't... nor does the US often stick to it (like the Patriot Act, etc). The leaders of the fascist government could basically make up laws on the fly, and imprison whomever they wanted without trial.


Laws change in accordance with material conditions. The Bourgeoisie responds to material conditions to adjust to them in a manner which serves their interest. Do the fucking math. Why should it be different for a proletarian state?


Nice try on baiting me into something tho. Perhaps if you weren't so paranoid about "liberal idealists" you would see that just because the US government supports something I support does not mean I support the US government.
That's called being illogical... the same kind of logic that leads people to say the USSR and NAZI Germany were the same thing because they both had secret police and concentration camps.

Your excessive use of liberal terminology is worthy of having you shunned from any sort of Leftist discussion.


Your insight and your respect are two different things. Also, my not caring about your respect does not mean I don't want it.


Must I address this?


Millions of those "several conditions" were actual people making actual decisions.


They are instruments of those conditions.


Why do you completely divorce people from history and attribute EVERYTHING to "material forces"? (As if people's actions are not material forces :rolleyes: )

Men and Women make history, but not as an expression of their will, not as they please. What this meant is that they do make history, but not consciously.


I'm sure Napoleon didn't put himself in that situation for the power and riches that came with it... :rolleyes:


Dumbass, he was already pretty wealthy. And it doesn't matter what personal motivations he had, like the dog he was, if he didn't wipe the ass of the Bourgeois class, it's off with his goddamn head. So personal interest for him external from the interest of his class, in a position of political power, did not exist.


Napoleon didn't make any actual decisions, didn't put himself in position to be their white knight?


His decisions were made in the interest of not himself individually, but of the Bourgeois class. That basically sums it up. So back to the point, a proletarian white knight (I.e. A very powerful state) wouldn't "corrupt" because his decisions, like Napoleons, would be of the interest of his class.


Again, we can substitute "Napoleon" for Napoleonic faction of the bourgeoisie" and nothing in the critique will change.


A lot will in regards to the ludicrous pressupposions you are so keen in drowning yourself into.


Usually in practice this is the case. Just as in practice, vanguardism has led each and every time to state capitalism.

So has the usage of wearing clothing while taking state power. I guess clothing is the problem, and we should do it naked. Fuck, you're a moron. Using this logic, no revolution can ever exist. Why? Because it's impossible to achieve revolution without vangaurdism (AS WE SAW IN HISTORY) and according to you, Vangaurdism leads to counter revolution.

No, no, the hypocrite scum you are, you're going to say "IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR, FACTORS EXTERNAL FROM THE LIBERTARIAN MODE OF ORGANIZATION CAUSED THE DEFEAT OF THE CNT AND FAI!!!11111"

You like to play the materialist when defending the Anarchist movements, but when it comes to the Bolsheviks, it's an ejaculation of Idealism.

Do you see your inconsistency now? I'm showing it you and you should be able to see it with the naked eye, no bullshit.


That changes nothing about the theory.


Theory is useless, abstract, garbage if it doesn't correlate with the reality of it's time, or our time, to be more precise.


Rule of Law, like most issues, is not so black and white as you want to make it out to be.

I wrote a very long piece on the Idealist trick of "balanced" ideology, of trying to tell materialists "The world is much more complicated than X". Remains all the relevant. There is no complexity. You're a mechanical ape, and so am I. If you want to think there is something within humans beyond this, you're delusional.


"Only a sith deals in absolutes" they say.

Well, fuck them.


There are countries with stronger and weaker rule of law. That doesn't mean it never existed.


Name me where it has existed. Name.


Mother was a housewife, dad's been a lifelong factory worker, and I"m unemployed. Bourgeois?

I don't give a shit what your class background is. This is what you are ideologically, unconsciously, and in thought.


I stand for direct democracy and universal suffrage? Is that bourgeois?

As an objective universal law it is. Direct Democracy is just plain stupidity, but it can be Bourgeois, yes, it is, as a matter of fact. Why do you want direct democracy? So us, the corruptions of power, will not take a hold? This pressuposes several concepts inherent to Bourgeois thought.


I am wholeheartedly against private property and capital's existence, not only in my politics but in my personal life

Officially and Formally. That doesn't mean you have the necessary unconscious scientific base to avoid those views crumbling to pieces, one by one.


... is that bourgeois?


It is meaningless without the scientific base that could allow those things to be opposed.


Who is the vanguard?


The Party. Their rule is not objective, as objective morality and so on is bullshit.


I am not to decide any of this, and this should be clear based on my many posts on this site. The difference between you and I is that I am not willing to give up proletarian power to people if they just claim they represent their interests.

The Bolsheviks had majority support among the proletariat. They did indeed represent the interests of the proletariat, in practice, not just in tongue.


Next thing you'll be accusing me of supporting Obama because I was against the Iraq War...


That analogy doesn't work.


No they act on what they perceive to be the interests of their class. There's a big difference.


No, they act on the interests of their class, or they are deposed.

[Rafiq]

There have been varying degrees to which states have abides by the rule of law in different times.

Name one.


Superstructural remnants are a material condition.


No, they aren't. That's why they are called superstructure, and not base.

But anyway, do you perceive anything that exists to be a "Material condition"? If so, you're misinformed about what Materialism means for Marxists.


And I've said that whether or not it was him or his class that was power hungry doesn't change the critique.

Such a distinction is impossible in this case.


Whether or not individuals or the figureheads of classes hijacked the Revolutions doesn't change the fact that they were hijacked.

The Bolshevik revolution was never hijacked. It's grave was dug, and that's all.

[Rafiq]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u0bihnEnYQo/TlxWHOSo23I/AAAAAAAAAPQ/Z1I6pLAM5bw/s1600/billy_madison_principal_no_points_mercy_soul_movie _image_01+%25281%2529.jpg

That about sums up my response.

Cool story bro.

[Rafiq]

The operative phrase being; 'as far as I'm concerned..'

I was referring to this thread;
http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-strict-anti-t166276/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-strict-anti-t166276/index.html)

Okay? Just because I couldn't find the time to respond doesn't mean he won. He deployed the same nonsense he did before, i.e. Didn't bring any new arguments.


Neither am I. Of course; this presumes you're employing it in the literal sense, which, of course, you aren't.

I am. You are a legit Liberal. The American Democrat types. You carry all the characteristics, namely the smug attitude and the moralism.


Howard Zinn was an Anarchist. I don't see any connection to Oliver Stone, or Michael Parenti, although, admittedly; I'm only vaguely familiar with his work.[/SIZE]

The differences being that Parenti can actually spout up something useful instead of repeating the same old Anti Imperialism which is obvious to anyone who isn't a complete fucking idiot.


I was referring to the assertion, the truth claim, that I made; that censorship of the kind you were advocating is fundamentally antithetical to Socialism.

Moralist, at best. You hate the religious so much but you carry more of their characteristics then them themselves. Socialism has nothing to do with Liberty, Freedom or Censorship. It's about class interest, class dictatorship and force.


I stood by that, and I still do.

And you're still an idiot. Big deal.


That's not my revolution. That's not the revolution I want any part of.

Good, no one needs your Liberal ass anyway.


You did nothing of the sort.


According to who?

[Rafiq]

Uhm, you've just admitted that most people in the USSR weren't workers at the time the Bolsheviks took power. How is that not a vanguard?

That had nothing to do with the vangauridst strategy developed by German revolutionaries, though.


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. How does a "state" become a "class"? It's quite obvious that by the time workers were a majority in the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks had become a bunch of institutionalised Party fat-cats. Fucking bureaucrats.

The question of the class nature of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (I would not dare call them Bolsheviks) is an interesting one. Currently I'm holding that they were a manager class, a class of capital which developed in correspondence with the degeneration of the revolution up until the sixties where the degeneration was fully actualized. They were not the cause of the failure, but products of it.


Which is why the Soviet Union is currently a worker's paradise... wait, it doesn't even exist any more. Hmm.


What does that have to do with fending off the existing counter revolution? Why are the Bolsheviks and their policies held accountable for the failure of the masses of industrialized countries to carry out a successful revolution? Such necessaited the failure of the Soviet Union.


What was it exactly preventing the Cheka putting people on trial like they should have been doing?


The need to get things done fast. If Cheka would individually waste the recources and people to do a slow process of trying every counter revolutionary (That of which it was pretty obvious to make a distinction, i.e. most of the counter revolutionaries were openly counter revolutionary) it would become chaotic.


Yeah, it's so much easier just to shoot people. :rolleyes:


Indeed. I'd read Ten days that shook the world, and you'll get a perception of the nature of the counter revolution in Russia. It wasn't about kidnapping random people and trying to see if they were enemies or not. The Counter Revolutionaries were left alone until the Civil War, namely when the White Terror forces started to butcher proletarians.


Still a minority. Also, not all bourgeois/petit-bourgeois will be engaged in counter-revolutionary activity, just like not all proletarians will be loyal to their class even during a revolution.

Are you aware of how many people actually engage in war? Here's a hint: If two countries are going at it, one has a population of 100 million and the other Ten million, chances are it's not going to make much a difference in regards to how many soldiers are deployed on the battle field.


Class background can give statistical likelihoods, but when you get down to individual people, all sorts of other influences and factors come into play and by necessity we must judge each case on their individual merits.

To act upon your class interest or another class doesn't change the fact you're still acting on behalf of the interest of some class. A proletarian can hold views inherent to the Petite Bourgeoisie, but this is called false consciousness.


Let's also not forget about the increasing wealth gaps which are squeezing more and more people out of the petite-bourgeois class.


Wealth has little to nothing to do with how class is categorized. In Germany, the Petite Bourgeois class didn't respond very well to being (attempts) coerced into proletarians. Surly we know what came about. They certainly didn't join the revolutionaries, if that's a worthy hint.


Come on, even the imperialists pay lip service to the concept of "winning hearts and minds", because everyone else tends to find the concept of shooting up entire neighbourhoods in the service of capital to be revolting. If we want to genuinely succeed in the long term, we must do more than pay lip service to the concept of winning people over - we must actually do it.


Why do we need the support of the former ruling class? We don't. The Bourgeois classes need proletarians, but not vice versa.



It's looking worse and worse for the Bolsheviks. A minority taking power in the name of the majority? Sounds like the same old shit.


They never took power in the name of a "Majority". From day one, they claimed to be representing the interests of the Russian proletariat. One of the main propaganda attempts against the Bolsheviks on behalf of the White army for the Peasants was that the Bolsheviks played favorites to the Proletariat.

Bolshevik means "Majority" as in Majority in the Russian Social democratic Marxist party (If that's how it's worded, I give fuck all), not population.



Fuck that. Why the fuck would I throw off one set of chains just to put myself in another? I don't want to have to justify my possession of media equipment to some chump ideologue who thinks I might use it to spread counter-revolutionary propaganda. Try putting yourself in the shoes of an actual proletarian, instead of some Party operative.


Why make this personal? It isn't about you or me. Never was. I'm not here to convince you to join the revolution.


The internet is a means of communication. Just because society is undergoing a revolution doesn't mean people will stop communicating. If anything, they would be doing more communicating.

In all honesty, by that time, when capitalism has deteriorated that much, I'm not sure internet will be available to most people.


When the potential for socioeconomic re-organisation is genuinely on the cards, people are going to turn to the communications medium least likely to have them ending up with some Party official or whatever breathing down their neck, and the internet can be pretty good for that.

Or Worker's corporates (I hope you understand the word "Corporate" external from "Corporation" in the American sense, or in the Fascist sense).


The moment we make a policy of shooting people for no good reason is the moment the revolution is lost,

Why would a policy ever be made of that nature?


as far as I am concerned. Because in such a scenario it is inevitable that power ends up collecting in the hands of those calling the shots,

No, it's not. What, are we just here to make baseless assertions? Power cannot exist without a class basis. Power "corrupting" is inherent to the capitalist mode of production due to the existence of capital, which like a beast, devours everything. When "Moral Social Democrats" get in power, so long as they coexist with capital, they become 'evil' mother fucking neoliberals This is why the "power corrupts" theory exists, i.e. it is only inherent to capitalism. Without Capital, it's empty.


and also that innocent proletarians end up getting ganked by the very people professing to be their liberators. Screw that, comrade.


It's not how it works.


He's already hurt people, I was thinking more along the lines that I'd be unmoved if some person snapped and decided to shoot off his ugly mug.


Remember, though, friend, it's not about revenge.


You're right in that the Bolsheviks fought with others against the Whites. But once the Bolsheviks had secured their power base, that's when they started coming down on the likes of anarchists and uppity sailors at Kronstadt.

Not too familiar with the situation in Krodstat as in I don't know about taking sides. It, I would describe, was tragic. On one hand, the Bolsheviks had to submit to Capital and the revolution died, on the other hand, the Krodstat sailors could have made little to no difference in preventing that and would have ended up in the same mess the Bolsheviks did (due to the isolation, and so on).


The class war is fought in arenas other than the field of battle, you know. In fact I would be bold enough to say that socioeconomic factors are more decisive in class struggle than force of arms.


Revolutionary Civil War is a class war, in the end.

[Rafiq]

I hope no one expects me to be in this thread for at least a week. It's one of hte last goddamn weeks of high school and I've wasted enough time addressing all these posts. Projects, essays, tests and so on.

I'll be back (To this thread) maybe on the weekend? Dunno.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Infraction to Rafiq

Reason: Flaming

[leftistman]

No. Under socialism, the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned and regulated by the community as a whole. Socialism opposes private property and private ownership of the means of production, but this does not apply in the music industry because the music is created by the musicians who then receive payment for the music that they created, so in a way, the music industry is a form of socialism. I do realize that in many other ways, however, it is capitalistic. Socialism also retains respect for personal property and luxuries such as music are personal property so socialism generally does not seek to censor or regulate music.

[NGNM85]

Okay? Just because I couldn't find the time to respond doesn't mean he won. He deployed the same nonsense he did before, i.e. Didn't bring any new arguments.

Actually I think all the salient points (The ones that are in any way relevant to this conversation.) were covered.


I am.

No, you’re not, because, literally speaking, it doesn’t make sense. Being a Liberal is like being a Buddhist, or a marmoset. You are, or you are not. This can be definitively determined because these categories have objective definitions.


You are a legit Liberal.

No, I’m not. I’m an Anarchist. More than that, I’m actually a very orthodox one, for lack of a better term. My philosophical pedigree includes Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and more modern figures like Bookchin, Zinn, and Chomsky. This isn’t some obscure, or radical offshoot like John Zerzan, and the neo-luddites, or the so-called; ‘Anarcho-Capitalists.’ That’s dead center. I mean, it doesn’t really matter, because you detest them just as much, but that’s beside the point.


The American Democrat types.

I’m not going to bother to debate the accuracy of terms you’ve just invented, which, thus, have no objective definitions.


You carry all the characteristics, namely the smug attitude…

Being as arrogant as you are, you really don’t have much right to level this criticism at anyone.


…and the moralism.

Not if we’re defining ‘moralism’ as, quote; ‘the belief that morals are the basis of society, so if a society is doing bad economically, this is tied to the morals of it’s citizens.’ (sic) Again; RGacky already decimated this nonsense.


The differences being that Parenti can actually spout up something useful instead of repeating the same old Anti Imperialism which is obvious to anyone who isn't a complete fucking idiot.

Again; I am only vaguely familiar with Parenti’s work, and, therefore; I cannot pass judgment upon it.

I don’t think it’s so much an issue of intelligence as the fact that Americans are heavily indoctrinated, from the cradle to the grave. Most of them don’t even realize it, because they really don’t know anything else. Also; being spoon fed a steady diet of propaganda, and bullshit, were they to encounter an objective rendering of the facts it would probably sound crazy to them, because it’s so antithetical to everything they’ve always known.


Moralist, at best.

See above.


You hate the religious so much but you carry more of their characteristics then them themselves.

Typically, you’ve neglected to qualify this, but this strikes me as completely baseless. Anarchism doesn’t really lend itself to dogmatism very well because it does not claim to offer any special revelations about how the world works, nor does it have any specific demands on adherents’ behavior, only generalized principles. Also; Anarchism is not teleological. I tend to be very (Small ‘c’.) conservative in my predictions. There’s simply no comparison. There are quite a few rigid dogmatists, around these parts, who could, quite accurately, be described as; ‘religious’, but I’m not one of them.

Also; I don’t hate religious people, at least not all of them. I’m not even sure I would say I hate religion, though I certainly detest it. However; this is merely an emotional reaction to the objectively harmful effects of religion.


Socialism has nothing to do with Liberty, Freedom or Censorship. It's about class interest, class dictatorship and force.

Socialism is the apotheosis of liberty. Marx referred to the Paris Commune as an example of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’;

‘ The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive, and legislative at the same time. This form of popular government, featuring revocable election of councilors and maximal public participation in governance, resembles contemporary direct democracy.’

In other words; Anarchist Libertarianism.


And you're still an idiot. Big deal.

Your insight is shattering.


Good, no one needs your Liberal ass anyway.

This is the arrogance that I was talking about. You have not been appointed the official spokesman for the Radical Left. There are quite a few Radicals around these parts, myself included, who vehemently disagree with you. Of course, you’ll claim this is simply because they aren’t as ‘enlightened’ as you are.


According to who?

According to myself. (Of course, this is yet another point of disagreement.) You mostly just regurgitated the same tired, flawed arguments.

[Revolution starts with U]

I will respond in detail in not too long of a time. I just want to say that reading Rafiq's posts all I can think of is "we're at war with East Asia, we've always been at war with East Asia." It makes me wonder... when you said Oceana had succesfully carried out a Revoltuion... just how much were you joking?

[Rafiq]

I will respond in detail in not too long of a time. I just want to say that reading Rafiq's posts all I can think of is "we're at war with East Asia, we've always been at war with East Asia." It makes me wonder... when you said Oceana had succesfully carried out a Revoltuion... just how much were you joking?

You make it as if it's a taboo, obscure view to classify the October Revolution as a proletarian revolution.

Actually, majority of Libertarians I know hold this position, that it was a genuine worker's revolution. Not a view exclusive to Leninists. Of course, with you're recent bizzare emotional outbursts carried out in several other threads, what can I say?

[Revolution starts with U]

I may have approached my responses initially by making it too personal. But I don't see anywhere that I engaged in "bizarre emotional outbursts." :rolleyes:

[Grenzer]

No, I’m not. I’m an Anarchist. More than that, I’m actually a very orthodox one, for lack of a better term. My philosophical pedigree includes Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and more modern figures like Bookchin, Zinn, and Chomsky. This isn’t some obscure, or radical offshoot like John Zerzan, and the neo-luddites, or the so-called; ‘Anarcho-Capitalists.’ That’s dead center. I mean, it doesn’t really matter, because you detest them just as much, but that’s beside the point.

Most of the people you just listed there are liberals. Especially Bakunin, Bookchin, and Chomsky. Bakunin wasn't even a communist on an objective level since he failed to recognize that on a practical level, communism must be the result of the self-emancipation of the proletariat. In fact the entire Bakuninist strategy revolving around the mass strike is pure anti-communism, since it attempts to fool the workers into taking power by causing a collapse of bourgeois society but without the workers necessarily having a conscious demand for socialism.

It's interesting that you would identify yourself as an orthodox Anarchist. Usually the more savvy anarchists are able to recognize the anti-communism of Bakunin and disassociate themselves from him.



Typically, you’ve neglected to qualify this, but this strikes me as completely baseless. Anarchism doesn’t really lend itself to dogmatism very well because it does not claim to offer any special revelations about how the world works, nor does it have any specific demands on adherents’ behavior, only generalized principles. Also; Anarchism is not teleological. I tend to be very (Small ‘c’.) conservative in my predictions. There’s simply no comparison. There are quite a few rigid dogmatists, around these parts, who could, quite accurately, be described as; ‘religious’, but I’m not one of them.

You are right that dogmatism does not lend itself to anarchism very well, but petit-bourgeois opportunism does. Why? Let's consider a few things. Vagueness and obscurantism are factors that only work in favor of degeneration into bourgeois opportunism. A revolutionary ideology needs to make a clear and unambiguous statement as to the role of its purpose, aims, and objectives. Furthermore, a clear and unambiguous political program is needed. Anarchism itself does not have this. Furthermore, class struggle is not an explicit, necessary component of anarchism. Usually anarchists will say that their main objective is the abolition of hierarchy, which has little(if it does, then it's usually incidental) to nothing to do with the abolition of classes.

What is it that all the brands of Anarchism have in common, then? I'll ignore the likes of anarcho-capitalism for the purposes of this. Usually vague sentiments like "liberty", and "Freedom", but it's not uncommon to also see principles such as the abolition of hierarchy. The real question we need to be asking here is: what do these have to do with communism? The answer is a resounding nothing at all. Communism is the movement which seeks to abolish the present state of things; capitalism. As such, we do have some idea of what communism will not have; namely the things that define capitalism as capitalism, such as generalized wage labour and generalized commodity production, and class distinctions. Anarchist principles tend to be irrelevant to this.

Generalized principles are not something we need. What we need is a clear and unambiguous statement of revolutionary socialist intent, which Anarchism lacks. It is absolutely crucial to be clear and unambiguous because the implications of the generalized principles are not self evident. It is vital to recall that in any society, the dominant ideology will be the ideology of the ruling class. So if there are only vague, obscure principles such as exist in anarchism, then those things which have to be inferred because they are not being directly stated will tend to be bourgeois conclusions. This creates an ideological atmosphere that is extremely conductive for bourgeois opportunism. I am not simply singling Anarchism out on this, as it can be a problem with Marxist groups as well, but Anarchism by it's very nature is guilty of this in nearly every instance.

It's also worth mentioning that the treasured anarchist principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity are the watchwords of bourgeois revolutionaries, not proletarian revolutionaries. It should come as no surprise that as a result, Anarchist rhetoric actually bears a striking resemblance to that of the bourgeois revolutionaries of old and contemporary libertarian capitalists.



The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive, and legislative at the same time. This form of popular government, featuring revocable election of councilors and maximal public participation in governance, resembles contemporary direct democracy.’

There are a lot of problems with this statement, but I'll only focus on the big ones.

What you are doing here is hoisting up an example, and idea of how society should be run, and making it into a principle which should not be deviated from. This is the very definition of idealism, the backbone of liberalism.

Marx never pretended that the Paris Commune was some brilliant shining example of how communist revolution could work. In fact he directly stated that it was never socialist nor could it have been. The material conditions for the abolition of the laws of capital did not yet exist, the bourgeoisie certainly did exist in Paris during the time of the communes.

There is no single organizational method that is all pervasive. Appropriateness is determined by the material conditions, if one is a materialist at least. If you are a liberal, on the other hand, then you will hold up some vague and idealistic principle like "Libertarianism" as some ideal which must be aspired to.


In other words; Anarchist Libertarianism.

I'm not sure how it's compatible with Anarchism given that they certainly had a state. State power was in control of the working class.

As for it's so-called "Libertarian" aspects, this is what was regarded to be the pinnacle of bourgeois foolishness by Marx. The chief failures of the Paris Commune is that despite the working class having taken state power, they failed to fully expropriate the means of destruction and destroy the class enemy.

In an ironic sense, it's kind of appropriate that you cite the Paris Commune as an example of "Anarchist Libertarianism"(Isn't that an oxymoron anyway?) since the bourgeoisie existed, the capitalist mode of production was alive and well, and there was no potential for the actually liberation of the proletariat from capital. The same logical end for any movement which adheres to idealist principles, and the same historical ends that have actually occurred with existing Anarchist movements. Their rhetoric of the bourgeois ideal of "Freedom" and "Liberty" tends to obscure the fact that they never overcame capital and were in reality little more than ordinary dictatorships.

[Ocean Seal]

No, I’m not. I’m an Anarchist. More than that, I’m actually a very orthodox one, for lack of a better term. My philosophical pedigree includes Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and more modern figures like Bookchin, Zinn, and Chomsky. This isn’t some obscure, or radical offshoot like John Zerzan, and the neo-luddites, or the so-called; ‘Anarcho-Capitalists.’ That’s dead center. I mean, it doesn’t really matter, because you detest them just as much, but that’s beside the point.

Orthodoxy is inherently anti-proletarian. We as revolutionary leftists cultivate the proletarian science through experience and theory. To fixate on dead figures is idealism which derives its philosophical origins from bourgeois thought.




Not if we’re defining ‘moralism’ as, quote; ‘the belief that morals are the basis of society, so if a society is doing bad economically, this is tied to the morals of it’s citizens.’ (sic) Again; RGacky already decimated this nonsense.

The belief that society should be governed according to morals or ideals is also included under moralism.




Typically, you’ve neglected to qualify this, but this strikes me as completely baseless. Anarchism doesn’t really lend itself to dogmatism very well because it does not claim to offer any special revelations about how the world works, nor does it have any specific demands on adherents’ behavior, only generalized principles. Also; Anarchism is not teleological. I tend to be very (Small ‘c’.) conservative in my predictions. There’s simply no comparison. There are quite a few rigid dogmatists, around these parts, who could, quite accurately, be described as; ‘religious’, but I’m not one of them.
Calling yourself orthodox sounds religious no?



Also; I don’t hate religious people, at least not all of them. I’m not even sure I would say I hate religion, though I certainly detest it. However; this is merely an emotional reaction to the objectively harmful effects of religion.
Words, words.



Socialism is the apotheosis of liberty. Marx referred to the Paris Commune as an example of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’;
Again idealism.


‘ The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive, and legislative at the same time. This form of popular government, featuring revocable election of councilors and maximal public participation in governance, resembles contemporary direct democracy.’
In other words; Anarchist Libertarianism.
Again, this doesn't mean that liberty has anything to do with socialism, it is merely a description of one of the aspects of government of the Paris commune.

[Revolution starts with U]

Name one.

The US generally abided by its own laws more than fascist Germany during the run up to and during WW2. Both sides did step past their own legality, to be sure, but that doesn't change the fact that you could trust the law more in one country than the other.


No, they aren't. That's why they are called superstructure, and not base.

I don't see how one can define anything other than people and their interactions being the "base." How could superstructure not include mode of production, when it can only exist if people exist and interract.

But anyway, do you perceive anything that exists to be a "Material condition"? If so, you're misinformed about what Materialism means for Marxists.

Perhaps I am. If so, it is because Marxists are severely redefining what the term "material" means.


Such a distinction is impossible in this case.

... which doesn't change anything about the critique.


The Bolshevik revolution was never hijacked. It's grave was dug, and that's all.
This doesn't explain why the Revolution failed to spread. It doesn't explain why the Bolsheviks suppressed consistent leftists. And it totally absolves the USSR of any failures.
It's a far too deterministic view of history, which basically posits that people are irrelevant to society; that the revolution would have played out exactly the same with entirely different actors.
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past."
You've completely written off the first part of the quote in favor of the latter. Those past relations cannot decide the entirety of history, individual actions are fundamental to human society, because society only functions with individuals.


The Bolsheviks were delegates, instruments of class rule. That's different from the Bourgeois state telling the proletariat "Listen up you little fucks, you can either have me fuck you in this position, or another position".

Of what class? Certainly not the proletariat. And they most certainly did, by their own admission, say "listen up you little fucks, you can either have us fuck you in this position" or die... actually. There was no "other" option even on the table.



Black Panther party and several feminist movements beg to fucking differ.

Source plz


Had nothing to do with the Democratic Party and Republicans (As this is a recent historical phenomena) but no, it wasn't a "democratic" vote. The masses did not devise this and say "LISTEN BOURGEOIS STATE, CARRY THIS OUT FOR US". They simply agreed to it, and if they didn't, they would have gotten something worse.

The bourgeoisie could only have gained legitimacy for their chosen mode of government by making this move. They couldn't even get the Constitution passed without making a formal promise that it would include a Bill of Rights.

Not that it matters since you see democracy as irrelevant to proletarian dictatorship.


Indeed. It's blatantly fucking obvious that everything is made of matter. "Material Forces" are strictly economic (In relation to the mode of production).

Then this is a sever redefining of the term "material" and you should not be surprised if people misunderstand.


I'm deploying the Marxist definition in regards to Materialism. No one in their right mind believes the computer you're on isn't made of matter.

Yes, but some people believe ideas and/or emotions are not.


:laugh: No, they're not. Thoughts are product of "matter". But that's metaphysical.
Thoughts are an energy, an electrochemical energy, to be specific. They are just as much "matter" as hydrogen is. You know, E=MC^2; energy equals matter.

I'm talking about real, pragmatic materialism, i.e. Thoughts are shaped in direct reflection to the material world (mode of production and it's relations). It's not the other way around.

Those relations don't change on their own... people change them, people with ideas. It should be obvious that even tho Marx was a product of 19th ce Capitalism, his personal contribution did have a significant impact on the future. That if Marx and the general proletarian movement of the time laid the groundwork for the Russian revolt, that certainly means that "material forces" shape "ideas," and concurrently "ideas" (which are material, as a said) help to shape future "material forces."
Or is Ford and his researchers irrelevant to the assembly line model of industry?



Not necessarily.

You're right, not "necessarily." But often so. All that exists has some, at least small, influence on all that exists.


Of course laws impact the way people behave. So does religion. That doesn't mean they don't rely on material forces to exist.
Ok.

That means the Bourgeois class will change the laws, and in turn, these laws will alter the original way they behave. Meaning Laws are not a material force, they are useless in the face of what necessitated them. Laws are interchangeable, but the Bourgeois class is not.

Where I disagree is with the bolded. They are not, nor cannot be, "useless in the face of what necessitated them."
There's a reason censorship is even postulated, and its the same reason you support it; namely that "ideas" have real material force. If ideas didn't have real force, censoring them would be irrelevant, as it would just be like banning unicorns.


I'm talking about the Communist movement as a whole, including Anarchist movements.

Ok...?



They did. They deemed it necessary when their brothers were massacred by White Terror. If the Bolsheviks did nothing, they would have been overthrown.
So the US proletariat deems the US state necessary because it hasn't overthrown it yet?

Maybe you'd approve of workers getting massacred to protect your sacred Liberalist morality, but fuck you.

Ya, that's exactly my position... :rolleyes:


The USSR, you mean, after the revolutionary period? They were not counter revolutionaries. There was no revolution anymore to birth a "counter" revolution.

Kronstadt and Petrograd both happened before the Civil War was over, as had numerous other uprising begun in 1921 when it became clear that, even thought they had won, the central government had no intentions of allowing the working class to empower itself.



The Bolsheviks didn't "name" the state a proletarian state. It was one by default, in practice. The "Prole" movements against it? You mean the Menshevik scum? Hardly revolutionaries. They were dogs of the kornilovists and the counter revolution.

Let me ask you a question: were there any legitimate proletarian uprisings against the Soviet government? Was any of the worker or left opposition to the Bolsheviks genuine, or was it all implemented by the bourgeoisie?



Laws change in accordance with material conditions. The Bourgeoisie responds to material conditions to adjust to them in a manner which serves their interest. Do the fucking math. Why should it be different for a proletarian state?

Yes, but they don't just always immediately act against them. The difference between the Rule of Law and the Rule of Men is that in a society at least partially beholden to the RoL, the ruling class at least tries to stick to the laws it has set for everyone else. It's a question of legitimacy, and no regime has lasted long without at least giving a head nod to the RoL, from Marius to Stalin, it has always been this way.


Your excessive use of liberal terminology is worthy of having you shunned from any sort of Leftist discussion.

And executed? :rolleyes:
What exactly does this, in any way, have to do with your position that because me and the US gov't agree on a thing, I support the US gov't?


Must I address this?

You mustn't do anything you don't want to.


They are instruments of those conditions.

So then you do see people as (almost?) entirely irrelevant to history? That it would have all played out the same even with entirely different actors? That Roman history wouldn't have changed a lick if Ceaser had not been assassinated on the Ides of March?



Men and Women make history, but not as an expression of their will, not as they please. What this meant is that they do make history, but not consciously.

That's not what that meant at all. It meant that people don't make history in a vacuum.



Dumbass, he was already pretty wealthy. And it doesn't matter what personal motivations he had, like the dog he was, if he didn't wipe the ass of the Bourgeois class, it's off with his goddamn head. So personal interest for him external from the interest of his class, in a position of political power, did not exist.

1) "Pretty wealthy" is rarely enough, because wealth only exists as a means of exercising power.
2) Much of the bourgeois was pretty upset at him for grabbing power like he did, and in the way he ruled.
"Bonaparte discounted this future for it when, on December 4, he had the eminent bourgeois of the Boulevard Montmartre and the Boulevard des Italiens shot down at their windows by the drunken army of law and order...
"The bourgeoisie never tired of crying out to the revolution what St. Arsenius cried out to the Christians: “Fuge, tace, quiesce!” [“Flee, be silent, keep still!”] Bonaparte cries to the bourgeoisie: “Fuge, tace, quiesce!"...
France therefore seems to have escaped the despotism of a class only to fall back under the despotism of an individual, and what is more, under the authority of an individual without authority

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch07.htm
~Marx 1852

He goes on to say that, "And yet the state power is not suspended in the air. Bonaparte represented a class, and the most numerous class of French society at that, the small-holding peasants." This is so because, "The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore (because their class nature is in isolation, unlike the proles which is in solidarity) finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself."

His decisions were made in the interest of not himself individually, but of the Bourgeois class. That basically sums it up. So back to the point, a proletarian white knight (I.e. A very powerful state) wouldn't "corrupt" because his decisions, like Napoleons, would be of the interest of his class.
(Keep in mind that, " let us not misunderstand. The Bonaparte dynasty represents not the revolutionary, but the conservative peasant;")

The whole article is basically about how the bourgeoisie created the situation for a Napoleon, and then got pissed because he showed himself to be an opportunist more focused on implementing his view of what society should be than them.
Basically the whole article is a testament to how class struggle is far less deterministic than you want to make it out to be. Individuals and their actions are important to society, and by definition must be, because society is just an abstraction of individuals, their relations to each other, and the rest of the natural world.

Oh yeah... and
3) We could go back to Augustus Ceaser. He could have fulfilled his class interest by naming anyone more competent as his successor. But he consistently tried and tried again to make sure it was a Ceasarian (eventually being forced, through untimely deaths settling for Tiberius). It's pretty clear he wanted his personal progeny to maintain power, ie that his self interest at least somewhat trumped his class interest.



A lot will in regards to the ludicrous pressupposions you are so keen in drowning yourself into.

Except Marx seemed to think Napoleon's class interest was with the small peasantry. Maybe you should revise this view?


So has the usage of wearing clothing while taking state power. I guess clothing is the problem, and we should do it naked. Fuck, you're a moron. Using this logic, no revolution can ever exist. Why? Because it's impossible to achieve revolution without vangaurdism (AS WE SAW IN HISTORY) and according to you, Vangaurdism leads to counter revolution.

1) The usage of clothing is not a theory on Revolutionary Politics
2) If I believed Vanguardism to be necessary to Revolution this might hold water. But I don't, so this is at best a straw man.
3) Again having to resort to "you disagree with me, therefore you're counterrevolutionary."


No, no, the hypocrite scum you are, you're going to say "IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR, FACTORS EXTERNAL FROM THE LIBERTARIAN MODE OF ORGANIZATION CAUSED THE DEFEAT OF THE CNT AND FAI!!!11111"

I'm actually not that familiar with the Spanish civil war. I don't bring it up often. I certainly wasn't going to bring it up here.
If you knew me better you might know that, although I consider myself an anarchist, I am not an anti-statist per se. And that, through my admittedly limited knowledge of the failures in anarchist Spain, I would say that the lack of a real military would be a prime cause.


You like to play the materialist when defending the Anarchist movements, but when it comes to the Bolsheviks, it's an ejaculation of Idealism.

No, sorry. I will offer much the same critique, as far as the same critique can be made (since they are different situations).


Do you see your inconsistency now? I'm showing it you and you should be able to see it with the naked eye, no bullshit.

... except you just made up a position you thought I would take... not knowing that I have no critique to offer the situation, nor ever have.


Theory is useless, abstract, garbage if it doesn't correlate with the reality of it's time, or our time, to be more precise.

I completely agree with this, as it is said.


I wrote a very long piece on the Idealist trick of "balanced" ideology, of trying to tell materialists "The world is much more complicated than X". Remains all the relevant. There is no complexity. You're a mechanical ape, and so am I. If you want to think there is something within humans beyond this, you're delusional.

Perhaps. But "I wrote a paper critiquing your position" is not actually a critique of a position...


Name me where it has existed. Name.

It exists in every society with law to some extent. That's the point. Legality requires that laws be seen as laws, at least to some extent... which is why regime's that don't even give a nod to RoL quickly fall apart. They are not seen to have legitimacy.


I don't give a shit what your class background is. This is what you are ideologically, unconsciously, and in thought.

So my ideas are more important to whether I should be opposed than whether or not I'm actually a prole? (Even tho my ideas are firmly in support of the proletariat. They just happen, according to you, to be based in bourgeois rationalism.)
Good to know, comrade :rolleyes:


As an objective universal law it is.
Ya, because there has ever been and there is a likelihood of any Bourgeois regime supporting direct democracy...
And again, I believe what I believe because I believe it. I don't see my ethics as any kind of objective universal law, preferring to think the proletariat will make its own society. I just hope to have had an impact on it.

Direct Democracy is just plain stupidity, but it can be Bourgeois, yes, it is, as a matter of fact.
How? How does direct democracy benefit the bourg at all? Why would they ever support it?

Why do you want direct democracy?
Power best represents the interests of people at large when, in my opinion, people at large have a say in the direction of power.

So us, the corruptions of power, will not take a hold?
No, if the people want to vote you into power so be it. Why I want democracy to be upheld is so that, if and when they deem your regime counterproductive, they can get rid of it.

This pressuposes several concepts inherent to Bourgeois thought.

So does the defeat of chattel slavery... what's your point?


Officially and Formally. That doesn't mean you have the necessary unconscious scientific base to avoid those views crumbling to pieces, one by one.

If my views were proven destructive to the empowerment of the Proletarian class, yes, I would abandon them. That's called science. The opposite is called dogma. I have said on numerous occasions that if Socialism had to be brutal and authoritative I would have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the assertion that it must be that way.


It is meaningless without the scientific base that could allow those things to be opposed.

My scientific basis is no different than Marx's. I do, again, consider myself a materialist and class dialecticist. My conclusions are often the same as well.



The Party. Their rule is not objective, as objective morality and so on is bullshit.

Can the heads of the party be recalled? Are they elected through secret ballot? Is there even a "choice" on the ballot (as opposed to "vote for x or nobody")? etc etc



The Bolsheviks had majority support among the proletariat. They did indeed represent the interests of the proletariat, in practice, not just in tongue.

The same questions above work. Also:

However, one key blow against soviet democracy occurred when other revolutionary socialist soviets other than Bolshevik soviets were disbanded in a series of coups d'état because workers returned non-Bolshevik majorities as early as March 1918. Lenin argued that the Soviets and the principle of democratic centralism within the Bolshevik party still assured democracy. However, Lenin also issued a "temporary" ban on factions in the Russian Communist Party. This ban remained until the revolutions of 1989 and according to critics made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality.[4]
.

In theory, citizens selected the candidates for election to local soviets. In practice, at least before the June 1987 elections, these candidates had been selected by the local Communist party, Komsomol, and trade union officials under the direction of the district (raion) party organization. Voting took place after six weeks of campaigning. Though voters formally had the right to vote for or against the unopposed candidate, until 1987 all candidates usually received about 99 percent of the vote.
Despite the party's historic control over local elections, from the nomination of candidates to their unopposed elections,


No, they act on the interests of their class, or they are deposed.
This may be true. What this doesn't change, tho, is that before they were deposed they were acting on what they thought was their class basis.

[NGNM85]

Orthodoxy is inherently anti-proletarian.

Then why are all of you so fucking dogmatic?

You’re missing the forest for the trees. I was simply responding to Rafiq’s baseless, and bogus accusation that I’m not a ‘real’ Anarchist.’ That was it.


We as revolutionary leftists…

As far as I know; you have not been appointed the representative of the Radical Left.


…cultivate the proletarian science through experience and theory.

“Proletarian Science’? Give me a break.


To fixate on dead figures is idealism which derives its philosophical origins from bourgeois thought.

Then there’s a lot of idealism going down, here. Practically every subforum is overflowing with cloying, masturbatory paeans to long-deceased, bearded men. The kind of reverence displayed is nothing short of religious.


The belief that society should be governed according to morals or ideals is also included under moralism.

Morals, when you break it down, are really just hypotheses about the well-being of humans. There’s no qualitative difference.


Calling yourself orthodox sounds religious no?

Modified with; ‘for lack of a better term.’ I thought most people would be smart enough to understand the context.


Words, words.

You’ve correctly identified them as words, yes.

On a more serious note; I don’t think this is merely semantics.


Again idealism.

No;it's a fact. Like Marx said; ‘Democracy is the road to Socialism.’ There must be a confluence between means, and ends. You don’t get to Anarchosyndicalist paradise via monolithic police state.


Again, this doesn't mean that liberty has anything to do with socialism, it is merely a description of one of the aspects of government of the Paris commune.

However; the context of that quote, from The Civil War in France, was that the Paris Commune represented an example of the form, and function of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is worlds away from a monolithic, bureaucratic collective controlled entirely by a small coterie of party elites. Engels said the same thing, in the postscript; ‘"Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat…" (My emphasis.)

[Rafiq]

One of the last weeks of my academic courses (Second to last), so I'm busy. I haven't read your responses though I can already tell they're just as shit as the ones before them. Expect responses Friday Night or Saturday. Though, I do feel a bit dumbed down either from that, or from the atrocious assertions put forward by RSWU. I feel like my intellectual standards are lowering... :bored:

[l'Enfermé]

You don’t get to Anarchosyndicalist paradise via monolithic police state. You don't get to anarchosyndicalist paradise, period. Zing! Just joking :laugh:



However; the context of that quote, from The Civil War in France, was that the Paris Commune represented an example of the form, and function of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is worlds away from a monolithic, bureaucratic collective controlled entirely by a small coterie of party elites. Engels said the same thing, in the postscript; ‘"Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat…" (My emphasis.) That's fine and dandy, but what does the Paris Commune have to do with "liberty", the slogan of classical liberals and bourgeois economists? It's more of a thing for the likes of John Locke and Stuart Mill.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

This may be a dumb question but in a Socialist State would there be censorship as far as Music ? I listen to all kinds of Music is why Im asking. I enjoy Music but I don't think people should be making millions of dolars a year off of Music.


That depends.

In lower socialism, it would be necessary to censor some songs for political and anti-propaganda reasons. Similarly, some music would be supported, and even made just for, propaganda reasons.

But ultimately, some songs such as "Billionaire" may be censored even in the higher stages of socialism (and even stages of communism). Or, it could be used to highlight the self serving aspect of the capitalist bourgeoisie.

It should go without saying The Internationale will always be a popular song amongst the revolutionary left.

[NGNM85]

That's fine and dandy, but what does the Paris Commune have to do with "liberty", the slogan of classical liberals and bourgeois economists? It's more of a thing for the likes of John Locke and Stuart Mill.

The idea that simply because ‘bourgeois’ philosophers often employ the word, that the concept of ‘freedom’ it is somehow fundamentally, and inextricably 'bourgeois', is simply Postmodernist foolishness. No, what should be the sensible, Socialist, take on it would be that liberty, like democracy, is an ideal, and exists within the broader socioeconomic structure. So, to have a minimal, to moderate degree of political freedoms, in a capitalist society, where most people spend the majority of their waking lives as wage-slaves to private dictatorships, is like a sandwich without the bread. That isn’t an argument against political freedoms, or ‘freedom’, as a concept. The conclusion should be that we should democratize both the political system, and the workplace; then, and only then, can liberty truly blossom. In a nutshell; ‘Liberty without Socialism is privilege, and injustice, but Socialism without liberty is slavery, and brutality.’

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That depends.

In lower socialism, it would be necessary to censor some songs for political and anti-propaganda reasons. Similarly, some music would be supported, and even made just for, propaganda reasons.

So who decides:

1) What is and isn't propaganda (not all creative expressions have a economic, social or political agenda, believe it or not)?

2) Which propaganda gets promoted and which gets suppressed?

3) How 1) and 2) are worked out.


But ultimately, some songs such as "Billionaire" may be censored even in the higher stages of socialism (and even stages of communism). Or, it could be used to highlight the self serving aspect of the capitalist bourgeoisie.

What would be wrong with just telling the truth? Billionaires were called such because they had billions of dollars.


It should go without saying The Internationale will always be a popular song amongst the revolutionary left.

Unless Stalinists take charge...

[Aussie Trotskyist]

So who decides:

1) What is and isn't propaganda (not all creative expressions have a economic, social or political agenda, believe it or not)?

2) Which propaganda gets promoted and which gets suppressed?

3) How 1) and 2) are worked out.



What would be wrong with just telling the truth? Billionaires were called such because they had billions of dollars.



Unless Stalinists take charge...

I know art doesn't need social or political inspiration (albeit many forms of art reflect reality, and thus does include social problems). I was saying that because art could be used as propaganda for and against our cause.

What is propaganda, and what side its on, would likely be decided by the vanguard party.

I mentioned the song "Billionaire" as possibly being censored, because it supports the idea that money is everything and gives the idea that capitalism is great. I hate that song for that reason (granted, I hate most music on the radio).

And yes, if Stalinists take charge, The Internationale may be replaced with some cult of personality music. Hopefully, however, with the lessons of history, we can avoid any betrayals of the revolution.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I know art doesn't need social or political inspiration (albeit many forms of art reflect reality, and thus does include social problems). I was saying that because art could be used as propaganda for and against our cause.

The correct response is to first counter propaganda through our deeds, not just our words. Of course, if we are genuinely in the right then any propaganda we do make will be that much more effective, surely?


What is propaganda, and what side its on, would likely be decided by the vanguard party.

I reject the authority of your vanguard party. What now?


I mentioned the song "Billionaire" as possibly being censored, because it supports the idea that money is everything and gives the idea that capitalism is great. I hate that song for that reason (granted, I hate most music on the radio).

If there's a genuinely popular revolution, then hardly anyone on the right side of the barricades will be listening to that craptastic song anyway.


And yes, if Stalinists take charge, The Internationale may be replaced with some cult of personality music. Hopefully, however, with the lessons of history, we can avoid any betrayals of the revolution.

Which is why I don't trust your vanguard.

[Revolution starts with U]

Hate. It all comes down to that. Do you reject what you hate, and why or why not?

Next thing you know a guy gains popularity based on his hate of anything left of him and uses that power base to shit on everyone and everything he sees wrong with society.

It's really not our job to tell the proletariat what they can and cannot do in the revolution. Whether that is brutal repression, or libertarian tolerance, it is their decision to make, and if not their decision than not Socialism.

[NGNM85]

Hate. It all comes down to that. Do you reject what you hate, and why or why not?

Next thing you know a guy gains popularity based on his hate of anything left of him and uses that power base to shit on everyone and everything he sees wrong with society.

I think it comes down to authoritarianism, and which side of it you happen to come down on.


It's really not our job to tell the proletariat what they can and cannot do in the revolution. Whether that is brutal repression, or libertarian tolerance, it is their decision to make, and if not their decision than not Socialism.

....Unless the majority chooses to embrace Fascism, or, even the bureaucratic collectivism advocated by a number of the personalities floating about, which, I'd argue, can't honestly be described as 'Socialism.'

[Revolution starts with U]

And has the working class ever chose those, or was it shoved down their throat by men in military costume pointing guns at their faces?

[Rafiq]

The US generally abided by its own laws more than fascist Germany during the run up to and during WW2.

And you, do you think it would have been something positive for Germany to abide by it's own Fascist laws?

The point is that those laws are made in the interest of a class. If they are not followed consistently, it's equally in the interest of that class. The laws themselves are meaningless without this understanding of their class basis.


Both sides did step past their own legality,

Who cares? As I said, laws are changed in accordance to material conditions. The American and German Bourgeois class found it of necessity to do so (Change laws).

But let's stop: Where the fuck did you find that Germany didn't abide by it's own laws as much as the U.S.? Out of your ass? Link.


to be sure, but that doesn't change the fact that you could trust the law more in one country than the other.


You cannot "trust" a law. If you "trust" a law, you trust the Bourgeois class, making you a counter revolutionary.


I don't see how one can define anything other than people and their interactions being the "base."

Humans generally are components of the base. They have created something unintentionally and beyond their will. That is the point: That the base is not changed at will.


How could superstructure not include mode of production, when it can only exist if people exist and interract.


Because the mode of production is the general production of human life and consumption: Strictly economic relations. Things like the superstructure (Law, Morality, and so on) exist to sustain these relations, in the interest of whatever dominant class.

I mean, do you know anything about materialism? You're an Idealist who calls superstructure a material force, including thoughts and Ideas. That's not materialism, can not be materialism, and never will be.


Perhaps I am. If so, it is because Marxists are severely redefining what the term "material" means.


We've defined it that way for more than one hundred years. Anyone who isn't a fucking moron knows everything is made of matter. Who gives a shit?


... which doesn't change anything about the critique.


As a matter of fact, yes it fucking does. You said an individual can hijack a proletarian revolution out of his own self interest external from a class. That totally contradicts what I posted. Every class is "power hungry"(Such a shit, Bourgeois-Liberalist term originating from the likes of Locke, the bastard) in that it wants to for fill it's own class interest by conquest of state dictatorship. No exceptions.


This doesn't explain why the Revolution failed to spread.

That had nothing to do with the Bolsheviks. It was beyond their will and grasp. You don't meant to fucking tell me the proletariat said "OH MY GOD, LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE DOING! NO MROE REVOLUTION!"

Because that doesn't fucking explain why there were several attempts at revolution. Why was there the spartacust uprising in germany, if the proletariat was demoralized by the bolsheviks? Dumbass...

It was problems in organizational structure (for the proletariat in other countries). That's why. No working class had more discipline, organization and pragmaticism as that in Russia.


It doesn't explain why the Bolsheviks suppressed consistent leftists.

Who, the Mensheviks, the Left Socialist revolutionaries? They were counter revolutionaries who wanted to sell the revolution.


And it totally absolves the USSR of any failures.


Shut the hell up. The USSR was a big shit hole, this is merely an explanation for why it was a shit hole.

But yes, ethically, it does. Go fucking cry about it, sensitive Liberal.


It's a far too deterministic view of history, which basically posits that people are irrelevant to society;

Material forces exist independent of the will of human beings. Society is only people, and history is only the interactions between people. It's how we analyse this phenomena which counts.

Here's an example: Language.

The Phonecians were the first to invent the alphabet. Did they do it out of will? Because they wanted to make poetry, and have conversations between one and other? Fuck no!

It was because of their mass trade across the mediteranian, Europe and Africa, they had to find a way to record the trades, and so on. That's a perfect example of materialism. It was only after this, when language was utilized. Only something like the mode of production can give birth to such a complex phenomena.


that the revolution would have played out exactly the same with entirely different actors.


That's completely true. The Revolution would have been the same, all together. Sure, it would maybe have been different in rhetoric and so on, but the over all class nature of the revolution, the way the party dealt with the counter revolution, and so on, would have stayed the same. No existing organizational force could have dealt with the several problems faced by the Bolsheviks.



“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past."

Fucking analyse this in correct context.


You've completely written off the first part of the quote in favor of the latter.

You're such an idiot, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's blatantly obvious that men and women make up history as a whole, but the point is simple: In what way?

:laugh:

For you to make such a... Dialectical analysis of the quote, as if the two are contradictory, as if there needs to be a synthesis, i.e. a "balance" between "Men and Women make history" and "Not as they please".

Fucking moron. The point is very, very fucking simple: The quote is a totality, and there is no balance. It is a radical notion. No one suggests men and women do not make history, Marx was simply asserting that they do it merely as instruments of the mode of production they previously, unintentionally organized themselves into. No one wanted Communism if not something representing the interests of the proletarian class, and so on. It would have never existed as a movement.


Those past relations cannot decide the entirety of history

They do anyway, regardless of your shit opinion. I dare you to name me a case otherwise.


, individual actions are fundamental to human society,

"Individual actions" are determined by their surroundings, therefore it's the surroundings that count.


because society only functions with individuals.


Who the fuck suggested otherwise? But fuck no, anyway. It only functions with collectives of individuals. Individual humans are worthless in this regards and only matter in collective. The Bourgeois class and the Proletarian class are not individuals, but homogeneous collective interests.

Under your logic, poor are poor because of their own 'free will'.


Of what class? Certainly not the proletariat.

You obviously have absolutely no understanding or even a mediocre grasp of the history of the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, it was the proletariat. The Bolsheviks were "Authoritarian" because the proletariat was a minority, the peasants were majority.


And they most certainly did, by their own admission, say "listen up you little fucks, you can either have us fuck you in this position" or die... actually.

They wouldn't have the power to do that without the support of the proletariat. otherwise they (the proletariat) all would have ran to join Makhno or the White army, or something else.

The U.S. aristocrats did it because they had the bourgeois class behind them. Who did the Bolsheviks have behind them? Idiot.


There was no "other" option even on the table.


The working class would do anything to protect the revoltuion. That's why. It's either they fight with terror, or perish. Not on behalf of hte bolsheviks, but the whites. You're right, there wasn't another option. It was either the proletariat watch their comrades be slaughtered by the White Army, like in Petograd, or they adopt organizational methods



Source plz


What, that they existed?

The fact that they existed signifies that Women and Blacks were unsatisfied with the legalist framework, that the democrats were not enough. Or do you think otherwise?


The bourgeoisie could only have gained legitimacy for their chosen mode of government by making this move.

On the contrary, the mode of government was made completely adjusted to their interests. They were quite blatant about "Protecting the wealthy minority against the hoards of the majority".


They couldn't even get the Constitution passed without making a formal promise that it would include a Bill of Rights.


I say, like Lenin said: Promise to whom? The petite bourgeois class, i.e. The reactionary class.


Not that it matters since you see democracy as irrelevant to proletarian dictatorship.


I firmly oppose democracy in the Bordigist sense: The democracy of manipulating the masses, like a Market, to adjust to your will.

I only support democracy in the Aristotilian sense: Mob rule. I oppose the disgusting Bourgeois democracy deployed here, regarding this "Liberty" nonsense. I support Militant democratic dictatorship, to crush the class enemy.

But in the context you've deployed: Fuck democracy.


Then this is a sever redefining of the term "material" and you should not be surprised if people misunderstand.


It's on par with you reading nothing on historical or dialectical materialism.


Yes, but some people believe ideas and/or emotions are not.


Well, no, they aren't. They are definitely reliant on matter, and are products of matter. Anyway, that's irrelevant. They are not material even in the metaphysical sense. Ideas are super structural... And emotions.... Those are primitive. Emotions are facing complex problems in a simplistic manner.

God I hate new agers more than anything.... Shove your 'feelings' up your ass.


Thoughts are an energy, an electrochemical energy, to be specific. They are just as much "matter" as hydrogen is. You know, E=MC^2; energy equals matter.


I don't give a shit about your metaphysical nonsense. But no, the process of thinking is indeed a material one, but the thoughts themselves are not. But even if you're correct, that has nothing to do with Materialism. For all I care, we can be made of space piss. It's irrelevant to the Marxian definition of Material forces. Dialectical Materialism is the metaphysical counter part, which even here isn't contradicted. Thoughts have their origin in a material structure, so matter gives birth to thoughts. Do you deny this?

Fuck off with your new age nonsense.


Those relations don't change on their own... people change them,

You're wrong, they do. People do not care, they act as agents of the mode of production through classes and so on. It's this class warfare that breeds new ones.


people with ideas.

You're wrong again. No one intentionally changes them for fuck all reasons. They change in regards to class interest... My god, who would have predicted capitalism the way it is today? No one. Class interest is a product, a component of the mode of production. Humans are constrained by this and will never move beyond it.


It should be obvious that even tho Marx was a product of 19th ce Capitalism, his personal contribution did have a significant impact on the future.

Marx was a scientist, like Darwin. Marx never layed the groundwork for a future society.

I will quote Kautsky:

"the proletarian movement requires the Bourgeois intelligentisa".

And he's right. The Bourgeois intelligentisa makes up science of our day. Marx was a part of this (Bourgeois intelligentisa).


That if Marx and the general proletarian movement of the time laid the groundwork for the Russian revolt

Russia was going through several revolts and revolutionary movements long before Marx even had the maturity to scruff his own beard.


, that certainly means that "material forces" shape "ideas,"

The Russian proletariat and Peasantry are a material forces which shaped Ideas. So?


and concurrently "ideas" (which are material, as a said) help to shape future "material forces."


You're wrong again. Ideas had nothing to do with the Russian revolution. They were products of material conditions.

Marx was a scientist, first and foremost.


Or is Ford and his researchers irrelevant to the assembly line model of industry?


Yes, they were. Had they not come up with whatever they did, some other asshole would have. But good job giving credit to this Fascist motherfucker, of whom if I ever met personally wouldn't hesitate to fuck him up.


You're right, not "necessarily." But often so. All that exists has some, at least small, influence on all that exists.


Explain how the igbo peoples of west Africa had a significant influence on Lenin's relationship with his wife.


Ok.


What do you mean "Ok"? So now you understand?


Where I disagree is with the bolded. They are not, nor cannot be, "useless in the face of what necessitated them."

Well, they are. Laws will be scrapped and thrown into the shitter when the Bourgeois class finds it necessary. And while you're weeping at their grave, I'll be doing absolutely nothing of that nature.


There's a reason censorship is even postulated, and its the same reason you support it; namely that "ideas" have real material force.

No. The spreading on mass propaganda is indeed super structural to the material force (the class) but again, like laws, that doesn't make them only in existence in concurrence with the material force (class).


If ideas didn't have real force, censoring them would be irrelevant, as it would just be like banning unicorns.


It's not ideas that are censored, it's the spreading of mass propaganda, provocation, and so on. If you're marching down the street with the flag of NATO in an intense revolutionary situation, that's more than an Idea, you're representing the interests of a class enemy.


Ok...?


So your assertion is shit.


So the US proletariat deems the US state necessary because it hasn't overthrown it yet?


Explain how that analogy works. The United States isn't the embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class. The Bolsheviks were, and if they weren't, they would have been overthrown.

There is proof they were. There wasn't a fucking revolutionary situation after the February revolution. In Lenin's April Thesis, even his comrades called him insane. They did not hijack anything, they called for immediate insurrection with the support of the Industrial proletariat, on behalf of the industrial proletariat. Otherwise, why would Lenin risk everything, including his own life, to carry out their interests? Know how many times that mofo almost lost his life in his revolutionary days?


Ya, that's exactly my position... :rolleyes:


To you, avoiding censorship, and "Authoritarianism" are more important.


Kronstadt and Petrograd both happened before the Civil War was over, as had numerous other uprising begun in 1921 when it became clear that,

Krodstat was 1922... And Petograd? There was no such thing. Nothing significant.

The uprisings other than that were done on behalf of the counter revolution.


even thought they had won, the central government had no intentions of allowing the working class to empower itself.


What? It's because they had no choice. Although they won the War, that didn't change the fact that the revolution was isolated and therefore doomed to failure. Stalin was inevitable. They did the best they could. But they soon became a manager class, via the Peasantry, being agents of Capital (Around the mid 1930's).

Look up the Third Period of the comintern. The abolishment of this was the final indication that Capital had devoured the country. So no, by those times, proletarian interest hadn't fully diminished.

Even Collectivization in 32-33' was attempted to be completely voluntary, it's just lower officials struggled with the likes of the Kulaks and depended on Coercion and false promises. This is in no way justification, but it is an indicator that even by that time, not all was lost.


Let me ask you a question: were there any legitimate proletarian uprisings against the Soviet government?

Not on behalf of the proletariat as a whole. I don't buy Krodstat was a conspiracy on behalf of foreign powers or the white army. that doesn't change the fact that had the Krodstat workers been successful, they would have faced the same problems the Bolsheviks did. I'd like to see how they would have handled them. Maybe like in Spain or Free territory? Not exactly what I'd call "Libertarian", to say the least.


Was any of the worker or left opposition to the Bolsheviks genuine, or was it all implemented by the bourgeoisie?


They were tragic, but no, they weren't all counter revolutionaries. But "left opposition" meaning Mensheviks or Left Socialist Revolutionaries, the same people who wanted the Russian bourgeoisie to flourish before a revolution, were far to the Right of the Bolsheviks.

In Russia, Lenin was considered an Anarchist by the Bourgeois class. Crazy shit.


Yes, but they don't just always immediately act against them.

Yeah, they do, practically.


The difference between the Rule of Law and the Rule of Men is that in a society at least partially beholden to the RoL, the ruling class at least tries to stick to the laws it has set for everyone else.

So that's what this nonsense is all about? :laugh:

The U.S. Bourgeoisie can get away with whatever it wants. Name me an example of a country with a "rule of law". Because last time I checked, teh American Bourgeoisie can get away with domestic violence (I know this for a fact, personally), drug abuse ,and so on. What happens when someone in the Ghetto is caught with a joint, but a rich motherfucker is caught with a shit load of Cocaine? The latter doesn't even serve jail time, while the former serves a lot.

Fuck this Bourgeois concept. Laws are nothing but strategic in the game of class warfare. Laws will be made for the former ruling classes that will not apply to others. Who cares? Laws are not external from Humans.


It's a question of legitimacy, and no regime has lasted long without at least giving a head nod to the RoL

Name me a regime with the RoL or a "nod" to it?


, from Marius to Stalin, it has always been this way.


So the fact that they didn't deploy a "rule of law" (just typing it makes me sick) is a justification about why their status quo didn't last long? :laugh:

What an awful analysis. Yeah, take away everything else at hand, and replace it with what you want. How about this: "No regime lasted long enough without even giving a nod to combatting the reptilian shapeshifters".

Please debunk this line without being contradictory to your disgustingly Idealist statement above. Because as far as I can fucking tell, no one gives a nod to the "rule of law". It's not even a contributing factor in the survival of states.

What am I talking to, a fucking third grader whose just been done with his civics class?


And executed? :rolleyes:


No, just not taken seriously and shunned.


What exactly does this, in any way, have to do with your position that because me and the US gov't agree on a thing, I support the US gov't?


The U.S. government agrees? Why isn't that the case, then? Are you aware of all of the horrible atrocities committed by the U.S. government that were only revoked because people fought the legalist framework (Or rule of law?).

Blacks were treated as subhumans, and women as slaves. Hell, slavery was legal at start.

it was only after people challenged this rule of law, where this was revoked.

It is necessary such a bizzare concept is abolished. We oppose execution only when it's deployed in the interest of a certain class. We act upon class interest, not bullshit postmodern garbage.


You mustn't do anything you don't want to.


"Just because I don't care about your respect doesn't mean I want it" is a really dumb thing to say. The fact that you "want it" signifies you care.


So then you do see people as (almost?) entirely irrelevant to history?

No. Their will is irrelivent to the movement of material forces. People are history. There is no distinction. It's just the manner in which they are deployed through it which is disagreed.


That it would have all played out the same even with entirely different actors?

Yeah, and even Bourgeois thinkers knew this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu


That Roman history wouldn't have changed a lick if Ceaser had not been assassinated on the Ides of March?


Rhetoric is different, of course (instead of WE LOVE STALIN you hear WE LOVE TROTSKY). But the movement of material forces and class would have not been different, no. Caesar's assassination was inevitable in that the aristocrats could no longer take his rule.


That's not what that meant at all. It meant that people don't make history in a vacuum.


What do you mean by this? In the sense that they are oblivious to what happens next, yes they do. History is nothing more than a series of class struggles. Not ideological battles or conflicting "ideas".



1) "Pretty wealthy" is rarely enough, because wealth only exists as a means of exercising power.


Napoleon rose to power to serve the Bourgeois class, not as some kind of business stunt. That was my point.


2) Much of the bourgeois was pretty upset at him for grabbing power like he did, and in the way he ruled.


No, they were rejoicing that he put an end to "Jacobin madness". Their the ones who commissioned him, anyway. The Left Wing Bourgeoisie, or the consistent Bourgeoisie did oppose him. They were a minority at that point.


"Bonaparte discounted this future for it when, on December 4, he had the eminent bourgeois of the Boulevard Montmartre and the Boulevard des Italiens shot down at their windows by the drunken army of law and order...
"The bourgeoisie never tired of crying out to the revolution what St. Arsenius cried out to the Christians: “Fuge, tace, quiesce!” [“Flee, be silent, keep still!”] Bonaparte cries to the bourgeoisie: “Fuge, tace, quiesce!"...
France therefore seems to have escaped the despotism of a class only to fall back under the despotism of an individual, and what is more, under the authority of an individual without authority

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch07.htm
~Marx 1852

Marx later disregarded his earlier works when he developed Dialectical and Historical materialism. What's your point?


He goes on to say that, "And yet the state power is not suspended in the air. Bonaparte represented a class, and the most numerous class of French society at that, the small-holding peasants." This is so because, "The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore (because their class nature is in isolation, unlike the proles which is in solidarity) finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself."

What an awful class analysis, if that's correct. I remember reading Bonaparte as the white knight of the Bourgeois class, not the Peasantry, from Marx. Anyway, this is old Marx, try again.


His decisions were made in the interest of not himself individually, but of the Bourgeois class. That basically sums it up. So back to the point, a proletarian white knight (I.e. A very powerful state) wouldn't "corrupt" because his decisions, like Napoleons, would be of the interest of his class.


You forgot to quote this, moron /\


(Keep in mind that, " let us not misunderstand. The Bonaparte dynasty represents not the revolutionary, but the conservative peasant;")


The Bourgeoisie, not the Peasantry. He did get support from the Peasants, but he didn't act upon their interests.


The whole article is basically about how the bourgeoisie created the situation for a Napoleon, and then got pissed because he showed himself to be an opportunist more focused on implementing his view of what society should be than them.

One faction of the Bourgeois class doesn't constitute the whole thing. Try again.


Basically the whole article is a testament to how class struggle is far less deterministic than you want to make it out to be.

"All existing history is a history of class struggles" - K. Marx.

That was his view, consistently. The 18th brumaire, on the other hand, is not something he would agree with in his later days. I am not a "Young Marxist". I a the Marxist of old Marx, of Engels, of Kautsky, and so on.


Individuals and their actions are important to society

Their actions are determined by the mode of production.


, and by definition must be, because society is just an abstraction of individuals

It's not an abstraction of "Individuals" in the sense of "the self". Society is the product of a mode of production, and so is class struggle.


, their relations to each other,

Not in the horse shit new age postmodern sense of "The Self" ("love", and so on) but relations that are fully material (economic).


and the rest of the natural world.


Get your new age shit out of here, like I said. You don't know what is meant by "natural world". Personally I say fuck "Nature", I think the whole world should be paved over, if there weren't any consequences in regards to our survival. I mean, "ecology", like Zizek said, is an illusion. There is no balanced nature. Want to see nature's true face? Katrina. The material world (metaphysically) is not something that adjusts to the will of humans.


Oh yeah... and
3) We could go back to Augustus Ceaser. He could have fulfilled his class interest by naming anyone more competent as his successor. But he consistently tried and tried again to make sure it was a Ceasarian

But he did. There are different factions of classes, you know.


(eventually being forced, through untimely deaths settling for Tiberius). It's pretty clear he wanted his personal progeny to maintain power, ie that his self interest at least somewhat trumped his class interest.

He wasn't the champion of the aristocratic class, so no. This, to him, this decision would be better for his class.


except Marx seemed to think Napoleon's class interest was with the small peasantry. Maybe you should revise this view?


Yeah, young Marx. Try again.


1) The usage of clothing is not a theory on Revolutionary Politics


It's a component of it. Red Armbands, and so on.


2) If I believed Vanguardism to be necessary to Revolution this might hold water. But I don't, so this is at best a straw man.


How? Vanguardism was just as much a failure to the revolution was, as the usage of the newspaper Pravda was. Again, you choose to isolate all material conditions and knit pick. Just like how you chose that whether Stalin had the "rule of law" was a determinant as to whether his status quo would survive. You're absurd.


3) Again having to resort to "you disagree with me, therefore you're counterrevolutionary."


You're a counter revolutionary for many other reasons.

You still failed to address teh fact that every revolutionary attempt that didn't adopt vangaurdism failed. How do you justify this? I'm waiting...

You'll say "But dat had notzhing to do wit why dey failed". And I'll say

"Listen you shit, what right do you have to pick and choose whether Vangaurdist strategy 'fails' revolutions? Under your logic, the fact that they didn't have a Vanguard meant that's why they failed. Prove me wrong. That's just as much of legitimacy as your nonsense about Stalin's regime failing because there was no "rule of law".


I'm actually not that familiar with the Spanish civil war. I don't bring it up often. I certainly wasn't going to bring it up here.

Well, I did. Now we're talking about it.


If you knew me better you might know that, although I consider myself an anarchist, I am not an anti-statist per se. And that, through my admittedly limited knowledge of the failures in anarchist Spain, I would say that the lack of a real military would be a prime cause.

Thanks for proving my original thesis:


No, no, the hypocrite scum you are, you're going to say "IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR, FACTORS EXTERNAL FROM THE LIBERTARIAN MODE OF ORGANIZATION CAUSED THE DEFEAT OF THE CNT AND FAI!!!11111"




No, sorry. I will offer much the same critique, as far as the same critique can be made (since they are different situations).


Different situations? Fuck, now you care about material conditions? They were both revolutionary situations, pretty similar. They're easily comparable. Now go ahead, I'm very curious about what excuse you want to deploy.

I love this. I love when the Libertarians try to shit on the Bolsheviks, but when we bring up Spain or Free territory, they shut their mouth.


... except you just made up a position you thought I would take... not knowing that I have no critique to offer the situation, nor ever have.


So, you agree that the failure of the CNT and FAI was due to there being no Vanguard? That's exactly what your position was, before you knew I destroyed you up there. The debate is over. You've reached an ideological deadlock. Time for you to do some thinking.


I completely agree with this, as it is said.


I don't care.


Perhaps. But "I wrote a paper critiquing your position" is not actually a critique of a position...


Because the hell if I'll do it again, just for this thread. The paper is gone now, since I don't save my academic works.


It exists in every society with law to some extent.

It exists in no society. Perhaps it exists in your head, though.


That's the point. Legality requires that laws be seen as laws, at least to some extent...

For whom?



which is why regime's that don't even give a nod to RoL quickly fall apart.

Like the United States, and the EU?

North Korea's been around for quite some fucking time, and so has China. You like to knit pick on which countries have "rule of law" and which don't, based on whether they exist or not. You're full of shit. Wanna know a secret? States survive based on the efficiency of the mode of production, which in turn determines the efficiency of the superstructure. That's the fucking point. A "rule of law" has nothing to do with it, nothing beyond disgusting cheap American conservativism.


They are not seen to have legitimacy.


Most in the SU did see their state have legitimacy. Many were really surprised when Stalin died, as a matter of fact. It's called propaganda. The Soviet economy was able to sustain it... For a while..

Do you think the SU had more "Rule of law" under Gorbachev, or under Stalin? Because during Stalin, it was much more stable economically, and so on. Rule of law is not an indicator of successful states, can not be, and never will be. Shove it up your ass.


So my ideas are more important to whether I should be opposed than whether or not I'm actually a prole?

Many proles are complete reactionaries. You're ideas are in the interest of a class external from your own.


(Even tho my ideas are firmly in support of the proletariat.

Free marketers who are also proletarians think the same thing. It doesn't mean shit. Virtually every ideological current thinks Beethoven's 9th is in correlation with their views. It doesn't mean shit, though.

it comes down to whether they're based in Science, or Ideological garbage.


They just happen, according to you, to be based in bourgeois rationalism.)

Fuck no. That would be an insult to all good Bourgeois rationalists. Yours are based on new age horse shit.


Good to know, comrade :rolleyes:


For you, it should be.


Ya, because there has ever been and there is a likelihood of any Bourgeois regime supporting direct democracy...

What the fuck does that have to do with what I said?

Only an idiot would call for direct democracy. In a world of seven billion fucking people.


And again, I believe what I believe because I believe it.

You're like the dumb shit from the movie Prometheus: "It's because I choose to believe". Why? Why the fuck do you choose to believe?


I don't see my ethics as any kind of objective universal law, preferring to think the proletariat will make its own society.

You do. If you think the eternal struggle for humanity is the struggle for direct democracy and Liberty, you're a Bourgeois idealist and you do believe in Universal objective law.


I just hope to have had an impact on it.


The Proletariat doesn't need Liberalism, especially since Liberalism is dying, anyway.


How? How does direct democracy benefit the bourg at all? Why would they ever support it?


The call for direct democracy relies on Bourgeois presupposions like "power corrupts". That's why it's Bourgeois. It wouldn't' benefit them, but it also wouldn't benefit anyone else. That's because it's impossible with a population over a couple million. The abstract garbage of Bourgeois thought is different from the Bourgeois class in reality, that doesn't make it any less Bourgeois, though.


Power best represents the interests of people at large when, in my opinion, people at large have a say in the direction of power.


What does this mean? Does the Bourgeois class have a large say in the direction of power? That should answer your question about a proletarian dictatorship.


No, if the people want to vote you into power so be it.

But that's not direct democracy. I would then be a representative of the proletariat.


Why I want democracy to be upheld is so that

That's really different from direct democracy. In class dictatorship, it is the democratic rule of that particular class. We communists refrain from democratic rhetoric at times because this would imply it's democracy for everyone.


, if and when they deem your regime counterproductive, they can get rid of it.


Just like the Bourgeoisie to the Bourgeois state... ?


So does the defeat of chattel slavery... what's your point?


No, chattel slavery wasn't defeated because someone found it immoral, it was defeated because it wasn't as profitable. Bourgeois thought came after they actually got into power.


If my views were proven destructive to the empowerment of the Proletarian class

It's not about a single person implementing his will, and adjusting society to his ideas. That's idealism. The point is that a liberal new ager like you wouldn't even have a place in a proletarian dictatorship to begin with.


, yes, I would abandon them. That's called science.

No. Science requires you have evidence for your disgusting views before you are allowed to actualize them.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that your views would crumble to pieces when some smart ass Right Wing economist of sorts would destroy you in a debate, and so on. You, like Rgacky, are easy bait for the enemy. You're like the objectivists of the Left, easy to destroy in debate.


The opposite is called dogma.

RSWU gets to choose the spectrum of Science... A New Age spiritualist....


I have said on numerous occasions that if Socialism had to be brutal and authoritative I would have no problem with that.

Sounds pretty contradictory to the shit you spewed above. Especially your criticism of the October proletarian revolution... It proves this statement of yours obsolete.

Choose a position or gtfo.


What I have a problem with is the assertion that it must be that way.


What? If we could all hold hands in a Libertarian paradise I wouldn't mind. It just so happens that all Libertarians eventually resorted to the Bolshevik method, sooner or later.


My scientific basis is no different than Marx's. I do, again, consider myself a materialist and class dialecticist. My conclusions are often the same as well.


What you consider yourself in your fantasy land is none of my concern. It's the assertions that count, and they stand contradictory to Materialism and Marx.


Can the heads of the party be recalled?

Most likely. I'm not fortune teller.


Are they elected through secret ballot?

Lenin was elected.


Is there even a "choice" on the ballot (as opposed to "vote for x or nobody")? etc etc


The Proletariat chooses it's own champion. Just like the Bourgeois class.



The same questions above work. Also:


Link the thread please. I'll address that.




This may be true. What this doesn't change, tho, is that before they were deposed they were acting on what they thought was their class basis.

Why is that relevant? What matters is what they were actually doing.

[Revolution starts with U]

I've barely skimmed through this, will do a full scale response soon but... a week and this is the best you could come up with? "You're a fucking stupid liberal shit so die in a hole counterrevolutionary!"

But this gets down to my whole critique; if you were the Stalin of the new socialist state, I would already be dead or exiled. Born a prole, lived a prole, identify with the totality of my being with the proletariat, worldwide in solidarity against the capitalist propertarian system... but I don't quite live up to Rafiq's disgusting purity test, because... OMG I think that violence, even when it is necessary, is unfortunate. What a fucking weak-kneed liberal I must be, willing to give up the revolution when it gets too violent...

What a fucking joke...

[Revolution starts with U]

]And you, do you think it would have been something positive for Germany to abide by it's own Fascist laws?

Your overtly simplistic view of reality can be really quite laughable at times...
Yes, were I a worker in Germany I would want to trust the laws I live under. Does this, to you, mean I am a fascist now?


The point is that those laws are made in the interest of a class. If they are not followed consistently, it's equally in the interest of that class. The laws themselves are meaningless without this understanding of their class basis.

Tell that to the people actually living under the laws. Get your nose out of academia for just a minute or two...


Who cares? As I said, laws are changed in accordance to material conditions. The American and German Bourgeois class found it of necessity to do so (Change laws).

But let's stop: Where the fuck did you find that Germany didn't abide by it's own laws as much as the U.S.? Out of your ass? Link.

I fully admit it comes from history classes. But it's not like it's a secret that in NAZI Germany you could wake up to find your best friend has disappeared forever.
I haven't read this, but
http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/history/hitlers-courts-betrayal-of-the-rule-of-law-in-nazi-germany-one-hour-special/1814/
could get you started. Again, it's not like it's any secret that NAZI Germany was notorious for disavowing the rule of law... but first you would have to understand what that term means so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law


You cannot "trust" a law. If you "trust" a law, you trust the Bourgeois class, making you a counter revolutionary.

Omfg your views are such a joke sometimes :lol:
So, because I trust the law that says "wear your seatbelt or pay a fine" that if I get caught not wearing my seat belt I will face a fine... now I'm a counterrevolutionary?
WTF? :confused:


Humans generally are components of the base. They have created something unintentionally and beyond their will. That is the point: That the base is not changed at will.

I mean... are you saying the four forces intended to create atoms? Or are atoms really the base and the four forces just superstructure?

Atoms cannot exist without the four forces. The four forces must be base.
Societies/modes of production cannot exist without people. People must be base.


Because the mode of production is the general production of human life and consumption: Strictly economic relations. Things like the superstructure (Law, Morality, and so on) exist to sustain these relations, in the interest of whatever dominant class.

Are you saying that people only exist (if people are superstructure) to sustain economic relations? If so, that's absurd. If not, you should find new ways to express yourself that are not so confusing and contradictory...

I mean, do you know anything about materialism? You're an Idealist who calls superstructure a material force, including thoughts and Ideas. That's not materialism, can not be materialism, and never will be.

Then materialism, as you define it, is an idealism. Modes of production are no less an abstraction than modes of governance... so, what makes one more material than the other?



We've defined it that way for more than one hundred years. Anyone who isn't a fucking moron knows everything is made of matter. Who gives a shit?

Of course, in your world, there aren't many people who aren't "fucking morons" so... I'm not sure what impact this is supposed to have.
The length of time a community embraces an incoherent definition doesn't make that definition any more coherent.
This says nothing about the veracity of Marx's claims, so don't even go that route. What it says is that the words he is using just serve to confuse people's understanding of the issue.



As a matter of fact, yes it fucking does. You said an individual can hijack a proletarian revolution out of his own self interest external from a class. That totally contradicts what I posted. Every class is "power hungry"(Such a shit, Bourgeois-Liberalist term originating from the likes of Locke, the bastard) in that it wants to for fill it's own class interest by conquest of state dictatorship. No exceptions.

Can a revolution be hijacked by a class? Did not the people of France at fist consider the french revolution a prole revolution? (Be advised, Marx said they did)



That had nothing to do with the Bolsheviks. It was beyond their will and grasp. You don't meant to fucking tell me the proletariat said "OH MY GOD, LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE DOING! NO MROE REVOLUTION!"

You seem to think the only prole is an already radicalized prole...


Because that doesn't fucking explain why there were several attempts at revolution. Why was there the spartacust uprising in germany, if the proletariat was demoralized by the bolsheviks? Dumbass...

The better question being why didn't the uprising spread...

It was problems in organizational structure (for the proletariat in other countries). That's why. No working class had more discipline, organization and pragmaticism as that in Russia.

What exactly was Luxembourg's critique of the Bolsheviks again? Why did the SPD move from a radical party to a collaborationist party? Could this have possibly had anything to do with the actions of Leninists in Russia?

No, it had nothing to do with the leadership... of course not... it's the proletariat's own fault they are in the situation they are in. This doesn't sound like the same tired right wing critique us radicals have heard time and again...



Who, the Mensheviks, the Left Socialist revolutionaries? They were counter revolutionaries who wanted to sell the revolution.

Or more like Petrograd and Krondstat, Astrakhan, Putilov, and others. I'm talking about actual workers upset with a central party state, struggling to make dues in a system that puts its interest above theirs. You know, those people who move history, but are not "great" enough to have their name pasted onto a movement.
The Anarchist Battle Detachment, which attacked Bolshevik and White Guard alike, or the brave women in Tula who refused to work on sundays and were then accused of sabotage... even the Ukranian Anarchists fought the Bolsheviks in self defense (even tho they had their own problems of summary execution and secret police)...



Shut the hell up. The USSR was a big shit hole, this is merely an explanation for why it was a shit hole.

But yes, ethically, it does. Go fucking cry about it, sensitive Liberal.

1) No I will not shut the hell up.
2) Not a liberal
3) Fuck you


Material forces exist independent of the will of human beings. Society is only people, and history is only the interactions between people. It's how we analyse this phenomena which counts.

Here's an example: Language.

The Phonecians were the first to invent the alphabet. Did they do it out of will? Because they wanted to make poetry, and have conversations between one and other? Fuck no!

It was because of their mass trade across the mediteranian, Europe and Africa, they had to find a way to record the trades, and so on. That's a perfect example of materialism. It was only after this, when language was utilized. Only something like the mode of production can give birth to such a complex phenomena.

Well let's move past the insanely simplistic line of "Phonecians were the first to invent the alphabet." Let's move to your other questions.
Did they do it out of will? Well, for any human action to take place, it must be willed by the people taking the action, so yes.
Because they wanted to make poetry and have (written) conversations? Well, written language, poetry, and written conversation are dated to far before the phonecian alphabet so technically no, but I'm sure it played a role.

You seem, here, to be making a giant mistake... Phonecian alphabet is not the earliest script, written language is not the same as language in general, and written language had long before this been used to record economic data.
The actual earliest use of phon-script, ironically, is a magical spell to protect a king's tomb... lulz... not an economic transaction.
But, to be fair, the earliest use of written language in Sumeria IS to record economic interactions. Maybe you are mixing the two... idk...

So, all in all, I'm not sure what to say about your "hypothesis" here... it just seems not too tied to reality. Whatever truth may or may not be there (writing was originally developed for economic reasons) gets lost in the haze of misunderstanding and lack of historical knowledge.

One thing is for sure tho; it was PEOPLE who wrote language down, just as it was PEOPLE who created the social structure that required written language.


That's completely true. The Revolution would have been the same, all together. Sure, it would maybe have been different in rhetoric and so on, but the over all class nature of the revolution, the way the party dealt with the counter revolution, and so on, would have stayed the same. No existing organizational force could have dealt with the several problems faced by the Bolsheviks.

I rest my case; full on fatalistic determinism, and actual people are totally irrelevant to the movements of history.
What a simplistic and crude view of Marxism.


Fucking analyse this in correct context.

You mean like this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm
Where he talks about future revolutions cannot dress themselves up in the costumes of past heroes to hide their class nature?
I am... you know, that whole apart about people making decisions, specifically not dressing their revolutions up in Roman costumes...
Or the whole part about where the Feb Rev failed because the state merely returned to its old methods of the sword and the monk's cowl. I am...



You're such an idiot, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's blatantly obvious that men and women make up history as a whole, but the point is simple: In what way?

By making decisions and actions, which are of course directed and allowed to happen within other historical circumstances; the "superstructure" you speak of.


For you to make such a... Dialectical analysis of the quote, as if the two are contradictory, as if there needs to be a synthesis, i.e. a "balance" between "Men and Women make history" and "Not as they please".

I'm simply taking the entire quote, in context, as what Marx wanted to say... not just the last part so I can make Marx fit my distorted view of reality.


Fucking moron. The point is very, very fucking simple: The quote is a totality, and there is no balance. It is a radical notion. No one suggests men and women do not make history, Marx was simply asserting that they do it merely as instruments of the mode of production they previously, unintentionally organized themselves into. No one wanted Communism if not something representing the interests of the proletarian class, and so on. It would have never existed as a movement.

From the preface:

Of the writings dealing with the same subject at approximately the same time as mine, only two deserve notice: Victor Hugo’s Napoleon le Petit and Proudhon’s Coup d’Etat. Victor Hugo confines himself to bitter and witty invective against the responsible producer of the coup d’etat. The event itself appears in his work like a bolt from the blue. He sees in it only the violent act of a single individual. He does not notice that he makes this individual great instead of little by ascribing to him a personal power of initiative unparalleled in world history. Proudhon, for his part, seeks to represent the coup d’etat as the result of an antecedent historical development. Inadvertently, however, his historical construction of the coup d’etat becomes a historical apologia for its hero. Thus he falls into the error of our so-called objective historians. I, on the contrary, demonstrate how the class struggle in France created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero’s part.
Say what now? Did Marx not just say that Proudhoun's critique of the times was so deep into historical circumstance it totally absolved the actual actors of any responsibility? Yes, I believe he did say that.



They do anyway, regardless of your shit opinion. I dare you to name me a case otherwise.

All of world history. "Material forces" do not move and change of their own will, and it is the height of idealism to suggest that relations between people and the natural world can have a "will" of their own...



"Individual actions" are determined by their surroundings, therefore it's the surroundings that count.

Yes, we all know that every young kid brutalized by his parents will grow up to become a serial killer. They have no choice in the matter.
Oh wait... only some brutalized kids become sociopaths.



Who the fuck suggested otherwise? But fuck no, anyway. It only functions with collectives of individuals. Individual humans are worthless in this regards and only matter in collective. The Bourgeois class and the Proletarian class are not individuals, but homogeneous collective interests.

Collectives are made up of individuals. Collectives don't "act" on their own.
Christ your understanding is so simplistic...

Under your logic, poor are poor because of their own 'free will'.

Not at all, and I don't understand where you got the idea this was so...


You obviously have absolutely no understanding or even a mediocre grasp of the history of the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, it was the proletariat. The Bolsheviks were "Authoritarian" because the proletariat was a minority, the peasants were majority.

Now this presents a problem for the Revolution in its own right.
I feel like if I leave this unspecified, as I planned to do, you're going to respond with "see you think they shouldn't have revolted!" or some such nonsense. So I'm just going to nip that in the bud right now..
The proletariat, engaging Revolution in a land where they are the minority, should have realized that legitimacy is only gained by the, at least, tacit support of the masses. It is beyond ludicrous to think we can assert our dominance as a minority, and not merely act as a new ruling class pilfering the wealth of the land for their own benefit.

They wouldn't have the power to do that without the support of the proletariat. otherwise they (the proletariat) all would have ran to join Makhno or the White army, or something else.

Are you suggesting no proletariat joined in the White Guard?
Are you suggesting none of the other insurrections, which were just as opposed to white as red, were joined or created by proles?

You seem to assume beforehand that prole = supporter of Bolsheviks, and if you don't support Bolshevism you were automatically not a prole...

The U.S. aristocrats did it because they had the bourgeois class behind them. Who did the Bolsheviks have behind them? Idiot.

The Bolsheviks had support among many of the bourgeoisie themselves, and retained much of the old Imperial forces within their own midst... at least until very late in the Civil War.
Of course I'm an idiot for knowing history, whereas you're a genius for not...


The working class would do anything to protect the revoltuion. That's why. It's either they fight with terror, or perish. Not on behalf of hte bolsheviks, but the whites. You're right, there wasn't another option. It was either the proletariat watch their comrades be slaughtered by the White Army, like in Petograd, or they adopt organizational methods

Except there were other options, which the proletariat joined, which was opposed to both the Bolshevicks and the Whites...


What, that they existed?

That women and blacks in early America were opposed to the Bill of Rights, or would have been opposed if they had any political power.


The fact that they existed signifies that Women and Blacks were unsatisfied with the legalist framework, that the democrats were not enough. Or do you think otherwise?

Were the opposed to the Bill of Rights, or upset that it seemingly didn't apply to them?



On the contrary, the mode of government was made completely adjusted to their interests. They were quite blatant about "Protecting the wealthy minority against the hoards of the majority".

So? They still couldn't get the Constitution ratified without it; through a direct democratic vote (admittedly by mostly property holding white males).


I say, like Lenin said: Promise to whom? The petite bourgeois class, i.e. The reactionary class.

Ya, well, it's not like there was much of a formal proletariat to speak of...


I firmly oppose democracy in the Bordigist sense: The democracy of manipulating the masses, like a Market, to adjust to your will.

I only support democracy in the Aristotilian sense: Mob rule. I oppose the disgusting Bourgeois democracy deployed here, regarding this "Liberty" nonsense. I support Militant democratic dictatorship, to crush the class enemy.

None of this means anything.
Either you support the ability of the masses to self-govern or you don't.
Just because I oppose bourgeois democracy doesn't mean I oppose people voting on the things which impact their own lives...

But in the context you've deployed: Fuck democracy.

In what context; the proletariat directing its own affairs, regardless of the wishes of the Central Party?
Ya, that's about how I thought you felt.


It's on par with you reading nothing on historical or dialectical materialism.

This is a complete side-stepping of what I said. If you mean materialism to only include certain types of matter (which your base for materialism isn't even matter! It's a relation between people and nature), then yes, you are being confusing.


Well, no, they aren't. They are definitely reliant on matter, and are products of matter. Anyway, that's irrelevant. They are not material even in the metaphysical sense. Ideas are super structural... And emotions.... Those are primitive. Emotions are facing complex problems in a simplistic manner.

Except they are, because they actually exist...


God I hate new agers more than anything.... Shove your 'feelings' up your ass.

I'm a new ager?
That's discriminatory towards gays, by the way, what you just said there; "shove it up your ass." As if there is something wrong with putting things up your ass... Just thought I would let you know.


I don't give a shit about your metaphysical nonsense.
MY metaphysical nonsense? Nonsense like believing relations between people and nature can act of their own accord?! Oh wait... that's you...

But no, the process of thinking is indeed a material one, but the thoughts themselves are not. But even if you're correct, that has nothing to do with Materialism. For all I care, we can be made of space piss. It's irrelevant to the Marxian definition of Material forces.
Then again, if that is what you mean by "material" you are being misleading and confusing, and should find a new name.

Dialectical Materialism is the metaphysical counter part, which even here isn't contradicted. Thoughts have their origin in a material structure, so matter gives birth to thoughts. Do you deny this?

Why should I? Hydrogen gives birth to helium... that doesn't make helium somehow immaterial.

Fuck off with your new age nonsense.

No.



You're wrong, they do. People do not care, they act as agents of the mode of production through classes and so on. It's this class warfare that breeds new ones.

And you accuse me of idealism?! Holy hell this is getting ridiculous...



You're wrong again. No one intentionally changes them for fuck all reasons. They change in regards to class interest... My god, who would have predicted capitalism the way it is today? No one.
Marx would have...
Who said they change them for "fuck all reasons?" Whether they did it because they perceived it to be in their class interest, or self interest, or for no reason, doesn't change the fact that they did, in fact, consciously change them.

Class interest is a product, a component of the mode of production. Humans are constrained by this and will never move beyond it.

Simplistic idealism is all this is. You've completely removed humans from humanity. It's absurd.



Marx was a scientist, like Darwin. Marx never layed the groundwork for a future society.

Marx offered certain proscriptions. To say "Marxism is not an ideology" is not the same as saying Marx didn't have an ideology.

I will quote Kautsky:

"the proletarian movement requires the Bourgeois intelligentisa".

And he's right. The Bourgeois intelligentisa makes up science of our day. Marx was a part of this (Bourgeois intelligentisa).

How does this, in your view, not make Marx a counterrevolutionary worthy of a bullet in the brain without trial?


Russia was going through several revolts and revolutionary movements long before Marx even had the maturity to scruff his own beard.

And Marx (and the rest of the prole movements of the time) had absolutely no impact on any of the developments that came about after his time?


The Russian proletariat and Peasantry are a material forces which shaped Ideas. So?

So keep reading, this was just preface...


You're wrong again. Ideas had nothing to do with the Russian revolution. They were products of material conditions.

Marx was a scientist, first and foremost.

All you've done here is stick your fingers in your ears and start muttering loudly.


Yes, they were. Had they not come up with whatever they did, some other asshole would have.

Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't. What's important is that they DID come up with WHEN they did. Ergo, "people" had an impact on history.


But good job giving credit to this Fascist motherfucker, of whom if I ever met personally wouldn't hesitate to fuck him up.
I'm sure... :rolleyes:


Explain how the igbo peoples of west Africa had a significant influence on Lenin's relationship with his wife.

Igbo - English Imperialism - support of the White Army - economic inefficiency created by the Civil war - personal stress for Lenin - this, coupled with Nade's infertility causes Lenin to have an affair.
Boom, done. ;)



What do you mean "Ok"? So now you understand?

No, just stating that I am moving on to the next sentence... as I thought this one was just a preface.



Well, they are. Laws will be scrapped and thrown into the shitter when the Bourgeois class finds it necessary. And while you're weeping at their grave, I'll be doing absolutely nothing of that nature.

Oh my god, it's such a travesty that I lament the loss of the Rule of Law! That must automatically mean I will betray the Revolution!


No. The spreading on mass propaganda is indeed super structural to the material force (the class) but again, like laws, that doesn't make them only in existence in concurrence with the material force (class).

Try to make sense next time...
If you are saying what I think you are saying... it's the same thing I've been saying this whole time... which makes me almost certain you are not saying what I think you are saying.


It's not ideas that are censored, it's the spreading of mass propaganda, provocation, and so on. If you're marching down the street with the flag of NATO in an intense revolutionary situation, that's more than an Idea, you're representing the interests of a class enemy.

You don't have a gun in your hand. You're not marching with the enemy. You're not expressing political power in the suppression of worker interests...
So tell me exactly in what way
1) Marching with a flag is mass propaganda (what a revealing of what you consider to be worth shooting people without trial for)
2) this manifests the interests of the class enemy

You basically just said "it's not ideas that are censored, it's the spreading of (ideas)."


Explain how that analogy works. The United States isn't the embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class. The Bolsheviks were, and if they weren't, they would have been overthrown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
If proletarian, then Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Therefore proletarian

In my links I have shown that the Bolsheviks lost majority vote at one time among the proles, and therefore repressed the constituent assembly.


There is proof they were. There wasn't a fucking revolutionary situation after the February revolution. In Lenin's April Thesis, even his comrades called him insane. They did not hijack anything, they called for immediate insurrection with the support of the Industrial proletariat, on behalf of the industrial proletariat. Otherwise, why would Lenin risk everything, including his own life, to carry out their interests? Know how many times that mofo almost lost his life in his revolutionary days?

1) There wasn't? What were all those genuine worker uprisings against the Bolsheviks then?
2) Why did Ceasar risk his life by crossing the Rubicon? Some people are brave.


To you, avoiding censorship, and "Authoritarianism" are more important.

This is sophistry and false. Try being logical next time, comrade.


Krodstat was 1922... And Petograd? There was no such thing. Nothing significant.

The uprisings other than that were done on behalf of the counter revolution.

Like those bourgeois wage laboring women in Tula who merely didn't want to work on sundays... and for that were sent to labor camps in Siberia? Oh wait...

Also, at what point did the situation in Russia stop being a proletarian situation? 1912, 13, 25, 82? Where do you draw the line?


What? It's because they had no choice.
So they had no choice but to betray proletarian rule... but anyone who opposed them was bourgeois counterrevolutionaries?! Absurd...

Although they won the War, that didn't change the fact that the revolution was isolated and therefore doomed to failure. Stalin was inevitable. They did the best they could. But they soon became a manager class, via the Peasantry, being agents of Capital (Around the mid 1930's).

So Stalin was acting on behalf of the proles in the early years of his "reign?" Laughable at best...

Look up the Third Period of the comintern. The abolishment of this was the final indication that Capital had devoured the country. So no, by those times, proletarian interest hadn't fully diminished.

Even Collectivization in 32-33' was attempted to be completely voluntary, it's just lower officials struggled with the likes of the Kulaks and depended on Coercion and false promises. This is in no way justification, but it is an indicator that even by that time, not all was lost.

I don't know why it's so hard to believe that had the Party actively sought the empowerment of the working class, or the masses as a whole, that perhaps... just maybe... they wouldn't have had so many problems in the first place. Maybe they wouldn't have had so many uprisings against them to detract resources from the fight against the whites, less factions would have joined with the whites, more would have joined them against the whites, the anarchists might have remained thoroughly red, etc etc etc.
Then they might have won the Civil War and/or industrialized quicker, used this economic growth to foster more revolutionary movements around the world (unlike, as Stalin did, funding nationalist movements against socialist ones), limiting the isolation of the Revoltuion, etc etc etc.

This is all just a maybe. One can only wonder.
Of course one cannot wonder at all if they adhere to fatalistic determinism, where no matter what happened it would have happened how it happened.


Not on behalf of the proletariat as a whole. I don't buy Krodstat was a conspiracy on behalf of foreign powers or the white army. that doesn't change the fact that had the Krodstat workers been successful, they would have faced the same problems the Bolsheviks did. I'd like to see how they would have handled them. Maybe like in Spain or Free territory? Not exactly what I'd call "Libertarian", to say the least.

They would have never revolted without the actions the Bolsheviks were taking against them... Again, as said above, perhaps if the Bolsheviks hadn't repressed anything that failed their ideological purity tests, they would have had more support in the Civil War...

On a side note; why, to you, does identifying as anarchist/libertarian mean you fully 100% support the actions of anarchists in Ukraine and/or Spain?


Yeah, they do, practically.

Nah, not really.


So that's what this nonsense is all about? :laugh:


The U.S. Bourgeoisie can get away with whatever it wants. Name me an example of a country with a "rule of law". Because last time I checked, teh American Bourgeoisie can get away with domestic violence (I know this for a fact, personally), drug abuse ,and so on. What happens when someone in the Ghetto is caught with a joint, but a rich motherfucker is caught with a shit load of Cocaine? The latter doesn't even serve jail time, while the former serves a lot.

Yes, but this is even moreso the case in places like China or Malaysia...

Fuck this Bourgeois concept. Laws are nothing but strategic in the game of class warfare. Laws will be made for the former ruling classes that will not apply to others. Who cares? Laws are not external from Humans.

Because, politically, you have to at least to give a head nod to law, in order to foster legitimacy...
It has nothing to do with the supremacy of law, and everything to do with creating stability. No regime can exist without it.


Name me a regime with the RoL or a "nod" to it?

Again, varying degrees, and I have named some. I just don't have this absolutist view of EVERYTHING that you seem to have.


So the fact that they didn't deploy a "rule of law" (just typing it makes me sick) is a justification about why their status quo didn't last long? :laugh:

Literally? You're going to puke because you typed some words? It's quite interesting how just a simple idea can make you so angry...


What an awful analysis. Yeah, take away everything else at hand, and replace it with what you want. How about this: "No regime lasted long enough without even giving a nod to combatting the reptilian shapeshifters".

Ya, except stability and the Rule of Law are real things...

Please debunk this line without being contradictory to your disgustingly Idealist statement above. Because as far as I can fucking tell, no one gives a nod to the "rule of law". It's not even a contributing factor in the survival of states.

Augustus lived out his days as emperor. Calligula was assassinated.


No, just not taken seriously and shunned.

You say that now... somehow I don't believe that would be the case were you actually in a position of power.


The U.S. government agrees? Why isn't that the case, then? Are you aware of all of the horrible atrocities committed by the U.S. government that were only revoked because people fought the legalist framework (Or rule of law?).

They don't necessarily agree (not leastly because "they" are different people with different views and ways of acting), but that wasn't the point. You asserted that because the US govt and I agreed that I am bourgeois supporter of the US govt.


Blacks were treated as subhumans, and women as slaves. Hell, slavery was legal at start.

it was only after people challenged this rule of law, where this was revoked.

People challenged the law. You really need to understand what the RoL means if we are going to discuss it.

It is necessary such a bizzare concept is abolished. We oppose execution only when it's deployed in the interest of a certain class. We act upon class interest, not bullshit postmodern garbage.

This is meaningless rhetoric. Anyone can say they are doing something on behalf of the proletariat.


"Just because I don't care about your respect doesn't mean I want it" is a really dumb thing to say. The fact that you "want it" signifies you care.

The difference being that if I don't get it, I'm not going to be bothered by that...


No. Their will is irrelivent to the movement of material forces. People are history. There is no distinction. It's just the manner in which they are deployed through it which is disagreed.

Ya, we get it, history was decided the day of the Big Bang. We make absolutely no choices, and those non-choices have no impact on anything... we get it...
But it's wrong.


Yeah, and even Bourgeois thinkers knew this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu

Oh right, I agree with the bourgeois and I'm a counterrevolutionary. You agree with the bourgeois and you're just proving a point. We get it :rolleyes:


Rhetoric is different, of course (instead of WE LOVE STALIN you hear WE LOVE TROTSKY). But the movement of material forces and class would have not been different, no. Caesar's assassination was inevitable in that the aristocrats could no longer take his rule.

Of course we can never know this. But I assume things would have been different if Marc Antony had actually made it to Pompey's theater that day and stopped the attempt. They probably even would have tried to assassinate him again in the future.



What do you mean by this? In the sense that they are oblivious to what happens next, yes they do. History is nothing more than a series of class struggles. Not ideological battles or conflicting "ideas".

It means that "men make their own history, but not as they choose." We need read nothing further into that; humans make history, but are restrained in those choices by certain features. It's really quite simple.


Napoleon rose to power to serve the Bourgeois class, not as some kind of business stunt. That was my point.

Except, according to Marx, he was serving the interests of the small land holding peasantry... and he certainly did start confiscating wealth to add to his personal estate.


Marx later disregarded his earlier works when he developed Dialectical and Historical materialism. What's your point?

What an awful class analysis, if that's correct. I remember reading Bonaparte as the white knight of the Bourgeois class, not the Peasantry, from Marx. Anyway, this is old Marx, try again.
This is insufferable... :blink:


The Bourgeoisie, not the Peasantry. He did get support from the Peasants, but he didn't act upon their interests.

Tell that to Marx.
Oh wait.. old Marx would have beat up young Marx, I forgot about that...


One faction of the Bourgeois class doesn't constitute the whole thing.

Except he ruled in the interests of the small peasantry... insufferable...



"All existing history is a history of class struggles" - K. Marx.

Please explain to me where in this sentence is derived "therefore history is completely deterministic and the actions of actual people are irrelevant."


Their actions are determined by the mode of production.

And this makes their actions any less impactful because...? You say so?


It's not an abstraction of "Individuals" in the sense of "the self". Society is the product of a mode of production, and so is class struggle.

And yet people still make choices and take actions, and these choices and actions determine yet future modes of production and class struggle, influencing further choices and actions, influencing further MoPs and struggles....


Get your new age shit out of here, like I said.
1) No, fuck you.
2) What new age shit?


You don't know what is meant by "natural world".
Ok... :rolleyes:

Personally I say fuck "Nature",
That' doesn't surprise me at all...

I think the whole world should be paved over, if there weren't any consequences in regards to our survival. I mean, "ecology", like Zizek said, is an illusion. There is no balanced nature. Want to see nature's true face? Katrina. The material world (metaphysically) is not something that adjusts to the will of humans.

Except that, you know, it's theoretically possible that we can control and direct hurricanes...
You seem to have this generalization about everyone but you and maybe 10 other M-Ls that you think because two people share one belief, they share all beliefs... it's really not helping you at all, in my opinion at least...


But he did. There are different factions of classes, you know.

Tell it to Marx.


He wasn't the champion of the aristocratic class, so no. This, to him, this decision would be better for his class.

So now different factions of (some, not proles, you MUST pass Rafiq's ideological purity test to be a prole) classes can have different interests? Oh, the inconsistency...


Yeah, young Marx. Try again.

No.


How? Vanguardism was just as much a failure to the revolution was, as the usage of the newspaper Pravda was. Again, you choose to isolate all material conditions and knit pick. Just like how you chose that whether Stalin had the "rule of law" was a determinant as to whether his status quo would survive. You're absurd.

This has nothing to do with what I said here...


You're a counter revolutionary for many other reasons.

Like what?! Name me one thing that suggests I would betray the Revolution?
I certainly don't support a party that ACTUALLY BETRAYED THE REVOLUTION!


You still failed to address teh fact that every revolutionary attempt that didn't adopt vangaurdism failed. How do you justify this? I'm waiting...

Every Revolutionary attempt that DID adopt it failed... what's your point?


You'll say "But dat had notzhing to do wit why dey failed". And I'll say

Will I? Or am I not the bullshit caricature you seem to want to throw on everyone?


Thanks for proving my original thesis:

I did no such thing.
Again, having such simplistic absolutist views of EVERYTHING is really holding you back. Maybe not in understanding, I don't presume to know the truth. But it does hold you back in other people understanding you.


Different situations? Fuck, now you care about material conditions?
I always have. Maybe you should actually pay attention to what I say, instead of debating this caricature you have of me in your head...

They were both revolutionary situations, pretty similar. They're easily comparable. Now go ahead, I'm very curious about what excuse you want to deploy.

Again, I'm not going to speak on a topic I have no knowledge of.

I love this. I love when the Libertarians try to shit on the Bolsheviks, but when we bring up Spain or Free territory, they shut their mouth.

I know more about the Russian situation than the Spanish one.
But this is bs and you know it, because many other anarchists bring up Spain and Ukraine all the time.


So, you agree that the failure of the CNT and FAI was due to there being no Vanguard?
How can I agree with you on something I don't know about? That's called faith. I don't deal in faith.

That's exactly what your position was, before you knew I destroyed you up there.
You did no such thing, outside of your own mind.

The debate is over.
There never really was a debate, merely you hurling insults like a petulant child.

You've reached an ideological deadlock.
Me?

Time for you to do some thinking.

Perhaps. It's always time for thinking, really.


I don't care.

Good for you...


Because the hell if I'll do it again, just for this thread. The paper is gone now, since I don't save my academic works.

And yet still "I wrote a paper" does nothing to actually critique anything... you just don't get what fallacy means, do you?


It exists in no society. Perhaps it exists in your head, though.

Except it's a pretty common term employed by most political theorists, mainstream and beyond...


For whom?

By the people who live under them, of all classes. They have to at least be tacitly supported, even if fought against.


Like the United States, and the EU?

Both of which at least give the head nod...

North Korea's been around for quite some fucking time,
I can't speak on NK.

and so has China.
Which faces heavy internal opposition, always standing on the brink of destabilization...

You like to knit pick on which countries have "rule of law" and which don't, based on whether they exist or not.
Nah, that's not how it works at all

You're full of shit.
Ok...

Wanna know a secret? States survive based on the efficiency of the mode of production, which in turn determines the efficiency of the superstructure. That's the fucking point. A "rule of law" has nothing to do with it, nothing beyond disgusting cheap American conservativism.

I thought states existed because they are historically determined to exist for as long as they exist, and people's actual actions are irrelevant...


Most in the SU did see their state have legitimacy. Many were really surprised when Stalin died, as a matter of fact. It's called propaganda. The Soviet economy was able to sustain it... For a while..

Do you think the SU had more "Rule of law" under Gorbachev, or under Stalin? Because during Stalin, it was much more stable economically, and so on. Rule of law is not an indicator of successful states, can not be, and never will be. Shove it up your ass.

Omg... what? At first you started to make a good point. I was actually thinking about reflecting on my position, possibly I would have even changed it.
Then you had to add that last little bit of homophobia and I remembered that I don't trust you to be honest...

The point is that "rule of the stick" can stave off destabilization for a time, but only for a time. And "many" in the SU were well aware that the leadership was full of shit, that the system was a big lie, and just went along with it.
How's the old saying go; "the difference between your (US) propaganda and ours (USSR) is that your people (Americans) actually believe it."


Many proles are complete reactionaries. You're ideas are in the interest of a class external from your own.

Except they aren't. You just want them to be so that, if the day ever comes, you can have me (and people like me) shipped off to some dark corner where we can't get in the way of your plans for world domination...


Free marketers who are also proletarians think the same thing. It doesn't mean shit. Virtually every ideological current thinks Beethoven's 9th is in correlation with their views. It doesn't mean shit, though.


it comes down to whether they're based in Science, or Ideological garbage.

Yes, and which of us abides by E=MC^2?
And which of us thinks abstractions (like economic relations) have a will of their own?


Fuck no. That would be an insult to all good Bourgeois rationalists. Yours are based on new age horse shit.

Ok :rolleyes:

What the fuck does that have to do with what I said?

Only an idiot would call for direct democracy. In a world of seven billion fucking people.

Or someone who, you know.. thinks people should actually have a say in their own lives....


You're like the dumb shit from the movie Prometheus: "It's because I choose to believe". [I]Why? Why the fuck do you choose to believe?

I'm really being patient here. But all this "dumb shit" flame baiting is getting annoying. I don't want to see you get another infraction for it (nor do I want to report you, and haven't yet) so why don't you just grow up a little bit, eh?


You do. If you think the eternal struggle for humanity is the struggle for direct democracy and Liberty, you're a Bourgeois idealist and you do believe in Universal objective law.

Again, drop your simplistic absolutism... because I think the interests of the proletariat are libertarian doesn't mean I insist they must be...


The Proletariat doesn't need Liberalism, especially since Liberalism is dying, anyway.

Ok... :confused:
I thought I was a new ager, not a liberal. But I guess it was just absurd for me to assume you would be consistent.


The call for direct democracy relies on Bourgeois presupposions like "power corrupts".
Does it?

That's why it's Bourgeois.
Is it?

It wouldn't' benefit them, but it also wouldn't benefit anyone else. That's because it's impossible with a population over a couple million.
What is the difference between 7 billion people and 30 people, other than more people? And if the difference is just more people, which makes it impossible, why?
Argue it. Don't just call me a shithead and assert the same thing in different words.

The abstract garbage of Bourgeois thought is different from the Bourgeois class in reality, that doesn't make it any less Bourgeois, though.

That makes sense... or not :rolleyes: It seems like "bourgeois" is just a convenient label for you to throw on whatever you disagree with, thereby marginalizing it.



What does this mean? Does the Bourgeois class have a large say in the direction of power? That should answer your question about a proletarian dictatorship.

Ok, let me put it like this;
Power best represents the bourgeoisie when it is shared among the bourgeoisie. Power best represents a class when it is shared among that class.



But that's not direct democracy. I would then be a representative of the proletariat.

Fair point. Still, if they voted, en masse, onto the same policy you support, I would respect their decision.



That's really different from direct democracy. In class dictatorship, it is the democratic rule of that particular class. We communists refrain from democratic rhetoric at times because this would imply it's democracy for everyone.

If the working class is the only class left in existence, how is it not democracy for everyone?



Just like the Bourgeoisie to the Bourgeois state... ?

Yes, if the bourgeois find its rulers counterproductive to their interests, in a bourgeois democracy, they can get rid of them (often) without the need for civil war...



No, chattel slavery wasn't defeated because someone found it immoral, it was defeated because it wasn't as profitable. Bourgeois thought came after they actually got into power.

Oh right.. nobody was against slavery until slavery had already disappeared. THAT makes a ton of sense... :rolleyes:



It's not about a single person implementing his will, and adjusting society to his ideas. That's idealism. The point is that a liberal new ager like you wouldn't even have a place in a proletarian dictatorship to begin with.

1) Where you got the idea I said it was is beyond me...
2) New Ager? Liberal? :confused:

In a REAL proletarian situation, I am sure I would... because I am a prole and identify completely with proletarian interests. In a state serving the interests of the proles in name only , such as what you support, I would be dead, or exiled. I know this.
That doesn't stop me from expressing my views. I don't fear political repression, which is why I openly advocate against my government, and even encourage people to attack the government on my public facebook page. If I wind up dead for my expression, that is a heroic way to go out, really.

Not quite the liberal new age pacifist you wish me to be...


No. Science requires you have evidence for your disgusting views before you are allowed to actualize them.

Ya, it does.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that your views would crumble to pieces when some smart ass Right Wing economist of sorts would destroy you in a debate, and so on.
Except, I've been in those debates. I've lost those debates. And tho I had to go back and analyze my positions more thoroughly, I am still firmly a leftist. Really all losing those debates did was cause me to further research leftism, and I went from a radical just-left-of-social democracy, to a full blown libertarian anarchist Marxist.
Your hypothesis has already been proven false. Please don't presume to know who I am in the future.

You, like Rgacky, are easy bait for the enemy. You're like the objectivists of the Left, easy to destroy in debate.
Except you've never been able to do that.... unless of course "fuck you bourgeois liberal fuckwad" is destroying someone in a debate.



RSWU gets to choose the spectrum of Science... A New Age spiritualist....

1) No, I don't.
2) No, I'm not


Sounds pretty contradictory to the shit you spewed above. Especially your criticism of the October proletarian revolution... It proves this statement of yours obsolete.

It's not contradictory at all. Why don't you pay attention for once, to the actual person you're discussing with, and not he caricature you've created in your head?
Again, I don't think a successful revolution will have been very violent and authoritarian. That doesn't mean I think it must be libertarian, nor that I would oppose it if it were.
In all likelihood, had I been a major player in the early USSR, I would part of that leftist opposition (not the Left Opposition) that remained dedicated to the cause, but continued to call for more Civil Rights and direct democracy from within the current structure. Maybe I would have went to the Ukraine (yes, we know, they had secret police and summary execution too.. Nowhere near as bad as the Bolsheviks.)
I certainly wouldn't have joined the whites, who were EVEN WORSE than the Bolsheviks! Where does this logic come from?

Choose a position or gtfo.

No, and no. There's no reason I should. I'm not a fortune teller.


What? If we could all hold hands in a Libertarian paradise I wouldn't mind. It just so happens that all Libertarians eventually resorted to the Bolshevik method, sooner or later.

Ok... and did the Bolsheviks successfully revolutionize the relations to production in society? Did they REALLY create socialism?

Looks like both sides failed, to me...



What you consider yourself in your fantasy land is none of my concern. It's the assertions that count, and they stand contradictory to Materialism and Marx.

No, only the confusing definition of materialism you adhere to, and a different Marx than I'm familiar with.
Although, I forgot... according to you, Marx completely became a different person later in life, and would have kicked the shit out of his younger self.


Most likely. I'm not fortune teller.

But I thought you knew for sure that the Revolution must be a brutal and authoritative affair. You have no way of KNOWING that, other than pure psychic ability...


Lenin was elected.

With secret ballot?
And it's not as if the election of Lenin was the end of the Revolution...


The Proletariat chooses it's own champion. Just like the Bourgeois class.

This only sidesteps the question.


Link the thread please. I'll address that.

I've lost track of what we are talking down here, and this response has taken me over 2 hrs. I don't feel like going back. If you think this is really important, summarize and ask again so that I don't have to go back. Otherwise I'm just going to move on...





Why is that relevant? What matters is what they were actually doing.
Again, I don't remember wtf we were talking about here... as far as I can tell my response would be "the Bolsheviks only thought they were acting in prole interests. If we really want to know which class the Bolsheviks were serving, we should follow the money." It seems like the military, the bureacracy, and international bankers were the benefactors of Party dictatorship, tho I would not presume to have any great knowledge of exactly who was benefiting.

[Rafiq]

I've barely skimmed through this, will do a full scale response soon but... a week and this is the best you could come up with?

Shut the hell up. The response I made took less than twenty minutes. It's been my academic life that has prolonged a response.


"You're a fucking stupid liberal shit so die in a hole counterrevolutionary!"


You got your ass handed to you, so it's understandable as to why you'd resort to knit picking the post.

I also love how you call yourself a Materialist-Marxist, yet, just a couple days ago you considered Materialism to be only a metaphysical doctrine stating everything is made of matter.... :laugh:

That's totally the Marxian definition of Materialism :rolleyes:


But this gets down to my whole critique; if you were the Stalin of the new socialist state, I would already be dead or exiled.

You, a pathetic Liberal worm, would never pose a threat.


Born a prole, lived a prole, identify with the totality of my being with the proletariat, worldwide in solidarity against the capitalist propertarian system...

Doesn't take shit.


but I don't quite live up to Rafiq's disgusting purity test, because...

You're a Liberal-Idealist.


OMG I think that violence, even when it is necessary, is unfortunate.

This wasn't about violence. This was about the Bolshevik Situation, and then it divulged into a "debate" about materialism.


What a fucking weak-kneed liberal I must be, willing to give up the revolution when it gets too violent...

You advocate direct democracy in a world of seven billion humans... I'm sure what you offer would end up in a bloodbath, actually.


What a fucking joke...


The real joke is that your positions are so ecclectic and inconsistant, it seems post by post you keep changing your convictions. Do some fucking reading and then get back to me.

[doesn't even make sense]

It's not my revolution if I can't listen to Lil Wayne

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm just going to ignore your obvious flame baiting and respond to a few certain points. It's obvious you are far more interested in labeling people so that you can "win debates" than actually understanding their position...

"I'm sure what you offer would end in a bloodbath"
As opposed to you actually proposing a bloodbath...

"Your positions are inconsistent"
No, they're not.

"got your ass handed to you"
Idk what planet you're living on...

"marxist materialism"
Sure, maybe i have been misinformed on what materialism meant to Marx. That's far more Marx's fault than mine. When I see "material" I think of actual existing things, you know matter, and how they interact... kind of like physics, you know "science."
When I hear materialism what I do not think about is abstractions that have a mind of their own; like placing relations to objects above the actual people using those objects, and totally making people (and matter at that) irrelevant to the movement of history.

When I hear someone say that abstractions move history more than people, I actually think of idealism.

Or... in reality, it's not I that misunderstands materialism... who knows...

[Rafiq]

I'm just going to ignore your obvious flame baiting and respond to a few certain points. It's obvious you are far more interested in labeling people so that you can "win debates" than actually understanding their position...

Good Job.


"I'm sure what you offer would end in a bloodbath"
As opposed to you actually proposing a bloodbath...


At least it's more organized, and honest. At least it's a bloodbath of the former ruling class, instead of actual proletarians.


"Your positions are inconsistent"
No, they're not.


Good response.


"got your ass handed to you"
Idk what planet you're living on...


Again.


"marxist materialism"
Sure, maybe i have been misinformed on what materialism meant to Marx. That's far more Marx's fault than mine.

He made it pretty fucking clear


"This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; describing it in its action as the state, and to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. arise from it, and trace their origins and growth from that basis. Thus the whole thing can, of course, be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another).

"It has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for a category [eg. measuring periods of history in accordance to certain ideas], but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice. Accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into "self-consciousness" or transformation into "apparitions", "spectres", "whims", etc. but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy and all other types of theory.

"It shows that history does not end by being resolved into "self-consciousness as spirit of the spirit", but that in it at each stage there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces, an historically created relation of individuals to nature and to one another, which is handed down to each generation from its predecessor; a mass of productive forces, capital funds and conditions, which, on the one hand, is indeed modified by the new generation, but also on the other prescribes for it its conditions of life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.



The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle... political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary.

In the second place, however, history is made in such a way that the final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant — the historical event. This may again itself be viewed as the product of a power which works as a whole unconsciously and without volition. For what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and what emerges is something that no one willed... an aggregate mean, a common resultant... each contributes to the resultant and is to this extent included in it.


Yeah... What did you think, that Materialism is just knowing the phrase? You actually have to fucking read to know what it is.



When I see "material" I think of actual existing things, you know matter, and how they interact... kind of like physics, you know "science."

That's called metaphysics. It's only a tiny fraction of the bigger picture. I don't care what "You see". Part of a thing called "learning" is doing away with your interperiations of things, when discovering they are invalid.


When I hear materialism what I do not think about is abstractions that have a mind of their own; like placing relations to objects above the actual people using those objects, and totally making people (and matter at that) irrelevant to the movement of history.

Idiot. I don't care what you "hear".

People are the only force driving history. It's the relations between these people, how they organize and so on, which creates something beyond themselves. Humans are mere agents of the mode of production, or the production process, the production of life. It's not "Free will" driven people acting upon their consciousness external from the material world. Their consciousness is determined, on the contrary, by the material world.


When I hear someone say that abstractions move history more than people, I actually think of idealism.


Really, that's just a straw man.


Or... in reality, it's not I that misunderstands materialism... who knows...


Read what I quoted. Or do you want more links? Every Marxist knows what materialism is.. It's not, for one, just knowing that everything is made of matter. That's blatantly obvious to anyone whose not a fucking idiot.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/05.htm

:rolleyes:

As for your "two hour long" worth of a post above... I'll respond to it sometime tonight or tommarow. I do, if it hasn't occurred to you, have a life outside of being on the computer. Get ready for another two hour long post, then.

[Revolution starts with U]

At least it's more organized, and honest. At least it's a bloodbath of the former ruling class, instead of actual proletarians.

One problem being that in your directed bloodbath you have admitted to be perfectly willing to include actual proles in that bloodbath; both as counterrevolutionaries (ok, that makes sense) but also innocents just to set an example to anyone else which might think about getting out of line...


Good response.



Again.

Thank you. It's not like if someone publishes a lie about you you are under some obligation to say more than "no, that's a lie."


He made it pretty fucking clear





Yeah... What did you think, that Materialism is just knowing the phrase? You actually have to fucking read to know what it is.

Man, I even admit to you I was making a mistake and you can't just take it.

But I will not back down from my stance that it should not be called materialism if it has nothing to do with matter/material.



That's called metaphysics. It's only a tiny fraction of the bigger picture. I don't care what "You see". Part of a thing called "learning" is doing away with your interperiations of things, when discovering they are invalid.

That's much easier to do if people don't confuse their terminology.


People are the only force driving history. It's the relations between these people, how they organize and so on, which creates something beyond themselves. Humans are mere agents of the mode of production, or the production process, the production of life. It's not "Free will" driven people acting upon their consciousness external from the material world. Their consciousness is determined, on the contrary, by the material world.

But not neccessarily matter...


Really, that's just a straw man.

Really it's not. How is it not idealism to assert that an abstract thing has a will and desire of its own, that it seeks its own goals, in short that it acts like a human?


Read what I quoted. Or do you want more links? Every Marxist knows what materialism is.. It's not, for one, just knowing that everything is made of matter. That's blatantly obvious to anyone whose not a fucking idiot.

Lots of idiots in the world bro...


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/05.htm

Thanks for the link :D

Luckily I'm an unemployed wage laborer. I have all the time in the world.

EDIT: I also still think you have an overtly simplistic understanding of it (tho mine was overtly complex, I admit. Comes from my having read tons and tons of physics junk, and only Marx's articles on the US Civil War and chapter 1 of Capital). Notice he says here: "It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances." To divorce actual people and their choices... well, you might as well just say "G+D did it" because that sentence will have as much meaning.

Even Engels acknowledges this:

The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle... political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary.

In the second place, however, history is made in such a way that the final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant — the historical event. This may again itself be viewed as the product of a power which works as a whole unconsciously and without volition. For what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and what emerges is something that no one willed... an aggregate mean, a common resultant... each contributes to the resultant and is to this extent included in it
The underlined I never denied.

[Rafiq]

Well, here's the fucking point: Of course individuals exist. Men do make circumstances, but not as they please, not as something they will. Meaning that history is unintentional and not a product of Ideas, or thought.

Again, I'll get back to this bullshit when I have time.

[NGNM85]

Most of the people you just listed there are liberals. Especially Bakunin, Bookchin, and Chomsky.

Not in the literal sense.


Bakunin wasn't even a communist on an objective level since he failed to recognize that on a practical level, communism must be the result of the self-emancipation of the proletariat. In fact the entire Bakuninist strategy revolving around the mass strike is pure anti-communism, since it attempts to fool the workers into taking power by causing a collapse of bourgeois society but without the workers necessarily having a conscious demand for socialism.

This is a tactical disagreement. For the record; I have zero problems with pointing out that Bakunin had a number of serious flaws, both personally, and philosophically.


It's interesting that you would identify yourself as an orthodox Anarchist.

‘…for lack of a better term.’


Usually the more savvy anarchists are able to recognize the anti-communism of Bakunin and disassociate themselves from him.

Forgive me if I don’t put a whole hell of a lot of faith in a Marxist-Lenists’ assertions as to what constitutes ‘real’ Anarchism.


You are right that dogmatism does not lend itself to anarchism very well, but petit-bourgeois opportunism does.

That’s possible…


Why? Let's consider a few things. Vagueness and obscurantism are factors that only work in favor of degeneration into bourgeois opportunism. A revolutionary ideology needs to make a clear and unambiguous statement as to the role of its purpose, aims, and objectives.

That’s one of the things on which Anarchists, as a rule, are quite clear.


Furthermore, a clear and unambiguous political program is needed. Anarchism itself does not have this.

That’s correct. However; I don’t think that there is one political programme that would be applicable to all circumstances. Only the most generalized principles can be applied to all circumstances. For example; that we should continually subject institutions to critical analysis, to root out systems of exploitation, and oppression, and, when we find them, to demolish, or replace them. It’s pretty hard to go wrong with that.


Furthermore, class struggle is not an explicit, necessary component of anarchism. Usually anarchists will say that their main objective is the abolition of hierarchy, which has little(if it does, then it's usually incidental) to nothing to do with the abolition of classes.

That’s absolutely untrue.


What is it that all the brands of Anarchism have in common, then? I'll ignore the likes of anarcho-capitalism for the purposes of this. Usually vague sentiments like "liberty", and "Freedom", but it's not uncommon to also see principles such as the abolition of hierarchy.

There’s a range of Anarchist thought, but, in reality, it’s not as broad as you imply. Most of it, what can honestly be described as Anarchism, falls within a fairly limited range.


The real question we need to be asking here is: what do these have to do with communism? The answer is a resounding nothing at all. Communism is the movement which seeks to abolish the present state of things; capitalism. As such, we do have some idea of what communism will not have; namely the things that define capitalism as capitalism, such as generalized wage labour and generalized commodity production, and class distinctions. Anarchist principles tend to be irrelevant to this.

Again; this is totally baseless. Anarchism is unequivocal in it’s opposition to capitalism.


Generalized principles are not something we need. What we need is a clear and unambiguous statement of revolutionary socialist intent, which Anarchism lacks. It is absolutely crucial to be clear and unambiguous because the implications of the generalized principles are not self evident. It is vital to recall that in any society, the dominant ideology will be the ideology of the ruling class. So if there are only vague, obscure principles such as exist in anarchism, then those things which have to be inferred because they are not being directly stated will tend to be bourgeois conclusions. This creates an ideological atmosphere that is extremely conductive for bourgeois opportunism. I am not simply singling Anarchism out on this, as it can be a problem with Marxist groups as well, but Anarchism by it's very nature is guilty of this in nearly every instance.

Again; generalized principles are the only kind that are applicable to all, or most circumstances. The circumstances of Socialists in the United States are drastically different from the circumstances of Socialists in, say, Pakistan.


It's also worth mentioning that the treasured anarchist principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity are the watchwords of bourgeois revolutionaries, not proletarian revolutionaries. It should come as no surprise that as a result, Anarchist rhetoric actually bears a striking resemblance to that of the bourgeois revolutionaries of old and contemporary libertarian capitalists.

That’s only significant if you can’t differentiate between things that share features, and things that are the same. Anarchism shares a lot with Classical Liberalism; such as human rights, and democracy. (As well as the scientific method, etc.) However; the difference is that Anarchists, being Socialists, understand that these things are fundamentally incompatible with capitalism, that it is impossible to be rid of exploitation, and oppression while capitalism still exists.



There are a lot of problems with this statement, but I'll only focus on the big ones.


What you are doing here is hoisting up an example, and idea of how society should be run, and making it into a principle which should not be deviated from. This is the very definition of idealism, the backbone of liberalism.

Marx never pretended that the Paris Commune was some brilliant shining example of how communist revolution could work. In fact he directly stated that it was never socialist nor could it have been. The material conditions for the abolition of the laws of capital did not yet exist, the bourgeoisie certainly did exist in Paris during the time of the communes.

No, again, both Marx, and Engels specifically said that the Paris Commune, in form, and function represented a microcosm of what the dictatorship of the proletariat would look like.


There is no single organizational method that is all pervasive. Appropriateness is determined by the material conditions, if one is a materialist at least. If you are a liberal, on the other hand, then you will hold up some vague and idealistic principle like "Libertarianism" as some ideal which must be aspired to.

I don’t think it’s particularly vague, or idealistic.


I'm not sure how it's compatible with Anarchism given that they certainly had a state. State power was in control of the working class.

I was referring to it’s internal political structure, a direct democracy.


As for it's so-called "Libertarian" aspects, this is what was regarded to be the pinnacle of bourgeois foolishness by Marx. The chief failures of the Paris Commune is that despite the working class having taken state power, they failed to fully expropriate the means of destruction and destroy the class enemy.

No, it wasn’t. Again; both he, and Engels stated that the Paris Commune represented a microcosm of what the dictatorship of the proletariat should look like.


In an ironic sense, it's kind of appropriate that you cite the Paris Commune as an example of "Anarchist Libertarianism"(Isn't that an oxymoron anyway?)

It’s redundant, but it’s not an oxymoron.


since the bourgeoisie existed, the capitalist mode of production was alive and well, and there was no potential for the actually liberation of the proletariat from capital. The same logical end for any movement which adheres to idealist principles,

See above.


and the same historical ends that have actually occurred with existing Anarchist movements. Their rhetoric of the bourgeois ideal of "Freedom" and "
Liberty"

It’s only ‘bourgeois’ if it’s divorced from the socioeconomic reality. Anarchists are unequivocal in that it is vital to change the underlying structure of society, to surpass capitalism.


tends to obscure the fact that they never overcame capital and were in reality little more than ordinary dictatorships.

What are you referring to?

[Ocean Seal]

Then why are all of you so fucking dogmatic?

You’re missing the forest for the trees. I was simply responding to Rafiq’s baseless, and bogus accusation that I’m not a ‘real’ Anarchist.’ That was it.

Call it as you please but I am not dogmatic, if you had read any of my posts you should understand that. Your posts on the other hand indicate otherwise. And I don't know if you are a real anarchist or not, but you certainly are a liberal. Your fixation on religion, your desire of liberty in the abstract, and so on make you one.





As far as I know; you have not been appointed the representative of the Radical Left.


That is correct if you had a response to put forth instead of simply saying who made you king I might have respected it, but seeing as you didn't it seems that you can't debate the validity of my point.





“Proletarian Science’? Give me a break.

No breaks for liberals.




Then there’s a lot of idealism going down, here. Practically every subforum is overflowing with cloying, masturbatory paeans to long-deceased, bearded men. The kind of reverence displayed is nothing short of religious.

I agree and that is unfortunate.





Morals, when you break it down, are really just hypotheses about the well-being of humans. There’s no qualitative difference.

This really had very little to do with what I posted.




Modified with; ‘for lack of a better term.’ I thought most people would be smart enough to understand the context.

Great, it doesn't make you position any more solid.




You’ve correctly identified them as words, yes.
On a more serious note; I don’t think this is merely semantics.

You seem to have made a clever assertion yourself, but it is merely semantics.



No;it's a fact. Like Marx said; ‘Democracy is the road to Socialism.’ There must be a confluence between means, and ends. You don’t get to Anarchosyndicalist paradise via monolithic police state.




However; the context of that quote, from The Civil War in France, was that the Paris Commune represented an example of the form, and function of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is worlds away from a monolithic, bureaucratic collective controlled entirely by a small coterie of party elites. Engels said the same thing, in the postscript; ‘"Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat…" (My emphasis.)
[/QUOTE]
The Paris commune represented the proletarian dictature obviously and had democratic aspects to them, to believe that every proletarian dictature needs to have these exact same aspects is in fact idealism. But the Paris commune was authoritarian in many ways to believe otherwise is to rewrite history. How else did they organize. And no I don't want your anarcho-syndicalist paradise, I don't stand for creating a paradise, simply enacting a revolution. That is all I can ask for, and whatever else comes will the product of the material conditions.

[Revolution starts with U]

namely the things that define capitalism as capitalism, such as generalized wage labour and generalized commodity production, and class distinctions.

All of which require an existing hierarchical structure to society to even exist....I mean, it's not as if private property, by its very existence, automatically and necessarily creates a vertical division of power. :rolleyes:

[NGNM85]

Call it as you please but I am not dogmatic, if you had read any of my posts you should understand that.

That remains to be seen. Regardless; religious dogmatism is epidemic, in this community, and the Radical Left, as a whole.


Your posts on the other hand indicate otherwise.

Not if you read them, and understood them. I don’t claim to have any special knowledge of how the world works. Anarchism does not pretend to be a science. Nor do I adhere to any kind of rigid programme.


And I don't know if you are a real anarchist or not,

Then you really have nothing meaningful to say on the subject.


but you certainly are a liberal. Your fixation on religion, your desire of liberty in the abstract, and so on make you one.

Those aren’t the sufficient conditions of liberalism; modern, or classical.

No, like I said; liberty is an ideal, it’s not divorced from the underlying socioeconomic structure. The emancipation of the working class necessitates public ownership of the means of production. That’s the most fundamental difference between Libertarianism and Liberalism.

As for religion; my position is not unique, or unusual, in any respect. I’m an atheist, or, more broadly, a metaphysical materialist. For a Socialist; that’s hardly unusual, it almost goes without saying. Also, frankly; I’d be inclined to talk about it a lot less, if I weren’t relegated to OI, so it’s not exactly as if I have a shitload of options. Second; it’s a pretty significant issue, especially in the United States. Third; I’d also talk about it a lot less if people like you didn’t constantly hound me about it. You can’t have your cake, and eat it, too.


That is correct if you had a response to put forth instead of simply saying who made you king I might have respected it, but seeing as you didn't it seems that you can't debate the validity of my point.

You didn’t make any point. You just appointed yourself spokesman of the Radical Left. Sorry, the ‘Revolutionary Left.’ You might want to bear in mind that I’m actually, technically more ‘Revolutionary’ than Marx, or, rather, the later Marx.


No breaks for liberals.

I don’t even think you know what the word means.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you shouldn’t use ridiculous phrases like; ‘Proletarian science’, not only is the idea absurd, it makes you sound like a jackass.


I agree and that is unfortunate.

Ok, so we actually agree on one thing.


This really had very little to do with what I posted.

No, you’re just not understanding it. You were, wrongly, contrasting your ‘Scientific’ Marxism, with my supposed ‘moralism.’ What you’ve missed is that there is no qualitative difference. You can prove the utility of the scientific method, (Incidentally; I think your scientific credentials are suspect, at best.) and the accuracy of the Scientific method, but your argument for why we should care about science, or accuracy, is not qualitatively different from moral arguments against exploitation, etc. That isn’t to say that those aren’t good arguments. They’re both excellent arguments. It’s as obvious that we should, in fact; we must use reason to understand, and interpret the world, as it is that, all else being equal, a society that discourages murder, rape, and child abuse will be a better environment for human beings than one which does not.


Great, it doesn't make you position any more solid.

You seem to have a serious problem with missing the forest for the trees. Again; I was simply responding to Rafiq’s baseless, and bogus charge that I’m not a ‘real’ Anarchist, pointing out that, ideologically, for the most part, I’m pretty much in the center of what could be called the mainstream of Anarchist thought. That’s a fact. You can check my posts, and then check the canon. However; as you’ve said; you have no idea, either way, so you don’t actually have a point.


You seem to have made a clever assertion yourself, but it is merely semantics.

No, it isn’t. There’s a qualitative difference between; ‘hate’, and; ‘detest.’


The Paris commune represented the proletarian dictature obviously and had democratic aspects to them, to believe that every proletarian dictature needs to have these exact same aspects is in fact idealism. But the Paris commune was authoritarian in many ways to believe otherwise is to rewrite history. How else did they organize.

No, no, no. The one primary example, to my knowledge, the only example, of how the dictatorship of the proletariat would function, was in The Civil War in France.


And no I don't want your anarcho-syndicalist paradise, I don't stand for creating a paradise, simply enacting a revolution.

Again; forest for the trees.


That is all I can ask for, and whatever else comes will the product of the material conditions.

That’s absolutely absurd, and I really don’t think you actually believe this.

[Rafiq]

Your overtly simplistic view of reality can be really quite laughable at times...
Yes, were I a worker in Germany I would want to trust the laws I live under. Does this, to you, mean I am a fascist now?

It means you're an idiot who sees laws as objective, universal, and individsible. You just admitted that it would have been "better" if Germany abided by it's Fascist laws (Killing non-aryans, and so on). Good job.



Tell that to the people actually living under the laws. Get your nose out of academia for just a minute or two...


Explain how the correlation isn't there. What the fuck? Did you even read what I said? What difference does it make for me to "tell dat to da people living under da laws".

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?


I fully admit it comes from history classes. But it's not like it's a secret that in NAZI Germany you could wake up to find your best friend has disappeared forever.

The same holds for about 90% of U.S. history. The U.S. doesn't have a big moral authority over the Fascists, I'm afraid.


I haven't read this, but
http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/history/hitlers-courts-betrayal-of-the-rule-of-law-in-nazi-germany-one-hour-special/1814/
could get you started.

Apologia of classical German bourgeois laws. Good fucking job. Laws can be changed.


Again, it's not like it's any secret that NAZI Germany was notorious for disavowing the rule of law... but first you would have to understand what that term means so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law


I know what it means. It's bourgeois terminology.


Omfg your views are such a joke sometimes :lol:
So, because I trust the law that says "wear your seatbelt or pay a fine" that if I get caught not wearing my seat belt I will face a fine... now I'm a counterrevolutionary?
WTF? :confused:

The fact you praise the legitimacy of the laws of the Bourgeois class, merely because they are laws, makes you a counter revolutionary.


I mean... are you saying the four forces intended to create atoms? Or are atoms really the base and the four forces just superstructure?


That doesn't have anything to do with this.


Atoms cannot exist without the four forces. The four forces must be base.


Analogy doesn't work.


Societies/modes of production cannot exist without people. People must be base.


It has already been estabilished, from the begginings of works on Historical Mateiralism, that history is made of men, and not a magical ghost using men as it's desposal. That's already been pressuposed in the writings of Marx.

The point of Historical Materialism was indeed quite simple: The mode of production (Made of people, fucking obvious) is the base in all societies. Meaning all things, art, law, morality and ideology are superstructural to this. Humans aren't even included in the "Base vs. Superstructure" dichtomony because humans are a means in which these things are expressed.


Are you saying that people only exist (if people are superstructure) to sustain economic relations?

People are not a superstructure. Their thoughts, conciousness, and will are indeed a superstructure, though. People exist and act in reflection to the mode of production they had organized themselves into via class warfare.

Here's an anology that actually works (:rolleyes:):

You were born into capitalism, yet you didn't engage in the class struggle that created capitalism. You're still apart of it, not because it's your choice, but because it's the mode of production that gave birth to your ability to think. All of your thoughts are a reflection of this. How do these modes of production come about? Through the class warfare of classes existent in previous modes of production (s). This is the basis for understanding history.

When the Merchent class, the guilds, and so on, engaged in warfare with the Landlords and Feudal status quo, they did so as a reflection of their class interest, not because they wanted "Democracy" or "Liberty" or even Capitalism as we know it. They had absolutely no concept whatsoever of what mode of production would come after Feudalism.

Why? Because htey were constrained by the Feudalist modeo f production, hwich only allowed them to actualize their class interest. Class warfare and class interest as a systemic contradiction in any mode of production is the only exit from being ideologically constrained by a mode of production.

That's why I stress, so very much, that Communists should know their place: That Communism is a mere ideological vanguard, a movement, and an embodiment of hte interests of the proletarian class, and that our goal is state dictatorship and the emancipation from Bourgeois society and the shackles which make us proletarians. Not, as we should put it, a future society which we could plan and map out. It's Idealist not because it's romanticist, but because it assumes an idea (blueprint) can give birht to a new mode of production, instead of a series of complex class struggles and interludes, as Engels calls it, between individual wills.

I'm trying to be nice and give you an introduction to materialism because you and I know very well you have no idea about it in regards. And I'm not going to fucking rail on you for that, because not too long ago I didn't either. I'd just appreciate if you avoid being dismissive.


If so, that's absurd. If not, you should find new ways to express yourself that are not so confusing and contradictory...


What do you mean by "people". Do you mean them themselves, or the several spawns of people (Law, morality, and so on)? Because if it's the latter, then yes, they do only exist super structural. But people themselves as in humans are the only conscious beings at hand here... It just so happens they lack the required consciousness to control their own organization and movement in history. They are constrained by what exists (capitalism and before).

I'll give you something to think about: I want you to think of something that you're not constrained by. You can say anything you like. A big pony that shits exploding watermelons. You see, this is just blending things you already know. That's my point, to some extent. What furthers the constrain is not the will to further the constrain, but on the contrary, the will to fight for your class interest. The rest is largely unintentional and therefore not an expression of will.


Then materialism, as you define it, is an idealism. Modes of production are no less an abstraction than modes of governance...

Governance exists to sustain and regulate the mode of production. Part of doing this means introducing laws against murder, and so on.


so, what makes one more material than the other?


That government can't exist without a mode of production, and that the latter precedes the former?

You say: "A mode of production can't exist without government". Yes, of course. But the point is that it's impossible for any sort of governance to even come into existence without a mode of production. On the contrary, a mode of production can exist without governance, just not for very long. Governance is not before mode of production, but it's the opposite.


Of course, in your world, there aren't many people who aren't "fucking morons" so... I'm not sure what impact this is supposed to have.

What I mean by this: Anyone who tries to pose as an intellectual. Several Bourgeois-Idealists throughout history have acknowledged the world and everything around us is made of matter. It doesn't mean anything.


The length of time a community embraces an incoherent definition doesn't make that definition any more coherent.


?


This says nothing about the veracity of Marx's claims, so don't even go that route. What it says is that the words he is using just serve to confuse people's understanding of the issue.


For Marx's time, it made a lot of sense. Considering he didn't invent materialism, not completely. Sorry he wasn't around to adjust his works to the 21st century, I'm sure that if he knew how difficult it was for you to articulate his works, he would have taken it into great consideration (Making it clear) :rolleyes:

This is why people have to read. I type this in the least offensive way possible. This isn't an attack on you, so don't intemperate it offensively. I'm trying to be nice.


Can a revolution be hijacked by a class?

That would make it a counter revolution.


Did not the people of France at fist consider the french revolution a prole revolution? (Be advised, Marx said they did)


Perhaps if they perceived it to be such, they were wrong. The French Revolution was always a Bourgeois revolution, and Marx knew this. He did support it none the less, as do I.


You seem to think the only prole is an already radicalized prole...


Actually, more proles became radicalized after the Bolshevik revolution. All revolutions spread.


The better question being why didn't the uprising spread...


It did, though. Maybe not the Spartacust uprising, but the Bolshevik revolution established the Comintern. At that time, there had never been as much proletarians engaging in class struggle before, under the red flag.


What exactly was Luxembourg's critique of the Bolsheviks again?

Luxemburg had a lot of problems with Kautsky. She didn't really criticize them for being "Authoritarian", but she did criticize them for the Brest treaty which took away supreme executive power from the Soviets. Little did she know that strategically this was necessary to mobilize against the counter revolution.

War Communism, as Trotsky (who I really can't stand, but not because he didn't like Stalin) put it, established a proletarian Sparta. It was brutal, but it was necessary.


Why did the SPD move from a radical party to a collaborationist party? Could this have possibly had anything to do with the actions of Leninists in Russia?


That would be a very ludicrous assertion. The SPD became counter revolutionary as soon as it adopted Social Chauvinism at the start of World War one. All who opposed the Zimmerwald Left were on the path to Bourgeois decadency. The SPD and the KAPD's internal structures had absolutely nothing to do with the "Leninists" in Russia (Leninism didn't exist until 1928, to call the Bolsheviks 'Leninists' at that time is theoretical ejaculation to Trotskyists and Stalinists).


No, it had nothing to do with the leadership... of course not... it's the proletariat's own fault they are in the situation they are in.

It was an unfortunate circumstance. There were definitely a lot of organizational problems and sectarianism. That's hardly the fault of the proletariat, but of conditions.


This doesn't sound like the same tired right wing critique us radicals have heard time and again...


You're right, it doesn't. :rolleyes:


Or more like Petrograd and Krondstat, Astrakhan, Putilov, and others.

The Petograd workers had supported the Bolsheviks, actually....


I'm talking about actual workers upset with a central party state, struggling to make dues in a system that puts its interest above theirs.

And once they had state power, they would be faced with the same problems the Bolsheviks did. I don't care who you are, no one could have built a successful proletarian dictatorship that was strong with the conditions faced by the Bolsheviks in the 20's.


You know, those people who move history, but are not "great" enough to have their name pasted onto a movement.

That's a little bit too much credit. I don't think any Marxist would call any Bolshevik a "great" man. When I say "Lenin did this", I don't mean Lenin as an individual, I mean what he represented. These fellows didn't have anything that significant to represent, so that's why they were forgotten.



The Anarchist Battle Detachment, which attacked Bolshevik and White Guard alike,

Sorry, that was never a real organization. I'm not one for accusations, but did you seriously just read the Wikipedia article on "Anarchism in Russia" and then claim to be knowledgeable on the subject?


or the brave women in Tula who refused to work on sundays and were then accused of sabotage...

That is sabotage. The workers under the Bolsheviks were not responding to orders, they were mobilising and organizing very brutally because it was their revolution. To pull such a stunt while your comrades were out in the fields taking bullets for you is atrocious.


even the Ukranian Anarchists fought the Bolsheviks in self defense (even tho they had their own problems of summary execution and secret police)...

It wasn't "self defense". This (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml) is a really well sourced document. Have a skim.


1) No I will not shut the hell up.
2) Not a liberal
3) Fuck you


Despite my insults, you totally missed the essence of the snip.


Well let's move past the insanely simplistic line of "Phonecians were the first to invent the alphabet." Let's move to your other questions.

Why is it simplistic?


Did they do it out of will? Well, for any human action to take place, it must be willed by the people taking the action, so yes.

Okay, you've confirmed that they did indeed do it. Good job. You haven't provided us why.


Because they wanted to make poetry and have (written) conversations? Well, written language, poetry, and written conversation are dated to far before the phonecian alphabet

That's pretty obvious to anyone.


so technically no, but I'm sure it played a role.


Hell. No. I'm very well known on the subject too, because I've had a great fascination with them for a long time. I also have connections with people involved at the Museum of National history in Lebanon.

http://www.phoenician.org/alphabet.htm

It's pretty much of common knowledge they invented the Alphabet strictly for trade with other Medditeranian areas. If they wanted all that other nonsense, they would have used Egyptian hieroglyphics and what not.

Fact of the matter is that the Alphabet is what revolutionized language as we know it, and language was utilized in ways external from trade only after it was first only invented for trade.

So my analogy was quite simple: They unintentionally gave birth to a great breakthrough in Human language, a major revolution. Not because they thought in thousands of years we'd by typing on computers, but because they necessitated it for trade. This is one fraction of the materialist picture.


You seem, here, to be making a giant mistake... Phonecian alphabet is not the earliest script,

Never said it was.


written language is not the same as language in general, and written language had long before this been used to record economic data.

But do you deny that the Alphabet revolutionized language as we know it? Which is pretty damn important, considering the Philosophers of ancient Greece probably wouldn't have been able to record their shit as easily as they did. Imagine how difficult it would have been to decipher that!


The actual earliest use of phon-script, ironically, is a magical spell to protect a king's tomb... lulz... not an economic transaction.

That didn't revolutionize language. A series of obscure symbols and pagan cartoons is hardly as much as the creation of the alphabet.


But, to be fair, the earliest use of written language in Sumeria IS to record economic interactions. Maybe you are mixing the two... idk...


No. I know very well the Alphabet originated in Phonecia. Strictly for economic purposes.

They also did a study among Jackals, and other animals... Communicaiton between animals is strictly for survival and was brought about because of the need to survive (mode of production!).

Many anthropologists confirm that this was how Human communication developed: for hunting and what not.


So, all in all, I'm not sure what to say about your "hypothesis" here... it just seems not too tied to reality.

Seems...


Whatever truth may or may not be there (writing was originally developed for economic reasons) gets lost in the haze of misunderstanding and lack of historical knowledge.

The point is that it served the mode of production, the production of life, which isn't a conscious being, by the way, and then only later was it utilized for superstructural purposes. Language as a superstructure, or the Alphabet, was used as a reflection of the mode of production.


One thing is for sure tho; it was PEOPLE who wrote language down, just as it was PEOPLE who created the social structure that required written language.


really? I assumed it was a magical being who uses humans to achieve it's own ends :rolleyes: ?


History is not like some individual person, which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends.



I rest my case; full on fatalistic determinism, and actual people are totally irrelevant to the movements of history.


When one accuses a Materialist of determinism, then their idealist insecurities bleed out.


What a simplistic and crude view of Marxism.


I don't think, with all due respect, that you are one to talk of Marxism. Your "Marxism" amounts to a few articles on Wikipedia.


You mean like this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm
Where he talks about future revolutions cannot dress themselves up in the costumes of past heroes to hide their class nature?

That doesn't have anything to do with the phrase. It's beyond me why you would link that... As If I made an argument against it.


I am... you know, that whole apart about people making decisions, specifically not dressing their revolutions up in Roman costumes...

What are you babbling on about?


Or the whole part about where the Feb Rev failed because the state merely returned to its old methods of the sword and the monk's cowl. I am...


No. Marx explicitly went into detail as to why that was.


By making decisions and actions, which are of course directed and allowed to happen within other historical circumstances; the "superstructure" you speak of.


With all due respect, you just thought that Materialism meant everything is made of matter. You have no right to lecture me on materialism, or try and explain the base - superstructure relationship. Humans themselves act as a means in which the superstructure is expressed, sure, but that doesn't make them a superstructure in itself.


I'm simply taking the entire quote, in context, as what Marx wanted to say... not just the last part so I can make Marx fit my distorted view of reality.


All parts necessitate and formulate my thesis. Men and Women do make history, but not as an expression of their direct will, not as they please.

See above, if you will.


From the preface:

Say what now? Did Marx not just say that Proudhoun's critique of the times was so deep into historical circumstance it totally absolved the actual actors of any responsibility? Yes, I believe he did say that.


Well, then you're greatly mistaken. Marx is describing the exact opposite: Proudhon's emphasis on individuals (i.e. heroes) in an excessive manner. This was part of his critique of the "Great man" theory.

I'm willing to drop hostility if you're willing to accept that you aren't very knowledgeable on either Marx or Materialism.



All of world history.

How convenient. Why don't you be specific? It's easy to pretend to know where the gold is hidden without divulging into the mines and proving it.


"Material forces" do not move and change of their own will, and it is the height of idealism to suggest that relations between people and the natural world can have a "will" of their own...

You're just greatly misunderstood as to what constitues as Material forces or mateiralism. As I've said before, they are by no means a concious being. Engels describes material forces as the complex entanglement of the several complex relationships humans have with one and other, for one. Material forces could indeed include a class in itself, it could, indeed, include the mode of production in which humans are organized (But are not fully aware).

I'll use a daring example: Capitalism as a system, in all it's complexity, was not fully understood and realized until Marx decoded it. Despite millions of individuals participating in it daily, making it move, they had absolutely no clue about how it worked. The capitalist mode of production itself, which is necessitated by human life and it's production, by humans themselves, is a material force. It is the base of all human interaction (the mode of production). What comes after is superstructural.


Yes, we all know that every young kid brutalized by his parents will grow up to become a serial killer.

Say this abuse was going on in a house in the middle of no where, with no civilization, then yes, the psychological trauma experienced by the kid would be tremendous. Capital's influence entrenches all of society, including the very private lives of families. As a matter of fact, I've yet to hear of a case where an abused child didn't become normal without being exposed to the outside world sooner or later throughout his life.

No offense, but that's a terrible argument you just made.


They have no choice in the matter.


They don't have a choice, a lot of the times, actually. The fact that child abuse exists is linked to the bourgeois family structure (in capitalism), and therefore it's that which should be destroyed, not the reliance upon individual wills. You cannot expect nice slave owners when slavery is a norm.

What counts is why they made the choice, what mechanisms necessitated those choices?


Oh wait... only some brutalized kids become sociopaths.


Please dump this argument. It's so awful. As if homes are not connected to the capitalist mode of production and it's base. As if all abused kids live in a bubble deprived of the outside world. When they "grow up" and are sane, chances are they escaped the life they were living in and experienced modern day Liberalism as it is.

You're just not seeing the bigger picture, I'm afraid. Your "surroundings" include everything. Namely the capitalist mode of production.


Collectives are made up of individuals. Collectives don't "act" on their own.
Christ your understanding is so simplistic...


Collectives are a representation of the interests of several individuals. Without collectives, an individual interest is worthless. Collectives indeed do act on their own, just as several cells act on their own, yet as a mechanism define organisms.


Not at all, and I don't understand where you got the idea this was so...


Don't knit pick. You previously stated that abused kids have a "choice" and that if they do indeed become mentally impaired, it is because of their own inability to act upon their "free will". Why is this not the same for poor people, who under your logic, can simply act upon their "free will" to stop being poor? Oh wait! The required conditions in which they could do so do not exist. And I assert the same is with serial killers who were abused as children. Only in specific and special cases does this not occur, just like in specific and special cases poor people become rich.

So I'm twisting your logic for my own benefit, now. Now, I can say that poor people don't have to be poor because some become rich, just like some abused kids end up not having many psychological problems.

The first step to understanding materialism is to abandon the notion of "free will".


Now this presents a problem for the Revolution in its own right.

Indeed, but this shouldn't compel us to move to Menshevik logic and say that "The Bourgeoisie needs to be left alone so the nation can develop". Indeed, the only thing that was necessary was for the revolution to spread.


I feel like if I leave this unspecified, as I planned to do, you're going to respond with "see you think they shouldn't have revolted!" or some such nonsense. So I'm just going to nip that in the bud right now..
The proletariat, engaging Revolution in a land where they are the minority, should have realized that legitimacy is only gained by the, at least, tacit support of the masses.

Read "Ten Days that shook the world". As a book, it's even accepted as historically accurate by the most self professed of Liberals.

It specifically mentions the several campaigns underwent to win the support of the Peasantry. Do you even know the origin of the Hammer and Sickle?

The proletariat had every right to revolt and depose of the Bourgeois class in the industrial zones. It just so happens they were immediatly under attack on all sides when they did so. Full conquest of the Russian empire was necessary to defend their interests.

It cannot be an ethical rule that majority rule must always persist. It's only strategic, mind you.


It is beyond ludicrous to think we can assert our dominance as a minority,

Morally? Who cares.

Strategically, it does turn into a goddamn mess (Without a revolution spreading).

Despite you and others who like to dismiss DNZ, he's the only user whose divulged into this and tried to offer some sort of solution.


and not merely act as a new ruling class pilfering the wealth of the land for their own benefit.


That's not how it happened. As a matter of fact, their goal was to give the Peasantry their own land. The problem with that, of course, that the Market was not powerful enough, or quick enough to fend off the counter revolution (See Britian in WWII).

Again, read Ten Days that Shook the world.


Are you suggesting no proletariat joined in the White Guard?

Nice try. Majority of proletarians supported the Bolsheviks. Their were virtually none in the White Army (which was composed of Peasants, Kulaks and Cossacks).


Are you suggesting none of the other insurrections, which were just as opposed to white as red, were joined or created by proles?


They did not represent the proletariat as a whole.

Throughout the civil war, they remained faithful to the Bolsheviks.


You seem to assume beforehand that prole = supporter of Bolsheviks

But the majority of them did. A vast majority, actually. The Bolsheviks were the Iron fist of the industrial proletariat.


, and if you don't support Bolshevism you were automatically not a prole...


Several proletarians support Fascists. That doesn't make Fascism the embodiment of proletarian class consciousness.

The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, in origin, sought to express the interests of the proletariat in the highest form possible.


The Bolsheviks had support among many of the bourgeoisie themselves

Not during the Civil war, they didn't. "Many" is ludicrous, even a couple is stretching it.


, and retained much of the old Imperial forces within their own midst

Yeah, the soldiers. Whom by the way, were proletrians, who threw off their loyalty to the Tzar, and pledged allegance to the revolution.

That's like saying "Much of the former workers under the Tzar were retained".

Yeah, that's the point of a revolution.


... at least until very late in the Civil War.


No, the Soldiers continued to make up the Red Army...


Of course I'm an idiot for knowing history, whereas you're a genius for not...


You don't know a lot about the Bolshevik revolution, aside from a few skims on Wikipedia. I think you know this very well too.

Me, on the other hand, who used to be a Libertarian, like you, whose read several works on the Bolshevik revolution, from a wide range of opinions, I would assume, would know a tad bit more on the subject. I suspect, actually, that as you're typing, you're looking this up on Wikipedia.


Except there were other options, which the proletariat joined, which was opposed to both the Bolshevicks and the Whites...


Again, the proletariat were never a major component of the White Army. Barely any joined, actually.


That women and blacks in early America were opposed to the Bill of Rights, or would have been opposed if they had any political power.


Well yeah, they would have demanded far more than the benevolence of White Males. Women and Blacks had absolutely no say in the bill of rights, anyway, when it was created :rolleyes:

Did you forget Blacks and Women couldn't even vote for the same glorious document you uphold so much, at that same very time?


Were the opposed to the Bill of Rights, or upset that it seemingly didn't apply to them?


Several revolutionary movements that it did apply to also opposed it. As a matter of fact, the "Bill of rights" only applied to the Bourgeois class and the Petite Bourgeois classes. It's a wrothless document in itself which could only apply to such a minroity of the population.

Free speech and Free press was more abundant in war communism than it was in the United States. Take a look at the history of the U.S. : Spreaders of propaganda were brutally killed (In the war), during the Red Scare many were silenced, many were jailed for being suspected communists, and so on. "Well, then they betrayed it". Well, if that's the case, then it's a useless, abstract piece of garbage from day one.



So? They still couldn't get the Constitution ratified without it; through a direct democratic vote (admittedly by mostly property holding white males).

Okay, so it wasn't a "direct democratic" vote. Actually, the bill of rights was created to satisfy one faction of the ruling class, the "Anti Federalists" whom were mainly petite bourgeois.


Ya, well, it's not like there was much of a formal proletariat to speak of...


There was, though, a mass slave population, and a rural proletariat which constituted the majority of the landmass.


None of this means anything.


You don't want it to mean anything, because it causes a disturbance in your oh so liberalist harmony. Your understanding of what "democracy" is, is quite skewed.


Either you support the ability of the masses to self-govern or you don't.

What abstract garbage. Militant democratic dictatorship means things like "Self management" are petite bourgeois in nature (which they are). There will not exist a formal "state" which will leave the masses alone to go about their business. The point is that the masses make up the state power itself, but do not directly organize it. The "masses" and the state dictatorship are one and the same.


Just because I oppose bourgeois democracy doesn't mean I oppose people voting on the things which impact their own lives...


"Voting" in the formal sense is garbage. The masses must make demands, not vote between a select given options knit picked by the Bourgeois class.


In what context; the proletariat directing its own affairs, regardless of the wishes of the Central Party?


You're still missing the point. The "central party" is the mass party movement which represents the masses and their interests. And I say represent in the literal sense, i.e. embodiment of it's interests.


Ya, that's about how I thought you felt.


Yes, fuck democracy and it's disgusting rhetoric. The term was hijacked and shat upon. It's too bad, I don't give a shit. Democracy in the sense of Aristotle is the only one that is of any use.


This is a complete side-stepping of what I said. If you mean materialism to only include certain types of matter (which your base for materialism isn't even matter! It's a relation between people and nature), then yes, you are being confusing.


Dialectical Materialism: Metaphysical, explains the specific movement of matter and describes the ability to produce thought as the highest organizational structural stage of matter.

Historical Materialism: Explains the origin of this thought itself and the ways in which it works, how it is influenced, and it's impact on the material world. Specifically mentions how thought itself is a reflection of hte material world. The Organization between humans, which eventually organizes into something beyond itself, is called the base (recall how no one understood how capitalism worked, yet it persisted). This is the origin of thought and it's advancement (Only with capitalism, could the constraint be pushed forward to go to space).


Except they are, because they actually exist...


Thoughts do not have the same influence as "matter" (in the mode of production esque sense). That's the point. I care not for your metaphysical squabbles. Your computer is made of matter, that doesn't mean it's not a product of the capitalist base. The superstructure is not a material forces in the Marxist sense.


I'm a new ager?


Your username, and profile picture.


That's discriminatory towards gays, by the way, what you just said there; "shove it up your ass."

No, it's not. That's like saying it's discriminatory to women as well because Anal sex exists.

You're trying so hard, I almost feel bad...


As if there is something wrong with putting things up your ass... Just thought I would let you know.

Generally what you'd shove in your ass isn't something that is of quality. Unless, of course, you'd like to bring your dildo to your grandparents house, as a gift. That's the point. For me to tell you to do it isn't disregarding the act itself, it's telling you that what you're spouting about is of such low quality that it belongs in that place.


MY metaphysical nonsense? Nonsense like believing relations between people and nature can act of their own accord?! Oh wait... that's you...


That's not what metaphysical means.

But anyway, "nature" doesn't equate to harmoneous ecology. Marx understood that "nature" must be brutally destroyed and paved over in the face of human development.


Then again, if that is what you mean by "material" you are being misleading and confusing, and should find a new name.


We say material because it's DM applied to our understanding of history. The name isn't going to be changed because of your 21st century preferences. In the 19th century, that's what the term was associated with.


Why should I? Hydrogen gives birth to helium... that doesn't make helium somehow immaterial.


It's not a good anaology. Helium is not the source of the creation of helium, hydrogen is. But even if that's not true, it has nothing to do with Historical materialism or understanding the base superstructure relationship.

Hydrogen and Helium are chemicals and by definition under Dialectical materialism, they are not the highest products of matter's organization. Something like a brain is, and in turn, it gives birth to thoughts. Comparing Helium to thoughts isn't going to hold up to any Marxist.


No.


Then you won't be taken seriously, but okay.


And you accuse me of idealism?! Holy hell this is getting ridiculous...


Do I need to clarify this?

Let's get this straight: Marxists do not reject Hegel's thesis on how all thoughts, structure and base are connected. We merely reverse it and instead of the Material world being a mere thought, Thoughts themselves are products of the material world.

You can't accuse what I said:


You're wrong, they do. People do not care, they act as agents of the mode of production through classes and so on. It's this class warfare that breeds new ones.


Of Idealism as this is simply laughable (I'm trying to help you out, here).

Idealism doesn't equate to anything you don't agree with or can't understand, it's a very specific and complex term which has, universally, one meaning.

The mode of production is not an Idea. It's a base. To say Ideas are products of the bases (Or people's actions, which are products of thoughts) isn't Idealist, it's the opposite.


Marx would have...


Really? I didn't know that in Marx's time, capitalism never existed.

I'm talking about how in Feudalism, the merchant class could have never predicted what capitalism would have turned into, just as we can't predict what Communism could be. How is that difficult to articulate?


Who said they change them for "fuck all reasons?"

You do.


Whether they did it because they perceived it to be in their class interest, or self interest,

Stop with the nonsense. These two are identical.


or for no reason, doesn't change the fact that they did, in fact, consciously change them.

Everyone knows that. The point is why, how, and what necessitated it. Otherwise, it's a useless debate.

Marxists don't reject that humans make all actions. We merely assert that these actions are reflections, or products of something other than the nonsense called "Free will".


Simplistic idealism is all this is.

See above, again. You're going to have to elaborate as to why it's "Idealism" in specifics. I don't think you know what Idealism is, to be honest.


You've completely removed humans from humanity. It's absurd.


I'm removing "free will" from humans.

here:


Class interest is a product, a component of the mode of production. Humans are constrained by this and will never move beyond it.


I demand you take this, and go in depth as to how that's "Removing humans from humanity". Your understanding of both Humans and Humanity is skewed, and Idealist. That's the problem.

in this specific context, to hell with "humanity". In this specific case, Humanity, as you put it (An all encompassing, free will, spirit, that does as it wishes and pleases without a base to influence this, which moves beyond constrains intentionally and directly based on it's will without class warfare, which is not bound by it's own surroundings and mode of production) does not exist.



Marx offered certain proscriptions. To say "Marxism is not an ideology" is not the same as saying Marx didn't have an ideology.


Some of the first criticisms of Ideology were from Marx. He didn't have one. He supported one, sure, but he didn't have one.


How does this, in your view, not make Marx a counterrevolutionary worthy of a bullet in the brain without trial?


Because the Bourgeois intelligentsia (Which isn't really Bourgeois in our sense, in that they are academics, scientists, and so on) isn't inherently opposed to the Proletarian class and it's interests. These are scientists and theoreticians, here. Lenin was, in this sense, of the Bourgeois intelligentsia. Even the Bourgeois of feudalism required the modern day intellectual advancements to gain any ground.

I'm not a proletarian, I'm a student. That doesn't mean anything, though. Marx mentioned how several members of the Bourgeois class would join with the champions of history, and give up their property. These will suffer no consequence.


And Marx (and the rest of the prole movements of the time) had absolutely no impact on any of the developments that came about after his time?


If Marx never existed, they would have developed in simply a different way (Go ahead and accuse me of "OMG u r so simplistic u say humanz has nothing to do wit it omg") then they did. That doesn't mean they would not have developed.


So keep reading, this was just preface...


By the time you were responding to this, I read your whole god damn post :rolleyes:


All you've done here is stick your fingers in your ears and start muttering loudly.


That's an awful insight. I suppose, then, then I stand unchallenged, since you are unable to divulge as to why you think that, and why I'm wrong.


Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't. What's important is that they DID come up with WHEN they did. Ergo, "people" had an impact on history.


Well, no shit, who did you think carried out these actions?

The point is, why, what necessitated this?


I'm sure... :rolleyes:


Worth the Jail time.


Igbo - English Imperialism

English Imperialism would have existed regardless. The Igbo had little to nothing to do with the funds.


- support of the White Army

See above.


- economic inefficiency created by the Civil war -

Which has nothing to do with the Igbo people.


personal stress for Lenin

Lenin didn't fuck another person because he was stressed out.


- this, coupled with Nade's infertility causes Lenin to have an affair.


Lenin just wanted Sex, actually.


Boom, done. ;)


Wrong... So wrong.

But I'll use another example: What did Marx's child (AND ONLY HIM, HIM DIRECTLY) have to do with the preference of how Ronald Reagan liked to shave his balls?


No, just stating that I am moving on to the next sentence... as I thought this one was just a preface.


So we're pressupsoing it, then?


Oh my god, it's such a travesty that I lament the loss of the Rule of Law! That must automatically mean I will betray the Revolution!


"Rule of Law" is a Bourgeois concept developed by John Locke. It is Idealist in nature and antithetical to Marxian science.

Now, I am not saying it's *bad*, I'm saying it's abstract and non existent, and cannot exist.


Try to make sense next time...


:bored:

It's not my fault you're too lazy to understand materialism, and actually read into it.


If you are saying what I think you are saying... it's the same thing I've been saying this whole time... which makes me almost certain you are not saying what I think you are saying.

You're probably correct, then, as I'm not an Idealist.



You don't have a gun in your hand. You're not marching with the enemy. You're not expressing political power in the suppression of worker interests...

No, but you're representing the enemy. Which makes you a potential enemy.


So tell me exactly in what way
1) Marching with a flag is mass propaganda (what a revealing of what you consider to be worth shooting people without trial for)


You're attempting to challenge the proletarian dictatorship.


2) this manifests the interests of the class enemy


Simple. If it is NATO in this case, then that's the class enemies vanguard, and for you to celebrate it's flag is the embodiment of their interests, in a flag.


You basically just said "it's not ideas that are censored, it's the spreading of (ideas)."


Mass Propaganda works in a different way, actually.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
If proletarian, then Revolutionary
Revolutionary
Therefore proletarian


Embodiment of the Interests of the proletarian class means class consciousness. That's another tenet of Marxism you should probably look up before attempting to debate me.


In my links I have shown that the Bolsheviks lost majority vote at one time among the proles,

What link? Link it. And it better be credible (Meaning no Pipes).


and therefore repressed the constituent assembly.


The Constituent assembly was swarming with infiltrators. Ever heard of Korlinov's attempt? This was done fully via the Provisional government's "Democracy".


1) There wasn't? What were all those genuine worker uprisings against the Bolsheviks then?


They didn't exist during the February revolution. Try again. And "genuine" is a very, very subjective term. I'll go ahead and say you're no expert on the subject, and your understanding doesn't go farther then a few wiki articles.


2) Why did Ceasar risk his life by crossing the Rubicon? Some people are brave.


But why did Lenin do it, if it was all about being "power hungry"? Lenin would never expect to be in the position him and his party were, say, when he was crossing the icy lake in I believe Finland, and almost died. He did say, reflecting back, his first thought was "Ah, what a stupid death". What this means? He'd rather die for the proletariat directly.

Some people are brave. But for what reasons? Caesar was the champion of the lower classes.


This is sophistry and false. Try being logical next time, comrade.


Again, you don't divulge.

I insult you, but at least I divulge every time. You, on the contrary, just insult. Empty words...


Like those bourgeois wage laboring women in Tula who merely didn't want to work on sundays... and for that were sent to labor camps in Siberia? Oh wait...


I've already addressed this nonsense.


Also, at what point did the situation in Russia stop being a proletarian situation? 1912, 13, 25, 82? Where do you draw the line?


What the fuck? When did I suggest 1912, 1913, or 1925? When has anyone suggested that? Idiots say 1982, and they're wrong. In truth, you can't draw the line because it was a slow and gradual process. But the abandonment of the third period signified capital's full victory in Russia, if that's what you're asking.


So they had no choice but to betray proletarian rule... but anyone who opposed them was bourgeois counterrevolutionaries?! Absurd...


They didn't intentionally want to betray proletarian rule. This is how things evolved. It's not as if they said "Hey guys, let's get rid of the DOTP". No. It was a slow and gradual processes, like a frog in boiling water (Glenn Beck).


So Stalin was acting on behalf of the proles in the early years of his "reign?" Laughable at best...


To some extent, yes he was. You assert it's laughable, so it's up to you to explain how it's laughable. I know for Idealists, they have this thing going where history, things aren't gradual, they just "Happen" based on someone's will. I get that. But that doesn't make it valid.


I don't know why it's so hard to believe that had the Party actively sought the empowerment of the working class, or the masses as a whole, that perhaps... just maybe... they wouldn't have had so many problems in the first place.

Don't be a moron. They did actively seek to do that. So many horrible pressuposions you're deploying, it's tiring.

What if I said this: Like Oedipus, in the same way they tried to empower the proletariat and defend their interests, eventually, they would be only for filling the "betrayal".

If anything, if they had adopted direct democracy in the civil war, things would have been worse. Mobilising the masses would be of impossibility.

You assert that if they did that, it would have been better. So I want you to be specific and explain how that's true.


Maybe they wouldn't have had so many uprisings against them to detract resources from the fight against the whites,

They would, though. There wouldn't even be a real fight with the whites, they would have lost immediately.

You make it as if mass mobilizations, military discipline, quick and harsh strategic measures (which did lead to revolts) didn't contribute fully to their victory, which they did. That's your awful assumption.


less factions would have joined with the whites, more would have joined them against the whites, the anarchists might have remained thoroughly red, etc etc etc.

The Anarchists, the Idealists they were, opposed all organization and state dictatorship. They wanted a victory over the whites without which made a victory possible.

Just like you.

You have to pick: Either no harsh policies, or a Victory over the whites. The two cannot coexist in this situation.

Ask why they developed those policies.


Then they might have won the Civil War and/or industrialized quicker, used this economic growth to foster more revolutionary movements around the world

That doesn't address hostile foreign powers or the necssity for strategic regional friends and trade relations. Even if we pressupose all the garbage you spewed out above (which I discredited).

They would have never won the civil war without doing away with supreme exectuve power to the Soviets. Otherwise they would have never abolished them.


(unlike, as Stalin did, funding nationalist movements against socialist ones)

regardless of who Stalin supported, that isn't going to stop isolation. Isolation means more then not having any friends.


, limiting the isolation of the Revoltuion, etc etc etc.


What an obscure formula you've just spouted about. The isolation of the revolution had existed as early as 1919 and not a policy the Bolsheviks had within their grasp could have avoided that.

You're too abstract. You need to analyze the situation more, little by little, month by month.


This is all just a maybe. One can only wonder.


It's not a maybe, it's a complete fuck no. I'm doing this to help you, to allow you to have a stronger understanding of these concepts.


Of course one cannot wonder at all if they adhere to fatalistic determinism, where no matter what happened it would have happened how it happened.

Again, had the revolution spread, it wouldn't have happened. Do you agree that no matter how much you tried, so long as you are beaten with a stick, you'll be beaten with a stick without something to stop the offender? You can't avoid being beaten with the stick because it's random, and you had never seen it coming.


They would have never revolted without the actions the Bolsheviks were taking against them...

Had they got in power, the same problem would then, again arise.


Again, as said above, perhaps if the Bolsheviks hadn't repressed anything that failed their ideological purity tests

Please stop attempting to re write history. Don't talk without knowledge to back that up. It's not true at all. I've never heard a more obscure history of the Boslehvik revolution then from you. Virtually no source, not even the most counter revolutionary ones, would adhere to this nonsense you're spouting.

The Bolsheviks didn't repress organizations and individuals because of their ideas, they did so because they actively fought against the Proletarian State.


, they would have had more support in the Civil War...


Among all of the factions in the Civil War, the Bolsheviks were undoubtedly the most popular. There is nothing the Bolsheviks could have done to folster more support. As a matter of fact, had the Bolsheviks abandoned it's "repressive" organs, they would have lost, making more support useless, anyway.


On a side note; why, to you, does identifying as anarchist/libertarian mean you fully 100% support the actions of anarchists in Ukraine and/or Spain?

Because the likes of Makhno and Durruti were like you, Libertarians from start. They were faced with the same problems the Bolsheviks did, and couldn't help but to resort to similar tactics. That's my point.


Nah, not really.


That's not an adaquet response.


Yes, but this is even moreso the case in places like China or Malaysia...


No, they just do less to try and conceal it, and have journalists all over their ass because of it. Hardly comparable.


Because, politically, you have to at least to give a head nod to law, in order to foster legitimacy...

Okay, rules need to be established. That doesn't make Lockes rule of law (instead of rule of men) theory any less of garbage then it is. The Rule of a law is just as much the rule of Men as is political order in Feudalism. Because there is no "rule of law". Again, Idealists do not understand the origin of laws. Why were they created? For what?


It has nothing to do with the supremacy of law, and everything to do with creating stability. No regime can exist without it.


According to the founders of the "rule of law" theory, yes it does equate to supremacy of law. Everyone wants stability, for thousands of years. But for which class? For whose interests? Stability for who? This Bourgeois gem is relatively new.


Again, varying degrees, and I have named some. I just don't have this absolutist view of EVERYTHING that you seem to have.


You haven't. All of the ones you mentioned I knocked down with the battering ram of materialism.

Dump the postmodernism too. There is an objective reality with objective scientific laws. Meaning absolutism is legitiment in many respects.


Literally? You're going to puke because you typed some words? It's quite interesting how just a simple idea can make you so angry...


I distaste recognition to such Bourgeois mythology. It's so cleche... It's so... Abstract, it's such moralist garbage.


Ya, except stability and the Rule of Law are real things...


"Rule of Law" isn't a real thing, and it sure as hell doesn't equate to "stability". Stability is defined by a class's ability to retain a firm hold on the masses that it attempts to control, and that is dependent on the efficiency of the mode of production, not Bourgeois mythology. John Locke is full of shit, and is an Idealist.


Augustus lived out his days as emperor. Calligula was assassinated.


Okay. And like I said, this totally disregards all of the other possible factors and existing conditions which could have led up to that. If you want, I can dig for examples of so - called states with a "rule of law" that didn't last nearly as long as the ones you describe went on without.

Augustus was more efficient than Caligula for reasons completely divorced from the magnitude of "rule of law( Which doesn't exist )" existent.


You say that now... somehow I don't believe that would be the case were you actually in a position of power.


With all due respect, I could care less about what you believe, then. I can't be in a position of power, with such power. No individual can. Stop with the cheap Idealism.


They don't necessarily agree (not leastly because "they" are different people with different views and ways of acting),

You contradicted yourself.


but that wasn't the point.

Yeah, it was. You previously tried to put forward that the U.S. government upholds a "rule of law".


You asserted that because the US govt and I agreed that I am bourgeois supporter of the US govt.

That's not what you said at all.


What exactly does this, in any way, have to do with your position that because me and the US gov't agree on a thing, I support the US gov't?




People challenged the law. You really need to understand what the RoL means if we are going to discuss it.

I've read that garbage by Locke already. It's abstract Idealist nonsense.


This is meaningless rhetoric. Anyone can say they are doing something on behalf of the proletariat.


The proletariat could find execution necessary against it's class enemy in a hypothetical world where they have no representatives because fuck logic and science. Do you deny this? Don't avoid the point.

And no, not everyone can say they are doing something on behalf of the proletariat. If they are in power, that automatically signifies they do. The Bourgeois class sais this, but it's not legitiment and everyone knows this.


The difference being that if I don't get it, I'm not going to be bothered by that...


If you want me to treat you respectfully (which I have been in this whole post) then you have to admit that you don't know about everything you're talking about. I think you need to learn.


Ya, we get it, history was decided the day of the Big Bang.

See, here's an example. You totally skewed my post to your own ideological perversions. That's long term determinism, which doesn't hold up. However, that doesn't mean that human action is qualitive and dependent on their current surroundings, and their surroundings weren't pre determined by a councious being. They just happened, not directly as a result of will.


We make absolutely no choices,

Don't piss me off. I've never said that. You're being immature and obnoxious.

I did say we make choices. I merely asserted that there is something that determines the choices we make, and that choice itself is not something that exists in itself freely.


and those non-choices have no impact on anything... we get it...

I'm beggining to wonder... Are your idealist insecurities shining through? Is your New Age ideological mechanisms under threat, which is why you find it necessary to pull an Ismail?

this is RSWU's procedure (Straw man):

1. Cannot understand, or is horrified (due to being sensitive) by materialism.

2. He then takes the statement and blows it out of proportion

3. He then puts a "rolleyes" smiley to make it as if I am stupid, when he's the one who blew it out of proportion in order to adjust to his New Age ideological perversions.


But it's wrong.


See above.


Oh right, I agree with the bourgeois and I'm a counterrevolutionary.

But you uphold the "rule of law" theory which was developed by John Locke... Who was a Bourgeois thinker. Do you deny this?


You agree with the bourgeois and you're just proving a point.

Some things they deployed (Hegel's dialectics, for one) can't be disregarded, and are not antithetical to Materialism. Locke, on the other hand, the so called architect of the Bourgeois political structure, comes up with several obscure ideological assertions which are abstract in nature and have no correlation with the material world.


We get it :rolleyes:


See above, again. Try and catch yourself doing it.


Of course we can never know this.

"We" being Idealists.


But I assume things would have been different if Marc Antony had actually made it to Pompey's theater that day and stopped the attempt.

But he didn't, did he. So it's irrelevant. Had he did, it would have represented and been an expression of the class nature of the empire.


They probably even would have tried to assassinate him again in the future.


Yeah, they would have.


It means that "men make their own history, but not as they choose." We need read nothing further into that; humans make history, but are restrained in those choices by certain features. It's really quite simple.

No, it's not quite simple. I really, really hate when people try and make this quote into something simplistic.

Use your head: Everyone knew humans were constrained by certain features. Why would Marx mention this? Why would Engels include this as a summarization of Materialism?

It's because what he meant is that Men and Women do make history, but history is not an expression of their direct will. That's the point.

How do I know? Because I myself underwent the same process Marx did, his shifts in thought himself I went through. I guess it's a materialist thing.

I know it's easy for you to vulgarize Marx and try to make it a "simple" quote, like several other Vulgarists. But it will never be a simple quote, and it's true meaning remains, regardless of your bizarre interpretation.



Except, according to Marx, he was serving the interests of the small land holding peasantry... and he certainly did start confiscating wealth to add to his personal estate.

No, according to RSWU, he was. Marx merely pointed out he got a lot of support from the small holding peasants, though, in that same book, he explicitly mentions how his basis of support was concentrated among the French Bourgeoisie.

You can't speak for Marx, because you're not a Marxist, and you don't have any grasp of anything Marx deployed (And I'm not trying to be mean, here).



This is insufferable... :blink:


Divulge.


Tell that to Marx.


Not even in the 18th brumaire did he deploy such nonsense.


Oh wait.. old Marx would have beat up young Marx, I forgot about that...


Sigh.

remember above how I named the RSWU procedure? You're doing it again. Must you blow what I say out of proportion in order to not sound like a complete fool who knows nothing of what he is speaking of?


Except he ruled in the interests of the small peasantry... insufferable...


No, he didn't. He ruled in the interests of the French Bourgeoisie, otherwise he would have confiscated their property, otherwise, not as much would have brought him to power, and supported him. Otherwise, the motto of his rule would not have been to restore Family, order, property and religion. All tenets of the Bourgeois class (Bourgeois Family structure, Bourgeois Order, Property, and Ideological weaponry -religion-).



Please explain to me where in this sentence is derived "therefore history is completely deterministic and the actions of actual people are irrelevant."


Again, you're blowing what I said out of proportion. What it signifies is that history is not an expression of individual direct will (Hey, I want to make capitalism/communism), but it's merely class struggle, products of mode of productions.

If you're going to label me as a bloodthirsty determinist, you must do so for Marx, and all other Marxists as well.

Marx did support the killings of hostages in the Paris Commune, by the way.


And this makes their actions any less impactful because...? You say so?


It doesn't make them less impactful, it just makes assertions like "WE MUST DO THIS" baseless because human will is not a qualified mechanism to give birth to action in itself, i.e. this is reserved only for the mode of production, or our need to survive, produce life, and so on. Saying "WE MUST CRUSH THE CLASS ENEMY" is useful, because class warfare is a direct reflection of the mode of production (capitalism's contradictions).

The actions in themselves mean nothing without the base, and origin that necessitated them. We know things happen. But why?


And yet people still make choices and take actions, and these choices and actions determine yet future modes of production and class struggle,

What choices, and what actions? They don't. You're going to have to be specific so I could destroy your thesis properly. Otherwise, you're full of empty words.


influencing further choices and actions, influencing further MoPs and struggles....


No, not directly. Tell me how in Feudalism, the merchants struggled against their enemy because they wanted the capitalism as we know it, knowingly aware that they are influencing future MoP. They weren't. Just like millions participate in capitalism, yet only very few actually understand it.

Just like, again, how Marx was one of the first to fully understand the very system that everyone was participating in.


1) No, fuck you.


Well, then you aren't to be taken seriously.


2) What new age shit?


Come on.

"Revolution starts with U" implies the same old Dalai Lama bullshit: It's moralism, that we have to change our lifestyle in order for revolution.

And your profile picture, on your profile.

You're excessive romanticism of "nature".

You're over glorification and adherence to the great man theory, and your Idealism.


Ok... :rolleyes:


You don't. Not in the context Marxists use it.


That' doesn't surprise me at all...


Shouldn't.


Except that, you know, it's theoretically possible that we can control and direct hurricanes...

Then this is us cutting off from our glorious roots in nature. This is, destroying the "harmoneus" nature, that we should just "leave alone" because it "Knows what it's doing".

You can't pick and choose when you love nature. You want nature without that which you oppose in nature. Then this is no longer "nature".


You seem to have this generalization about everyone but you and maybe 10 other M-Ls

I'm puzzled. Why do you think I'm a Marxist Leninist? Oh, I forgot, your self regulating ideological perversions must take in everything and adjust them into your oh so harmoneus understanding of the world. Your constrained thought cannot even articulate Orthodox Marxism.

It's the same way Ismail used to call me a "revisionist".


that you think because two people share one belief, they share all beliefs...

You're going to have to be more detailed, and be more specific. These empty words are meaningless.


it's really not helping you at all, in my opinion at least...


I'm fine, actually. Your skewed understanding of Materialism and Marxism, on the other hand...


Tell it to Marx.


I want evidence for the assertion that Marx said there does not exist different factions of classes.

S
o now different factions of (some, not proles, you MUST pass Rafiq's ideological purity test to be a prole)

When I say proletariat, I mean proletarian class consciousness.. Though I do know you don't know anything of Marxism, so I wouldn't expect you to know what that means.


classes can have different interests? Oh, the inconsistency...


No, they don't have different class interests. They do have conflicting organizational methods in which those interests could be for filled, though.


No.


Good answer :rolleyes:


This has nothing to do with what I said here...


You did blame vanguardism. So it did.


Like what?! Name me one thing that suggests I would betray the Revolution?

had it your way, a revolution would be impossible because you want a revolution (As the great Robesspiere put it) without a revolution!


I certainly don't support a party that ACTUALLY BETRAYED THE REVOLUTION!


Again, we know things happen. Why? Why did it happen? You can't explain it in the same complex process that I did. And when you tried, you failed miserably!


Every Revolutionary attempt that DID adopt it failed... what's your point?


There has been only one proletarian revolution that has adopted it. There has, on the other hand, been countless failed proletarian revolutions that did not adopt them (Spain, 19th century uprisings, Spartacus League uprisings, Anarchist attempts, and so on).


Will I? Or am I not the bullshit caricature you seem to want to throw on everyone?


You know very well that's what you would have said.

Did a lack of Vanguardism contribute to the failure of these uprisings? Answer the question.


I did no such thing.



, I would say that the lack of a real military would be a prime cause.


Here was my thesis:
No, no, the hypocrite scum you are, you're going to say "IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR, FACTORS EXTERNAL FROM THE LIBERTARIAN MODE OF ORGANIZATION CAUSED THE DEFEAT OF THE CNT AND FAI!!!11111"


Was the military structure not a factor external from that?


Again, having such simplistic absolutist views of EVERYTHING is really holding you back.

As a materialist, I uphold firmly that there is an objective reality. You seem to have this view that Vanguardism is what caused the Russian failure (And therefore can't be re approached) but then continued to say that you're postmodern and that you don't have an absolutist view regarding Spain.

I love this so much.


Maybe not in understanding, I don't presume to know the truth.

But for the Bolsheviks?


But it does hold you back in other people understanding you.


You haven't attempted to, properly.


I always have. Maybe you should actually pay attention to what I say, instead of debating this caricature you have of me in your head...

No, you specifically disregarded the isolation, and the surroundings of foreign hostile powers in Russia and claimed the sole reason the Bolshevik revolution failed was due to vanguardism. That's an Idealist position.


Again, I'm not going to speak on a topic I have no knowledge of.


Then with all due respect, quit talking about the Bolshevik revolution.


I know more about the Russian situation than the Spanish one.

I'm not trying to come off ans offensive, but you don't know much about either, in all honesty. What have you read? What are your sources? Wikipedia articles? Your wording correlates with them, very, very well...


But this is bs and you know it, because many other anarchists bring up Spain and Ukraine all the time.


It's not bullshit. Anarchists like to bring it up to boast, but when we shun them with evidence, they are speechless.


How can I agree with you on something I don't know about? That's called faith. I don't deal in faith.


You certainly don't know anything about the Bolshevik situation. So you are dealing with faith, more specifically, ideological pressuposions.


You did no such thing, outside of your own mind.


You know very well I did. The debate in regards to Vanguardism is done. You lose.


There never really was a debate, merely you hurling insults like a petulant child.

Insults with context of great quality behind them, which you know exist but choose to ignore since you are incapable of addressing them, without blowing them out of proportion.


Me?


Yeah.


Perhaps. It's always time for thinking, really.


In this case, most especially in your regards.


Good for you...


Indeed..?


And yet still "I wrote a paper" does nothing to actually critique anything... you just don't get what fallacy means, do you?


It doesn't. But the critique exists and I'm not going to bring it back. It was relevant, though not an argument.


Except it's a pretty common term employed by most political theorists, mainstream and beyond...


Well, we do live in Bourgeois society. What do you expect?

"The ruling class regulates the ruling Ideas" - K. Marx


By the people who live under them, of all classes.

That's why a poor man is sent to jail for years but when a Bourgeois scum is involved in drug trafficking they look the other way?


They have to at least be tacitly supported, even if fought against.


Contradictory, at best.

The concept doesn't exist, and that's what you presuppose.


Both of which at least give the head nod...


Examples? I need specifics. You can't just declare things (like Chomsky) without divulging into detail.


I can't speak on NK.


So you think it's possible it upholds this magical concept of "the rule of law" ?


Which faces heavy internal opposition, always standing on the brink of destabilization...


I reckon the same could be said about the United States and Europe for 90% their existence...

Maybe, just maybe this has more to do with industrialization then your abstract, mythological bourgeois formulations.


Nah, that's not how it works at all


Well, that's how your argument works.


Ok...


Why did you separate that quote from the rest of the sentence? Why?


I thought states existed because they are historically determined to exist for as long as they exist, and people's actual actions are irrelevant...


People's actions are the only moving factor, it's just that those actions are what are determined, not the states themselves. And they aren't "historically determined". They are brought about through complex relationships between individual class interests between classes (I.e. Class war).

But the mode of production is what determines the efficiency.

It was a great point I made, but you totally evaded it... It makes me wonder why?


Omg... what? At first you started to make a good point. I was actually thinking about reflecting on my position, possibly I would have even changed it.
Then you had to add that last little bit of homophobia and I remembered that I don't trust you to be honest...


Well, if you're going to disregard facts and logical arguments because you interperate some cheap insult as "homophobia" (which it clearly isn't, as I stated above) then you're opinion isn't of great worth anyway.


The point is that "rule of the stick" can stave off destabilization for a time, but only for a time.

The Americans have been using it for a while. There is only rule of stick. It's efficiency acts in correlation with the mode of production's efficiency.


And "many" in the SU were well aware that the leadership was full of shit,

Majority did not, at least under Stalin. More trusted him than they did Bhreznev, and so on, whom they deemed cheap and corrupt.


that the system was a big lie, and just went along with it.


A fraction of the population.

Also, at which time?


How's the old saying go; "the difference between your (US) propaganda and ours (USSR) is that your people (Americans) actually believe it."


I'm sure it's dated after Stalin.


Except they aren't.

A revolutionary would go at no ends... Including killing hostages.. to for fill the interests of his class. If you don't go all the way, you are not.


You just want them to be so that, if the day ever comes, you can have me (and people like me) shipped off to some dark corner where we can't get in the way of your plans for world domination...

Again, stop blowing things out of proportion.



Yes, and which of us abides by E=MC^2?


Beyond me why new agers are obsessed with that. Who cares? That has nothing to do with the science I am talking about (which is just the scientific method in general, without bourgeois rationalism, but of real rationalism).


And which of us thinks abstractions (like economic relations) have a will of their own?



Ok :rolleyes:


It's never too late to change.


Or someone who, you know.. thinks people should actually have a say in their own lives....


But this overlaps material conditions. A moral as a basis for a view is weak. It means nothing.

My views in regards to politics is not about what "should" be, but what must be, with a Scientific basis.

It doesn't matter what you want or what you think should be, it matters what is possible, why, and what best serves the interests of the proletarian class.


I'm really being patient here. But all this "dumb shit" flame baiting is getting annoying. I don't want to see you get another infraction for it (nor do I want to report you, and haven't yet) so why don't you just grow up a little bit, eh?

I'm trying to be nice, as you can see now.

But if you want, you can go ahead and report me. I know that was a threat, why else would you include it?

You've insulted me in worse ways, blowing everything I've said out of proportion in the most ridiculous manner possible. Sorry, but calling you a "dumb shit" is extremely kind compared to what you've been doing.



Again, drop your simplistic absolutism...

Again, it's not simplistic, and I'm not a postmodernist. I do believe in objective reality.


because I think the interests of the proletariat are libertarian doesn't mean I insist they must be...


This is completely contradictory. What is, and What must are one and the same in regards to the interests of the proletariat. Their interests aren't "libertarian" or "authoritarian", their interests are simple: To depose the class enemy and to abolish themselves through state dictatorship.


Ok... :confused:
I thought I was a new ager, not a liberal.

Not mutually exclusive. Especially considering your recent developments in your sympathy with NGNM... This will put you in an ideological black hole.

I could just let you rot in there, with him. But I'm being nice, and I don't want that to happen to you.


But I guess it was just absurd for me to assume you would be consistent.


It's consistent, they're not exclusive.


Does it?


Well, yes. "If we don't have direct democracy, power will corrupt in the hands of the representatives".


Is it?


Yes.


What is the difference between 7 billion people and 30 people, other than more people?

Thirty people can be put into a single room and their interests can be heard accordingly. 30 million people can't directly choose whatever they wish, as there are far too many complex relationships, interests at hand. It would be difficult to organize them as such...


And if the difference is just more people, which makes it impossible, why?

More people: more of an organizational problem. One billion people all over China's positions are not going to be the same as thirty million and Egypt. There will be overlapping and contradictory wants.


Argue it. Don't just call me a shithead and assert the same thing in different words.


I assumed it was quite simple to grasp...


That makes sense... or not :rolleyes: It seems like "bourgeois" is just a convenient label for you to throw on whatever you disagree with, thereby marginalizing it.


Age of enlightenment ideology, on the contrary.


Ok, let me put it like this;
Power best represents the bourgeoisie when it is shared among the bourgeoisie. Power best represents a class when it is shared among that class.

Power is inherently shared by the Bourgeoisie in the rule of the Bourgeois class. That should answer your question.



Fair point. Still, if they voted, en masse, onto the same policy you support, I would respect their decision.


That's still not a direct democracy.



If the working class is the only class left in existence, how is it not democracy for everyone?


It will probably take hundreds of years for classes to disappear. They aren't going to be the only class left in existence.



Yes, if the bourgeois find its rulers counterproductive to their interests, in a bourgeois democracy, they can get rid of them (often) without the need for civil war...

So what's the problem, here?



Oh right.. nobody was against slavery until slavery had already disappeared. THAT makes a ton of sense... :rolleyes:


Slavery was still in existence.



1) Where you got the idea I said it was is beyond me...


You claimed that about Napolean and several prominant Roman politicians.


2) New Ager? Liberal? :confused:


New Age thought is based in Liberalism.


In a REAL proletarian situation, I am sure I would... because I am a prole and identify completely with proletarian interests. In a state serving the interests of the proles in name only , such as what you support, I would be dead, or exiled. I know this.


This gets tiring. You are in no position to identify that which conflicts with your ideology as "in name only".


That doesn't stop me from expressing my views. I don't fear political repression, which is why I openly advocate against my government, and even encourage people to attack the government on my public facebook page.

Well, they're not really scared of New Age Liberals, so they hardly would care. Neither would a proletarian dictatorship.


If I wind up dead for my expression, that is a heroic way to go out, really.


This is getting too personal. I don't care.


Not quite the liberal new age pacifist you wish me to be...


On the contrary... Facebook rage isn't quite my definition of exclusion from those labels.


Ya, it does.


So you don't "test" them and use the populace as guinea pigs.


Except, I've been in those debates. I've lost those debates.

Unsurprising. This used to happen to me.


And tho I had to go back and analyze my positions more thoroughly, I am still firmly a leftist.

It will only take one heavy loss to destroy this.


Really all losing those debates did was cause me to further research leftism, and I went from a radical just-left-of-social democracy, to a full blown libertarian anarchist Marxist.

Let's not get carried away. You're not at all a "full blown Marxist". Not by any means.


Your hypothesis has already been proven false. Please don't presume to know who I am in the future.


It isn't over.


Except you've never been able to do that.... unless of course "fuck you bourgeois liberal fuckwad" is destroying someone in a debate.


Well, you see, I've just done that... Again.



1) No, I don't.
2) No, I'm not


Why do you tell me to "explain" when you respond with this?


It's not contradictory at all. Why don't you pay attention for once, to the actual person you're discussing with, and not he caricature you've created in your head?

I've been listening with open ears. I've heard the same nonsense.


Again, I don't think a successful revolution will have been very violent and authoritarian.

What is "very violent and authoritarian"? If you define the Bolshevik revolution as such, then you're wrong, and it does.


That doesn't mean I think it must be libertarian, nor that I would oppose it if it were.

You said you called yourself a Libertarian. Why?


In all likelihood, had I been a major player in the early USSR, I would part of that leftist opposition (not the Left Opposition) that remained dedicated to the cause, but continued to call for more Civil Rights and direct democracy from within the current structure.

It's all easy to hold such positions that have no correlation with the material conditions in the USSR. The Mensheviks and the Left SR's would have had to deal with the same problems the Bolsheviks did.


Maybe I would have went to the Ukraine (yes, we know, they had secret police and summary execution too.. Nowhere near as bad as the Bolsheviks.)

Makhno had everyone appointed... The Bolsheviks elected military officials.

Don't be a fool. The Makhnovists were a thousand times more brutal than the Bolsheviks, and a thousand times more Authoritarian. At least teh Bolsheviks fed the populace in the best way possible. If you were starving and went to the Makhnovists, they said "We are not like the Bolsheviks who will feed you" (literally a direct quote).

Don't talk out of your ass. They were much worse than the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks at least represented order and stability, to some extent.


I certainly wouldn't have joined the whites, who were EVEN WORSE than the Bolsheviks! Where does this logic come from?


When did I say you would?


No, and no. There's no reason I should. I'm not a fortune teller.


You say you're a Libertarian... So choose a position!


Ok... and did the Bolsheviks successfully revolutionize the relations to production in society? Did they REALLY create socialism?


They couldn't. It was impossible to do so, in those conditions.


Looks like both sides failed, to me...


Regardless of what it "looks like", the bolsheviks carried out a successful proletarian revolution, and failed due to external forces at hand, but still managed to hold off for a long time.

The Anarchists never have carried out a successful proletarian revolution, and were crushed militarily.



No, only the confusing definition of materialism you adhere to, and a different Marx than I'm familiar with.


Maybe you should start reading more Marx.


Although, I forgot... according to you, Marx completely became a different person later in life, and would have kicked the shit out of his younger self.


Deja vu?

Stop blowing things out of proportion. Yes, older Marx had very different views than Younger Marx. Explain how that necessitates him "kicking" his own ass? What the fuck are you trying to accomplish here, debate wise? You look really, really dumb, and I'm telling you that for your own sake.

The fact that you need to blow things out of proportion means you can't address or approach my arguments in a rational manner.


But I thought you knew for sure that the Revolution must be a brutal and authoritative affair. You have no way of KNOWING that, other than pure psychic ability...

It was in the case of the Bolsheviks. And we must always be ready.


With secret ballot?


No... (?)


And it's not as if the election of Lenin was the end of the Revolution...


Well, you're making it as if the Bolsheviks were some kind of shady Bakunin esque group without mass support.


This only sidesteps the question.


It's my answer. Do as you please with it.

I
've lost track of what we are talking down here, and this response has taken me over 2 hrs.

Go back and read.


I don't feel like going back.

Then don't engage in this conversation.


If you think this is really important, summarize and ask again so that I don't have to go back. Otherwise I'm just going to move on...


Fuck no. I didn't just respond to all of that so you can pretend to forget.



Again, I don't remember wtf we were talking about here...


This may be true. What this doesn't change, tho, is that before they were deposed they were acting on what they thought was their class basis.



as far as I can tell my response would be "the Bolsheviks only thought they were acting in prole interests.

And that's a ludicrous assertion. The bolsheviks had majroity support strictly in the Industrial proletariat, and the Industrial Proletariat's radical demands were not met by any other party.

It's not as if the Bolsheviks hijacked a revolutionary situation. The April thesis was out of fucking no where, as a matter of fact. They were acting on behalf of the proletariat, otherwise they would have resorted to Nationalist rhetoric, promised the Bourgeois class it's property, the rich Peasants, and so on. They wouldn't have gone through all of the fucking trouble representing the Proletariat in almost every single way.

Like I said before, one of the main criticisms deployed against them by Kulaks and Cossacks was that they were too favorable towards the Industrial proletariat.


If we really want to know which class the Bolsheviks were serving, we should follow the money." It seems like the military

There's no money there. Those were genuine proletarians. The military apparatus hated the Bolshevik party. It was the soldiers who supported them.

Stop talking out of your ass.


, the bureacracy,

:confused: What bureaucracy? Are you really just spouting out nonsense, now? You're not making any sense. I thought they were, eventually, the Bureaucracy. Who supported them in this case? Huh?


and international bankers were the benefactors of Party dictatorship


God damnit. I suspected you were a New Age Liberal esque type... I had no fucking clue you were a conspiracy theorist.

Link me some credible sources that International bankers supported them. You can't just fucking declare things without providing adaquet evidence for your assertions. That's an extremely bizarre claim right there, one that originates from the likes of David Duke.

Are you just slinging shit now, to try and make an argument?

This either signifies one of two things:

1. You're actually a conspiracy theorist

2. The Defeat you went through was so bad you had to resort to this.


, tho I would not presume to have any great knowledge of exactly who was benefiting.

You don't have any knowledge at all on anything regarding the Bolsheviks, actually.

You just asserted all of that bullshit and then said "But idk who was benefiting, oh well lol, intenrational jew bankers lol"

Jesus fucking Christ. That's ridiculous. I hope you have something of worth to say to this. Because I may very well be waiting. I'm done with my exams..

[Revolution starts with U]

It means you're an idiot who sees laws as objective, universal, and individsible. You just admitted that it would have been "better" if Germany abided by it's Fascist laws (Killing non-aryans, and so on). Good job.

ugh. No, I said I would prefer to live under laws I can trust than not, and if they are going to change, there be a process by which I can know. I would rather live in a state where only very few people disappear, than just anyone at anytime.
I would rather live under Ceasar than Nero.



Explain how the correlation isn't there. What the fuck? Did you even read what I said? What difference does it make for me to "tell dat to da people living under da laws".

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

see above


The same holds for about 90% of U.S. history. The U.S. doesn't have a big moral authority over the Fascists, I'm afraid.

Comparatively it does.



Apologia of classical German bourgeois laws. Good fucking job. Laws can be changed.

You're just being a sophist here and you know it. It could have been any society's law, at any time. The point is about living in a society where the law can change on a whim, or where this is a process which can temper it.


I know what it means. It's bourgeois terminology.

It doesn't seem so sometimes.


The fact you praise the legitimacy of the laws of the Bourgeois class, merely because they are laws, makes you a counter revolutionary.

This is insane. In what way does me saying it is better to live under somewhat trustable laws than not make me against the Revolution?


That doesn't have anything to do with this.



Analogy doesn't work.
It does really. I'm trying to relate this to something I am more familiar with, so I can understand you better.



It has already been estabilished, from the begginings of works on Historical Mateiralism, that history is made of men, and not a magical ghost using men as it's desposal. That's already been pressuposed in the writings of Marx.

The point of Historical Materialism was indeed quite simple: The mode of production (Made of people, fucking obvious) is the base in all societies. Meaning all things, art, law, morality and ideology are superstructural to this. Humans aren't even included in the "Base vs. Superstructure" dichtomony because humans are a means in which these things are expressed.

That's more understandable. So humans are the mode of expression, economic relations are the base, and culture is the superstructure. Correct?
If correct, what do you mean by base and superstructure? Like base will ultimately decide what the superstructure is?
For example; Aristocrats despised Nero, but tolerated him as long as the Imperial Regime ultimately upheld the mode of landed republicanism.


People are not a superstructure. Their thoughts, conciousness, and will are indeed a superstructure, though. People exist and act in reflection to the mode of production they had organized themselves into via class warfare.

I don't see how that makes sense when people are really nothing more than their consciousness. But ok, I get the point.

Here's an anology that actually works (:rolleyes:):

You were born into capitalism, yet you didn't engage in the class struggle that created capitalism. You're still apart of it, not because it's your choice, but because it's the mode of production that gave birth to your ability to think. All of your thoughts are a reflection of this. How do these modes of production come about? Through the class warfare of classes existent in previous modes of production (s). This is the basis for understanding history.

When the Merchent class, the guilds, and so on, engaged in warfare with the Landlords and Feudal status quo, they did so as a reflection of their class interest, not because they wanted "Democracy" or "Liberty" or even Capitalism as we know it. They had absolutely no concept whatsoever of what mode of production would come after Feudalism.

Why? Because htey were constrained by the Feudalist modeo f production, hwich only allowed them to actualize their class interest. Class warfare and class interest as a systemic contradiction in any mode of production is the only exit from being ideologically constrained by a mode of production.

That's why I stress, so very much, that Communists should know their place: That Communism is a mere ideological vanguard, a movement, and an embodiment of hte interests of the proletarian class, and that our goal is state dictatorship and the emancipation from Bourgeois society and the shackles which make us proletarians. Not, as we should put it, a future society which we could plan and map out. It's Idealist not because it's romanticist, but because it assumes an idea (blueprint) can give birht to a new mode of production, instead of a series of complex class struggles and interludes, as Engels calls it, between individual wills.

I actually agree with all this. Tho I do see nothing wrong with giving tentative hypotheticals. It's a matter of politics, really. It gives people a future to look forward to, which can inspire steadfastness.

I'm trying to be nice and give you an introduction to materialism because you and I know very well you have no idea about it in regards. And I'm not going to fucking rail on you for that, because not too long ago I didn't either. I'd just appreciate if you avoid being dismissive.

I don't try to be dismissive. And I thought I had a grasp on materialism. Admittedly, I have been too much of a physics student, so when I heard materialism I just assumed matter. I still have problems calling it materialism, but that's just semantics.


What do you mean by "people". Do you mean them themselves, or the several spawns of people (Law, morality, and so on)? Because if it's the latter, then yes, they do only exist super structural. But people themselves as in humans are the only conscious beings at hand here... It just so happens they lack the required consciousness to control their own organization and movement in history. They are constrained by what exists (capitalism and before).

So it would be saying human awareness is the foundation, natural and economic relations are the base, and human action is created by the interplay between the two?

I'll give you something to think about: I want you to think of something that you're not constrained by. You can say anything you like. A big pony that shits exploding watermelons. You see, this is just blending things you already know. That's my point, to some extent. What furthers the constrain is not the will to further the constrain, but on the contrary, the will to fight for your class interest. The rest is largely unintentional and therefore not an expression of will.

Is class struggle base or superstructure?
Let me put that another way; where and how does class struggle fit into this?


Governance exists to sustain and regulate the mode of production. Part of doing this means introducing laws against murder, and so on.


That government can't exist without a mode of production, and that the latter precedes the former?

You say: "A mode of production can't exist without government". Yes, of course. But the point is that it's impossible for any sort of governance to even come into existence without a mode of production. On the contrary, a mode of production can exist without governance, just not for very long. Governance is not before mode of production, but it's the opposite.

This is perfectly understandable. I still don't see how this requires a bloody and authoritative worker's state, censorship, and is against a rule of laws and trustworthy governance. All it says is that a worker's government must protect and uphold a worker's mode of production. And in your own words, we cannot know what a worker's mode will look like.

How, in materialism, do we reach classless statelessness? What in the proletariat nature leads to this? Or does it at all.
My original response is/was that 1) states only exist to protect class interests and 2) capitalism universalizes (for lack of a better term, what I mean to say is that it forces everyone into) the bourgeois/proletariat relationship.


What I mean by this: Anyone who tries to pose as an intellectual. Several Bourgeois-Idealists throughout history have acknowledged the world and everything around us is made of matter. It doesn't mean anything.

It means ideas are just matter, or expressions of matter. It means ideas cannot exist in a platonic realm, but are subject to "material" reality.


?

There's nothing difficult about what I said; ptolemaic astronomy existed for quite a while, it didn't make it any more true.



For Marx's time, it made a lot of sense. Considering he didn't invent materialism, not completely. Sorry he wasn't around to adjust his works to the 21st century, I'm sure that if he knew how difficult it was for you to articulate his works, he would have taken it into great consideration (Making it clear) :rolleyes:

This is why people have to read. I type this in the least offensive way possible. This isn't an attack on you, so don't intemperate it offensively. I'm trying to be nice.

I attempt not to take anything personally really. Whether I am successful at that is another matter :lol:


That would make it a counter revolution.

Well duh. The point is, can a revolution become a counter-revolution?


Perhaps if they perceived it to be such, they were wrong. The French Revolution was always a Bourgeois revolution, and Marx knew this. He did support it none the less, as do I.

The point being that it is possible the Bolsheviks acted in the same manner as the Bourgeois; consolidating power through the "popular" revolution in order to consolidate a state capitalist regime, never with any plan to actually turn power over to the workers.


Actually, more proles became radicalized after the Bolshevik revolution. All revolutions spread.

I meant that you seem to have this idea that if a prole doesn't have a proletarian class consciousness then he is bourgeois.


It did, though. Maybe not the Spartacust uprising, but the Bolshevik revolution established the Comintern. At that time, there had never been as much proletarians engaging in class struggle before, under the red flag.



Luxemburg had a lot of problems with Kautsky. She didn't really criticize them for being "Authoritarian", but she did criticize them for the Brest treaty which took away supreme executive power from the Soviets. Little did she know that strategically this was necessary to mobilize against the counter revolution.

How can you say it was necessary if ultimately it failed?
And by "taking away supreme executive power from the Soviets..." that's kind-of what we mean by authoritarian. Everyone (should) know that laws require their enforcement to effective; that worker's power is the suppression of bourgeois power. Anarchists/libertarians stand against using authority against the proletariat, and/or unnecessarily.


War Communism, as Trotsky (who I really can't stand, but not because he didn't like Stalin) put it, established a proletarian Sparta. It was brutal, but it was necessary.

I meant to add this in the quote box above.


That would be a very ludicrous assertion. The SPD became counter revolutionary as soon as it adopted Social Chauvinism at the start of World War one. All who opposed the Zimmerwald Left were on the path to Bourgeois decadency. The SPD and the KAPD's internal structures had absolutely nothing to do with the "Leninists" in Russia (Leninism didn't exist until 1928, to call the Bolsheviks 'Leninists' at that time is theoretical ejaculation to Trotskyists and Stalinists).

How would this be so if Lenin helped found the Bolsheviks in 1903, and they founded the Republic in 1922.
To the unbolded; fair enough. I was not aware of the effects.

It was an unfortunate circumstance. There were definitely a lot of organizational problems and sectarianism. That's hardly the fault of the proletariat, but of conditions.

Yet the question remains; why was it necessary to purge contrariness so aggressively?
As you may be able to tell I am far more familiar with Roman history. My knowledge of that tells me that such aggressive and violent purges of opposition almost always create more enemies/non-allies (there is a difference there) defeating and forgiving your enemies. As a matter of politics it just seems more prudent to play the "just and wise" government.
I make no illusions that violence is necessary to uphold society (duh, we can't let murderers "be who they are and express themselves). Where I digress is, as a matter of strategy, where and when it is better to be non-violent.


The Petograd workers had supported the Bolsheviks, actually....

In some ways. In the creation of the second congress, not many of the soviets were in support of this move... and was it not this move that ultimately consolidated the power needed for the the Bolsheviks to become the ruling faction?


And once they had state power, they would be faced with the same problems the Bolsheviks did. I don't care who you are, no one could have built a successful proletarian dictatorship that was strong with the conditions faced by the Bolsheviks in the 20's.

The point isn't whether the opposition would have faced the same problems, but if those problems could have been better confronted united.


That's a little bit too much credit. I don't think any Marxist would call any Bolshevik a "great" man. When I say "Lenin did this", I don't mean Lenin as an individual, I mean what he represented. These fellows didn't have anything that significant to represent, so that's why they were forgotten.

"The winners write history" as they say...



Sorry, that was never a real organization. I'm not one for accusations, but did you seriously just read the Wikipedia article on "Anarchism in Russia" and then claim to be knowledgeable on the subject?

I've never read an "anarchism in russia" article. I have tho, admittedly, read wiki articles on the subject, and some of their source material, and other summaries of the Russian Revolution.


That is sabotage. The workers under the Bolsheviks were not responding to orders, they were mobilising and organizing very brutally because it was their revolution. To pull such a stunt while your comrades were out in the fields taking bullets for you is atrocious.

This is just hyperbole. It was one day, a holiday, and the one day they were allotted to procure food.
So, in other words; not all power to the workers.


It wasn't "self defense". This (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml) is a really well sourced document. Have a skim.

Ty
I'm seeing Makhno resigning his command with the intention of setting up an independent army, and the Bolsheviks calling for his arrest. Then it flat out states that the Bols attacked the anarchists first; and proceeds to reason out why.


Why is it simplistic?

The context in which you present it suggests they invented not only written language (which they didn't), but language itself (which they didn't).


Okay, you've confirmed that they did indeed do it. Good job. You haven't provided us why.

Was that my job?


That's pretty obvious to anyone.



Hell. No. I'm very well known on the subject too, because I've had a great fascination with them for a long time. I also have connections with people involved at the Museum of National history in Lebanon.

http://www.phoenician.org/alphabet.htm

It's pretty much of common knowledge they invented the Alphabet strictly for trade with other Medditeranian areas. If they wanted all that other nonsense, they would have used Egyptian hieroglyphics and what not.

Fact of the matter is that the Alphabet is what revolutionized language as we know it, and language was utilized in ways external from trade only after it was first only invented for trade.

You need to make a distinction between written language, and language itself. You're also discounting both heiroglyphs and pre-alphabetic languages. These came before the alphabet, as did poetry and other shit like that. Tho Sumerian writing did start as a way to record/measure grain trades, it quickly also came to include poetry, history, etc.
So, tho your point may be right, your history is all wrong. The invention of the phonecian alphabet came after the first non-economic writings.



Never said it was.

But do you deny that the Alphabet revolutionized language as we know it? Which is pretty damn important, considering the Philosophers of ancient Greece probably wouldn't have been able to record their shit as easily as they did. Imagine how difficult it would have been to decipher that!

I don't deny that. As I said, your point is basically true, your history is just wrong.


That didn't revolutionize language. A series of obscure symbols and pagan cartoons is hardly as much as the creation of the alphabet.

Yet it's still the earliest use of phonetic script; ie the "alphabet."


No. I know very well the Alphabet originated in Phonecia. Strictly for economic purposes.

They also did a study among Jackals, and other animals... Communicaiton between animals is strictly for survival and was brought about because of the need to survive (mode of production!).

Many anthropologists confirm that this was how Human communication developed: for hunting and what not.

1) Except the earliest use of the alphabet is a magical spell
2) Sure, animal communication is a survival thing... depending on if you want to include "attracting mates" as part of survival.
3) What anthropologists confirm this? That may be one camp, another camp thinks it developed to gossip. And there are many other views on the subject too. The development of language is one of the most contentious debates in anthropology today.


Seems...



The point is that it served the mode of production, the production of life, which isn't a conscious being, by the way, and then only later was it utilized for superstructural purposes. Language as a superstructure, or the Alphabet, was used as a reflection of the mode of production.

Again, your point stands, I agree with it. But your history is wrong. Writing did first develop economically. Alphabet's first recorded use is for sure a magical spell.


really? I assumed it was a magical being who uses humans to achieve it's own ends :rolleyes: ?

Often it seems like you think this exact thing about history.



When one accuses a Materialist of determinism, then their idealist insecurities bleed out.

I accuse you of determinism because it often seems like you think history would have turned out exactly how it did, when it did, no matter what.
(The funny part being that I am the one on the side of Marx, and you thinking history uses men to achieve its ends... at least as it appears to me. I'm the one here saying that human choice is important, that if Marc Antony had made it to Pompey's Theater and stopped Ceaser from going into the Senate undefended, history would have been quite different.


I don't think, with all due respect, that you are one to talk of Marxism. Your "Marxism" amounts to a few articles on Wikipedia.

And a few articles on Marxists.org, and a few discussions on Revleft.


That doesn't have anything to do with the phrase. It's beyond me why you would link that... As If I made an argument against it.



What are you babbling on about?

That even though their choices are constrained by their present society, they still have to make conscious choices like (actually joining the revolution and) not dressing their movement in ancient costumes.


No. Marx explicitly went into detail as to why that was.

I read the article...


All parts necessitate and formulate my thesis. Men and Women do make history, but not as an expression of their direct will, not as they please.

See above, if you will.

I think we're really just talking past each other on this point...


Well, then you're greatly mistaken. Marx is describing the exact opposite: Proudhon's emphasis on individuals (i.e. heroes) in an excessive manner. This was part of his critique of the "Great man" theory.

I'm willing to drop hostility if you're willing to accept that you aren't very knowledgeable on either Marx or Materialism.

I've already admitted as much. But on this point I am not mistaken. He says nothing about Proudhoun being too great man, he says THAT about the other guy (I forget at the moment). He specifically says Proudhoun completely takes conscious action out of the equation. He does say "apologia for its hero" to emphasize that this kind of determinism takes all responsibility away from the people actually involved.



How convenient. Why don't you be specific? It's easy to pretend to know where the gold is hidden without divulging into the mines and proving it.

Ceaser could have allowed himself to be arrested, many others would have. Instead he chose to drive his troops across the Rubicon. It's obvious his class interest helped foster this choice, but he still had to make a choice.

My main point, in this regard, goes like this: the Revolution is not going to happen if nobody chooses to join in on it... the martial revolution; the Revolution itself is an intrinsic function of class society, and I'm sure you agree on that.


You're just greatly misunderstood as to what constitues as Material forces or mateiralism. As I've said before, they are by no means a concious being. Engels describes material forces as the complex entanglement of the several complex relationships humans have with one and other, for one. Material forces could indeed include a class in itself, it could, indeed, include the mode of production in which humans are organized (But are not fully aware).

I am in disagreement with nothing here... and has kind of been my point.

I'll use a daring example: Capitalism as a system, in all it's complexity, was not fully understood and realized until Marx decoded it. Despite millions of individuals participating in it daily, making it move, they had absolutely no clue about how it worked. The capitalist mode of production itself, which is necessitated by human life and it's production, by humans themselves, is a material force. It is the base of all human interaction (the mode of production). What comes after is superstructural.

I think they had somewhat of an idea, if only in an ideological way.


Say this abuse was going on in a house in the middle of no where, with no civilization, then yes, the psychological trauma experienced by the kid would be tremendous. Capital's influence entrenches all of society, including the very private lives of families. As a matter of fact, I've yet to hear of a case where an abused child didn't become normal without being exposed to the outside world sooner or later throughout his life.

You seem to be implying that i would have to provide this case, yet it is you claiming that the kid has no choice. I would have to see some data and theory on sociopath-ism to judge whether or not that your claim (he would have to be exposed to the outside world to become normal) is true.


They don't have a choice, a lot of the times, actually. The fact that child abuse exists is linked to the bourgeois family structure (in capitalism), and therefore it's that which should be destroyed, not the reliance upon individual wills. You cannot expect nice slave owners when slavery is a norm.

My point being that people have to develop class consciousness and choose to destroy bourgeois society.


What counts is why they made the choice, what mechanisms necessitated those choices?

Ok.


Please dump this argument. It's so awful. As if homes are not connected to the capitalist mode of production and it's base. As if all abused kids live in a bubble deprived of the outside world. When they "grow up" and are sane, chances are they escaped the life they were living in and experienced modern day Liberalism as it is.

You're just not seeing the bigger picture, I'm afraid. Your "surroundings" include everything. Namely the capitalist mode of production.

Still, my point being that not all workers develop class consciousness, therefore class consciousness obviously being a choice, or a set of choices.


Collectives are a representation of the interests of several individuals. Without collectives, an individual interest is worthless. Collectives indeed do act on their own, just as several cells act on their own, yet as a mechanism define organisms.

I phrased myself wrong, because collectives do indeed act. What I meant to suggest was that their actions are not completely independent of the individual wills of the people involved.


Don't knit pick. You previously stated that abused kids have a "choice" and that if they do indeed become mentally impaired, it is because of their own inability to act upon their "free will". Why is this not the same for poor people, who under your logic, can simply act upon their "free will" to stop being poor? Oh wait! The required conditions in which they could do so do not exist. And I assert the same is with serial killers who were abused as children. Only in specific and special cases does this not occur, just like in specific and special cases poor people become rich.

So I'm twisting your logic for my own benefit, now. Now, I can say that poor people don't have to be poor because some become rich, just like some abused kids end up not having many psychological problems.

The first step to understanding materialism is to abandon the notion of "free will".

This is a fair point. I would retract what I said, and amend it to say that they can become aware of those conditions and consciously move to change them, in fact they must.
I don't rule out personal causes of poverty, I just think they are outweighed by systemic causes... and I think this is true for anything involving humans. Society is a mixture of individual will and "material forces" as you would call them.


Indeed, but this shouldn't compel us to move to Menshevik logic and say that "The Bourgeoisie needs to be left alone so the nation can develop". Indeed, the only thing that was necessary was for the revolution to spread.

I never suggested such.


Read "Ten Days that shook the world". As a book, it's even accepted as historically accurate by the most self professed of Liberals.

It specifically mentions the several campaigns underwent to win the support of the Peasantry. Do you even know the origin of the Hammer and Sickle?

The proletariat had every right to revolt and depose of the Bourgeois class in the industrial zones. It just so happens they were immediatly under attack on all sides when they did so. Full conquest of the Russian empire was necessary to defend their interests.

It cannot be an ethical rule that majority rule must always persist. It's only strategic, mind you.

It definitely should not be an ethical law that the majority rules. I'm just not sure killing anyone who refuses your rule is the best way to get others to not oppose your rule.


Morally? Who cares.

Strategically, it does turn into a goddamn mess (Without a revolution spreading).

Despite you and others who like to dismiss DNZ, he's the only user whose divulged into this and tried to offer some sort of solution.

I actually think DNZ is one of the best posters on the site. If I dismissed him it was out of lack of knowledge only.
Morals to me, like any good politician, ARE a strategic issue, and nothing more.


That's not how it happened. As a matter of fact, their goal was to give the Peasantry their own land. The problem with that, of course, that the Market was not powerful enough, or quick enough to fend off the counter revolution (See Britian in WWII).

Again, read Ten Days that Shook the world.

I will check it out. Is it available free, or better yet as an audio book?


Nice try. Majority of proletarians supported the Bolsheviks. Their were virtually none in the White Army (which was composed of Peasants, Kulaks and Cossacks).

They did not represent the proletariat as a whole.

Throughout the civil war, they remained faithful to the Bolsheviks.


The Bolsheviks lost majority support among the proles a number of times.

Several proletarians support Fascists. That doesn't make Fascism the embodiment of proletarian class consciousness.

Did I say it did?


The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, in origin, sought to express the interests of the proletariat in the highest form possible.

And this still doesn't address the idea that you're automatically not a prole if you didn't support the Bolsheviks; suggesting that prole-ness is more a product of ideology than relation to production.


Not during the Civil war, they didn't. "Many" is ludicrous, even a couple is stretching it.

The history suggests otherwise.


Yeah, the soldiers. Whom by the way, were proletrians, who threw off their loyalty to the Tzar, and pledged allegance to the revolution.

That's like saying "Much of the former workers under the Tzar were retained".

Yeah, that's the point of a revolution.

To keep the ruling class and try to use it to create a new class structure? :confused:


You don't know a lot about the Bolshevik revolution, aside from a few skims on Wikipedia. I think you know this very well too.

And history classes, and other articles/summaries...
I never claimed to be an expert.

Me, on the other hand, who used to be a Libertarian,
I really find that hard to believe :lol: But I'll take your word for it.

like you, whose read several works on the Bolshevik revolution, from a wide range of opinions, I would assume, would know a tad bit more on the subject. I suspect, actually, that as you're typing, you're looking this up on Wikipedia.

I use whatever references I can find on Google, and past knowledge for which I have no source.
But basically here you're just asserting an appeal to authority; "I've read more so I'm right."


Again, the proletariat were never a major component of the White Army. Barely any joined, actually.

That doesn't address what I said; there were other non-bolshevik/non-white options which genuine proles joined.


Well yeah, they would have demanded far more than the benevolence of White Males. Women and Blacks had absolutely no say in the bill of rights, anyway, when it was created :rolleyes:

Did you forget Blacks and Women couldn't even vote for the same glorious document you uphold so much, at that same very time?

I said they didn't! :rolleyes: And then I said there is no reason to think they would have thought the BoR was a bad thing.


Several revolutionary movements that it did apply to also opposed it. As a matter of fact, the "Bill of rights" only applied to the Bourgeois class and the Petite Bourgeois classes. It's a wrothless document in itself which could only apply to such a minroity of the population.

Free speech and Free press was more abundant in war communism than it was in the United States. Take a look at the history of the U.S. : Spreaders of propaganda were brutally killed (In the war), during the Red Scare many were silenced, many were jailed for being suspected communists, and so on. "Well, then they betrayed it". Well, if that's the case, then it's a useless, abstract piece of garbage from day one.

It is abstract. But it serves a use; legitimacy in the eyes of the public.



Okay, so it wasn't a "direct democratic" vote. Actually, the bill of rights was created to satisfy one faction of the ruling class, the "Anti Federalists" whom were mainly petite bourgeois.

Almost all of the country was petit bourgeois...


There was, though, a mass slave population, and a rural proletariat which constituted the majority of the landmass.

Not actually, at least according to the Yale class I'm taking on the subject now. Slaves did make up a large portion of the public, but the proles were nearly non-existent. Most of the public being made up of small land owners and merchants.


You don't want it to mean anything, because it causes a disturbance in your oh so liberalist harmony. Your understanding of what "democracy" is, is quite skewed.

Demo-cracy; people power. Democracy is more than just voting.



What abstract garbage. Militant democratic dictatorship means things like "Self management" are petite bourgeois in nature (which they are). There will not exist a formal "state" which will leave the masses alone to go about their business. The point is that the masses make up the state power itself, but do not directly organize it. The "masses" and the state dictatorship are one and the same.

So in order to create classlessness we need to give a small cadre of elites full executive and legislative power?


"Voting" in the formal sense is garbage. The masses must make demands, not vote between a select given options knit picked by the Bourgeois class.

And?


You're still missing the point. The "central party" is the mass party movement which represents the masses and their interests. And I say represent in the literal sense, i.e. embodiment of it's interests.

Assuming the antecedent...


Yes, fuck democracy and it's disgusting rhetoric. The term was hijacked and shat upon. It's too bad, I don't give a shit. Democracy in the sense of Aristotle is the only one that is of any use.

That's exactly the type of democracy I strive for... tho not in a 51% rule 50% kind of way. I'm much more partial to consensus.


Dialectical Materialism: Metaphysical, explains the specific movement of matter and describes the ability to produce thought as the highest organizational structural stage of matter.

Historical Materialism: Explains the origin of this thought itself and the ways in which it works, how it is influenced, and it's impact on the material world. Specifically mentions how thought itself is a reflection of hte material world. The Organization between humans, which eventually organizes into something beyond itself, is called the base (recall how no one understood how capitalism worked, yet it persisted). This is the origin of thought and it's advancement (Only with capitalism, could the constraint be pushed forward to go to space).

Ty. I will mull this over.


Your username, and profile picture.

What about my username suggests I believe in the Age of Aquarius? And what profile picture? I don't have one of those comrade.


No, it's not. That's like saying it's discriminatory to women as well because Anal sex exists.

You're trying so hard, I almost feel bad...

It suggests there is something wrong with shoving things up your ass.


Generally what you'd shove in your ass isn't something that is of quality.
What does this even mean?

Unless, of course, you'd like to bring your dildo to your grandparents house, as a gift. That's the point. For me to tell you to do it isn't disregarding the act itself, it's telling you that what you're spouting about is of such low quality that it belongs in that place.

What's wrong with my ass?


That's not what metaphysical means.

Ok :rolleyes:

But anyway, "nature" doesn't equate to harmoneous ecology. Marx understood that "nature" must be brutally destroyed and paved over in the face of human development.

That's a rather short-sighted way of putting. I get your point, but I can also see how many could easily mistake that as saying you just want to destroy the planet.


We say material because it's DM applied to our understanding of history. The name isn't going to be changed because of your 21st century preferences. In the 19th century, that's what the term was associated with.

I'm not asking it to be changed, per se. I'm just saying, if you're going to continue labeling it as such, you shouldn't be surprised if it confuses people.



It's not a good anaology. Helium is not the source of the creation of helium, hydrogen is. But even if that's not true, it has nothing to do with Historical materialism or understanding the base superstructure relationship.

Hydrogen and Helium are chemicals and by definition under Dialectical materialism, they are not the highest products of matter's organization. Something like a brain is, and in turn, it gives birth to thoughts. Comparing Helium to thoughts isn't going to hold up to any Marxist.

Ok, forget it then... again, my ADD is kicking in. :lol:


Do I need to clarify this?

Let's get this straight: Marxists do not reject Hegel's thesis on how all thoughts, structure and base are connected. We merely reverse it and instead of the Material world being a mere thought, Thoughts themselves are products of the material world.

You can't accuse what I said:



Of Idealism as this is simply laughable (I'm trying to help you out, here).

Idealism doesn't equate to anything you don't agree with or can't understand, it's a very specific and complex term which has, universally, one meaning.

The mode of production is not an Idea. It's a base. To say Ideas are products of the bases (Or people's actions, which are products of thoughts) isn't Idealist, it's the opposite.

Perhaps I was mistaking all abstractions for ideas... which in a sense they are, but this just gets back to my misunderstanding of what was meant by "material."


Really? I didn't know that in Marx's time, capitalism never existed.

I'm talking about how in Feudalism, the merchant class could have never predicted what capitalism would have turned into, just as we can't predict what Communism could be. How is that difficult to articulate?

I'm not sure I ever suggested we could know what Communism will look like...


You do.

I don't.



Stop with the nonsense. These two are identical.

Not always, that's what class traitors are all about.



Everyone knows that. The point is why, how, and what necessitated it. Otherwise, it's a useless debate.

Marxists don't reject that humans make all actions. We merely assert that these actions are reflections, or products of something other than the nonsense called "Free will".

Then I think we're mostly talking past each other.



See above, again. You're going to have to elaborate as to why it's "Idealism" in specifics. I don't think you know what Idealism is, to be honest.

Idealism; the stance that reality is fundamentally a mental construction, and/or that ideas are the base on which social change happens.

I did, tho, misunderstand what you meant by base.


I'm removing "free will" from humans.

That can never totally happen. We can get into an epistemological debate, but basically, it seems for all intents and purposes that I am choosing, so I am choosing, even if those choices are heavily influenced by my genetics and environment (social and natural).

here:



I demand you take this, and go in depth as to how that's "Removing humans from humanity". Your understanding of both Humans and Humanity is skewed, and Idealist. That's the problem.

in this specific context, to hell with "humanity". In this specific case, Humanity, as you put it (An all encompassing, free will, spirit, that does as it wishes and pleases without a base to influence this, which moves beyond constrains intentionally and directly based on it's will without class warfare, which is not bound by it's own surroundings and mode of production) does not exist.

That's nothing more than a straw man. Never did I suggest anything like this about humanity. There's a large difference between saying choice matters, and choice is all that matters.



Some of the first criticisms of Ideology were from Marx. He didn't have one. He supported one, sure, but he didn't have one.

Semantics. You're saying the same thing I did, in different words.


Because the Bourgeois intelligentsia (Which isn't really Bourgeois in our sense, in that they are academics, scientists, and so on) isn't inherently opposed to the Proletarian class and it's interests. These are scientists and theoreticians, here. Lenin was, in this sense, of the Bourgeois intelligentsia. Even the Bourgeois of feudalism required the modern day intellectual advancements to gain any ground.

I'm not a proletarian, I'm a student. That doesn't mean anything, though. Marx mentioned how several members of the Bourgeois class would join with the champions of history, and give up their property. These will suffer no consequence.

Ok, so now why would we have to execute Lew Rockwell?


If Marx never existed, they would have developed in simply a different way (Go ahead and accuse me of "OMG u r so simplistic u say humanz has nothing to do wit it omg") then they did. That doesn't mean they would not have developed.

No, really that's all I wanted out of you; that it would have been different with different people, or even the same people making different choices. That's all. I wanted you to step out of rigid determinism, and realize reality is a mix of determinism and will.


By the time you were responding to this, I read your whole god damn post :rolleyes:

Well aren't you impressive! :rolleyes:



That's an awful insight. I suppose, then, then I stand unchallenged, since you are unable to divulge as to why you think that, and why I'm wrong.

No, I did divulge why, and you stuck your fingers in your ears (metaphorically) and said the same thing.


Well, no shit, who did you think carried out these actions?

The point is, why, what necessitated this?

Again, I think on this point we're talking past each other, not to each other.



i'Worth the Jail time.

Koch Bro's are waiting for your bold act of defiance...


English Imperialism would have existed regardless. The Igbo had little to nothing to do with the funds.



See above.



Which has nothing to do with the Igbo people.



Lenin didn't fuck another person because he was stressed out.



Lenin just wanted Sex, actually.



Wrong... So wrong.

But I'll use another example: What did Marx's child (AND ONLY HIM, HIM DIRECTLY) have to do with the preference of how Ronald Reagan liked to shave his balls?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect


So we're pressupsoing it, then?

Sure...


"Rule of Law" is a Bourgeois concept developed by John Locke. It is Idealist in nature and antithetical to Marxian science.

Now, I am not saying it's *bad*, I'm saying it's abstract and non existent, and cannot exist.

I'm saying it's a tactical approach to take. Whether or not it exists fully, it is tactically, almost always, a better approach to take.


:bored:

It's not my fault you're too lazy to understand materialism, and actually read into it.

It's not as if I've never read into it. I thought I understood it. I still believe the cause of my misunderstanding to be a poor choice of terminology... as to anyone who doesn't already know what YOU mean by "materialism," the term "material" almost always connotates "matter."


You're probably correct, then, as I'm not an Idealist.

Then, again, I think we've largely been talking past each other.




No, but you're representing the enemy. Which makes you a potential enemy.

So in a revolutionary situation, if one wears a t-shirt saying "Vote for Nader" you should be executed?


You're attempting to challenge the proletarian dictatorship.

Physically?


Simple. If it is NATO in this case, then that's the class enemies vanguard, and for you to celebrate it's flag is the embodiment of their interests, in a flag.

So if one wears a shirt saying "GOD Bless the USA" that is cause for execution?


Mass Propaganda works in a different way, actually.

Explain.


Embodiment of the Interests of the proletarian class means class consciousness. That's another tenet of Marxism you should probably look up before attempting to debate me.

I am not going to join in with your delusions of grandeur just because you state how awesome you think you are.
You keep saying they were this embodiment, but I keep pointing out they were in opposition to the prole majority many times. Again, you are assuming the precedent (which is what I meant to put above, not antecedent).



What link? Link it. And it better be credible (Meaning no Pipes).

You're free to go back.



The Constituent assembly was swarming with infiltrators. Ever heard of Korlinov's attempt? This was done fully via the Provisional government's "Democracy".

So either you can't refute what I said, or just chose not too...


They didn't exist during the February revolution. Try again. And "genuine" is a very, very subjective term. I'll go ahead and say you're no expert on the subject, and your understanding doesn't go farther then a few wiki articles.

So basically you can't refute what I said...


But why did Lenin do it, if it was all about being "power hungry"? Lenin would never expect to be in the position him and his party were, say, when he was crossing the icy lake in I believe Finland, and almost died. He did say, reflecting back, his first thought was "Ah, what a stupid death". What this means? He'd rather die for the proletariat directly.

Some people are brave. But for what reasons? Caesar was the champion of the lower classes.

Yes, and there is a large difference between being a class' champion, and actually representing that class...


Again, you don't divulge.

I have said countless times that the establishment of proletarian rule of society is my ultimate goal, however it need be done. Where I differ with you is in which method I think will be most effective. You keep making this charge, and I keep refuting it.

Therefore, I can only assume you know you're making it up; which is definition sophistry.


I've already addressed this nonsense.

Not a very good response imo. You're basically in line with the Party at the time that refusing to work ONE DAY (not even all sundays, just that one sunday) is "sabotage" of the Revolution...


What the fuck? When did I suggest 1912, 1913, or 1925? When has anyone suggested that? Idiots say 1982, and they're wrong. In truth, you can't draw the line because it was a slow and gradual process. But the abandonment of the third period signified capital's full victory in Russia, if that's what you're asking.

I didn't say you suggested any of those times. I am asking where you draw the line between "prole situation" and "capitalist situation."
I am saying that it quickly began moving out of being a proletarian situation after the start of the Civil War.


They didn't intentionally want to betray proletarian rule. This is how things evolved. It's not as if they said "Hey guys, let's get rid of the DOTP". No. It was a slow and gradual processes, like a frog in boiling water (Glenn Beck).

See where I'm coming from is that they were of the position that "we know best what socialism is, and anyone who disagrees is obviously supporting the bourgeoisie." I deny that they were attempting to create socialism, rather than creating socialism as they defined it.


To some extent, yes he was. You assert it's laughable, so it's up to you to explain how it's laughable. I know for Idealists, they have this thing going where history, things aren't gradual, they just "Happen" based on someone's will. I get that. But that doesn't make it valid.

The China issue, seeking alliances with the major bourgeois powers, the cult of personality, mass purges... Stalin's interests were (evidentially) in the interests of protecting the existing Regime, not necessarily the Revolution.



Don't be a moron. They did actively seek to do that. So many horrible pressuposions you're deploying, it's tiring.

What if I said this: Like Oedipus, in the same way they tried to empower the proletariat and defend their interests, eventually, they would be only for filling the "betrayal".

If anything, if they had adopted direct democracy in the civil war, things would have been worse. Mobilising the masses would be of impossibility.

You assert that if they did that, it would have been better. So I want you to be specific and explain how that's true.

When you're making decisions that effect people's lives, your decisions will better represent their interests if they actually have a say in the matter.


They would, though. There wouldn't even be a real fight with the whites, they would have lost immediately.

You say that as if it's a certainty...


You make it as if mass mobilizations, military discipline, quick and harsh strategic measures (which did lead to revolts) didn't contribute fully to their victory, which they did. That's your awful assumption.

No, I'm acting as if they focused so much on winning the war, they lost sight of why they were fighting the war in the first place...


The Anarchists, the Idealists they were, opposed all organization and state dictatorship. They wanted a victory over the whites without which made a victory possible.

Just like you.

You have to pick: Either no harsh policies, or a Victory over the whites. The two cannot coexist in this situation.

No. I could pick less harsh policies. Also, there is no certainty that they couldn't beat the whites without acting as they did.


Ask why they developed those policies.

Self-righteous people with delusions of grandeur often think "as I define it" means "as it is."



That doesn't address hostile foreign powers or the necssity for strategic regional friends and trade relations. Even if we pressupose all the garbage you spewed out above (which I discredited).

They would have never won the civil war without doing away with supreme exectuve power to the Soviets. Otherwise they would have never abolished them.

1) Ya, in fact it does.
2) You really think you've won every debate you've ever been in (as far as I can see), and that should show you something.
3) They could have never protected worker power (that was the whole reason for the revolution and civil war, right? I mean that IS the Revolution, not the actual fighting...) was to completely destroy worker power?


regardless of who Stalin supported, that isn't going to stop isolation. Isolation means more then not having any friends.

Except you know, Stalin actively worked against the spread of the Revolution... that's the whole point of bringing it up...


What an obscure formula you've just spouted about. The isolation of the revolution had existed as early as 1919 and not a policy the Bolsheviks had within their grasp could have avoided that.

You're too abstract. You need to analyze the situation more, little by little, month by month.



It's not a maybe, it's a complete fuck no. I'm doing this to help you, to allow you to have a stronger understanding of these concepts.

It doesn't help that when the Revolution DOES start to spread, the head of a supposedly Socialist country actively works against the Revolution...


Again, had the revolution spread, it wouldn't have happened. Do you agree that no matter how much you tried, so long as you are beaten with a stick, you'll be beaten with a stick without something to stop the offender? You can't avoid being beaten with the stick because it's random, and you had never seen it coming.

Yes, but when the beater has a choice between a stick and a pillow, it's probably best if you don't put the stick in his hand....


Had they got in power, the same problem would then, again arise.

Again, there would have been no need for "them to get into power" if they were just given a say in the existing power structure.



Please stop attempting to re write history. Don't talk without knowledge to back that up. It's not true at all. I've never heard a more obscure history of the Boslehvik revolution then from you. Virtually no source, not even the most counter revolutionary ones, would adhere to this nonsense you're spouting.

The Bolsheviks didn't repress organizations and individuals because of their ideas, they did so because they actively fought against the Proletarian State.

Trotsky actively fought against the Proletarian state?

Again, you just assume that support for the State = prole, and opposition to the state = counterrevolutionary.


Among all of the factions in the Civil War, the Bolsheviks were undoubtedly the most popular. There is nothing the Bolsheviks could have done to folster more support. As a matter of fact, had the Bolsheviks abandoned it's "repressive" organs, they would have lost, making more support useless, anyway.

Ya... except there were times they lost that support, and just proceeded to violently purge any opposition. It's pretty easy to claim mass support when as soon as you start to lose that support you just kill/imprison/exile the opposition...


Because the likes of Makhno and Durruti were like you, Libertarians from start. They were faced with the same problems the Bolsheviks did, and couldn't help but to resort to similar tactics. That's my point.

So basically you just don't understand fundamental logic?


That's not an adaquet response.

I'm under no obligation to give an adequate response to hogwash.



No, they just do less to try and conceal it, and have journalists all over their ass because of it. Hardly comparable.

That's a big difference actually...


Okay, rules need to be established. That doesn't make Lockes rule of law (instead of rule of men) theory any less of garbage then it is. The Rule of a law is just as much the rule of Men as is political order in Feudalism. Because there is no "rule of law". Again, Idealists do not understand the origin of laws. Why were they created? For what?

Again, it's a strategic issue.


According to the founders of the "rule of law" theory, yes it does equate to supremacy of law. Everyone wants stability, for thousands of years. But for which class? For whose interests? Stability for who? This Bourgeois gem is relatively new.

Do we not want proletarian supremacy for as long as possible, forever if it is to be so?


You haven't. All of the ones you mentioned I knocked down with the battering ram of materialism.

You've knocked them down the with the battering ram of absolutist dogmatism, and nothing more...


Dump the postmodernism too. There is an objective reality with objective scientific laws. Meaning absolutism is legitiment in many respects.
Natural science is a far cry from social science. There's a big difference between the Rule of Law as a strategy, and the Rule of Law as an absolute reality.


"Rule of Law" isn't a real thing,
No, it is.

and it sure as hell doesn't equate to "stability".
It usually does

Stability is defined by a class's ability to retain a firm hold on the masses that it attempts to control, and that is dependent on the efficiency of the mode of production, not Bourgeois mythology. John Locke is full of shit, and is an Idealist.

I am saying these "super-structural" things also contribute to the supremacy of the Mode of production in a sort of feedback loop.


Okay. And like I said, this totally disregards all of the other possible factors and existing conditions which could have led up to that. If you want, I can dig for examples of so - called states with a "rule of law" that didn't last nearly as long as the ones you describe went on without.

Augustus was more efficient than Caligula for reasons completely divorced from the magnitude of "rule of law( Which doesn't exist )" existent.

Go ahead and do it.


With all due respect, I could care less about what you believe, then. I can't be in a position of power, with such power. No individual can. Stop with the cheap Idealism.

I know you could. Just as you could care less what workers believe is in their interests, if it contradicts what YOU think is in their interests... that's kind-of the whole problem.


You contradicted yourself.

How?



Yeah, it was. You previously tried to put forward that the U.S. government upholds a "rule of law".

Comparatively.


The proletariat could find execution necessary against it's class enemy in a hypothetical world where they have no representatives because fuck logic and science. Do you deny this? Don't avoid the point.

I have said numerous times I do not deny this.


And no, not everyone can say they are doing something on behalf of the proletariat. If they are in power, that automatically signifies they do. The Bourgeois class sais this, but it's not legitiment and everyone knows this.

It doesn't stop them from saying they are protecting the working class...


If you want me to treat you respectfully (which I have been in this whole post) then you have to admit that you don't know about everything you're talking about. I think you need to learn.

I have noticed that, and I thank you. I have also tried to refrain from personal attacks. I have admitted that I am willing to be wrong. But you have to make a good case for why, if it is going to have any effect on me.
Some of the things you've said, I see I was either wrong, or was misunderstanding you. Others you've merely told me how awesome you are, and how stupid I am for not seeing that...



See, here's an example. You totally skewed my post to your own ideological perversions. That's long term determinism, which doesn't hold up. However, that doesn't mean that human action is qualitive and dependent on their current surroundings, and their surroundings weren't pre determined by a councious being. They just happened, not directly as a result of will.

Again, on this topic I think we've largely been talking past each other.


Don't piss me off. I've never said that. You're being immature and obnoxious.

It's called hyperbole.


I did say we make choices. I merely asserted that there is something that determines the choices we make, and that choice itself is not something that exists in itself freely.

I am in full agreement on this point.


I'm beggining to wonder... Are your idealist insecurities shining through?
No

Is your New Age ideological mechanisms under threat, which is why you find it necessary to pull an Ismail?

I don't have New Age ideological mechanisms.


this is RSWU's procedure (Straw man):

1. Cannot understand, or is horrified (due to being sensitive) by materialism.

2. He then takes the statement and blows it out of proportion

3. He then puts a "rolleyes" smiley to make it as if I am stupid, when he's the one who blew it out of proportion in order to adjust to his New Age ideological perversions.

I only resort to hyperbole after exhausting more reasonable methods. You on the other hand have repeatedly misrepresented the same position of mine over and over again... either showing you are not paying attention to what I say at all, or are intentionally lying.


But you uphold the "rule of law" theory which was developed by John Locke... Who was a Bourgeois thinker. Do you deny this?

I uphold Class Struggle, which was developed by Marx, which was a "bourgeois thinker" by your own words, as well...

You're only going to ever be able to just assert that I am a class traitor. You'll never prove it because the destruction and overcoming of bourgeois society is my one motivation, well that and happiness... but my happiness is subjective and irrelevant to society at large.


Some things they deployed (Hegel's dialectics, for one) can't be disregarded, and are not antithetical to Materialism. Locke, on the other hand, the so called architect of the Bourgeois political structure, comes up with several obscure ideological assertions which are abstract in nature and have no correlation with the material world.

Nope, it's bourgeois, so you're bourgeois and a counterrevolutionary :rolleyes:


See above, again. Try and catch yourself doing it.

I know full well when I deploy hyperbole... like I just did a second ago. It's not as if I always do it, just when actually rationally debating is proving pointless.



"We" being Idealists.



But he didn't, did he. So it's irrelevant. Had he did, it would have represented and been an expression of the class nature of the empire.

Yet it would have been a different expression.


Yeah, they would have.

There's no way you could know this. Dogmatic Determinism.



No, it's not quite simple. I really, really hate when people try and make this quote into something simplistic.

Use your head: Everyone knew humans were constrained by certain features. Why would Marx mention this? Why would Engels include this as a summarization of Materialism?

It's because what he meant is that Men and Women do make history, but history is not an expression of their direct will. That's the point.

How do I know? Because I myself underwent the same process Marx did, his shifts in thought himself I went through. I guess it's a materialist thing.

I know it's easy for you to vulgarize Marx and try to make it a "simple" quote, like several other Vulgarists. But it will never be a simple quote, and it's true meaning remains, regardless of your bizarre interpretation.

You can call me a vulgar marxist, I can call you a revisionist. We still stand at an impasse...



No, according to RSWU, he was. Marx merely pointed out he got a lot of support from the small holding peasants, though, in that same book, he explicitly mentions how his basis of support was concentrated among the French Bourgeoisie.

You can't speak for Marx, because you're not a Marxist, and you don't have any grasp of anything Marx deployed (And I'm not trying to be mean, here).

WAS, for a time...



Divulge.

We just go round in circles.



Not even in the 18th brumaire did he deploy such nonsense.

Except he did



Sigh.

remember above how I named the RSWU procedure? You're doing it again. Must you blow what I say out of proportion in order to not sound like a complete fool who knows nothing of what he is speaking of?

You've said that young Marx is irrelevant to "true" Marxists (ie, those who pass your purity test). It's only slight hyperbole to say you think Old Marx would beat up young Marx. The point still stands; in your view old Marx completely disagreed with his younger self.


No, he didn't. He ruled in the interests of the French Bourgeoisie, otherwise he would have confiscated their property, otherwise, not as much would have brought him to power, and supported him. Otherwise, the motto of his rule would not have been to restore Family, order, property and religion. All tenets of the Bourgeois class (Bourgeois Family structure, Bourgeois Order, Property, and Ideological weaponry -religion-).

Can you show me where Marx says this? I will retract my position if so.



Again, you're blowing what I said out of proportion. What it signifies is that history is not an expression of individual direct will (Hey, I want to make capitalism/communism), but it's merely class struggle, products of mode of productions.

If you're going to label me as a bloodthirsty determinist, you must do so for Marx, and all other Marxists as well.

Marx did support the killings of hostages in the Paris Commune, by the way.

Can you cite that? Were they innocent hostages? What were the circumstances?


It doesn't make them less impactful, it just makes assertions like "WE MUST DO THIS" baseless because human will is not a qualified mechanism to give birth to action in itself, i.e. this is reserved only for the mode of production, or our need to survive, produce life, and so on. Saying "WE MUST CRUSH THE CLASS ENEMY" is useful, because class warfare is a direct reflection of the mode of production (capitalism's contradictions).

The actions in themselves mean nothing without the base, and origin that necessitated them. We know things happen. But why?

Again, on this point I think we're just talking past each other. It's a problem of vocabulary.


What choices, and what actions? They don't. You're going to have to be specific so I could destroy your thesis properly. Otherwise, you're full of empty words.

Miners get fed up and choose to go on strike. Mining company calls in private thugs to put down the strike. Miners chose to fight back. Small war breaks out. Future workers look at this and decide to learn or not from it, and develop new ways of fighting their class enemy.

Obviously if people engage in open class warfare, this will effect the future and will effect the mode of production in some way, even if not a successful Revolution. Do you deny that class struggle caused the modern welfare state, which is a different capitalism than classical capitalism?


No, not directly. Tell me how in Feudalism, the merchants struggled against their enemy because they wanted the capitalism as we know it, knowingly aware that they are influencing future MoP. They weren't. Just like millions participate in capitalism, yet only very few actually understand it.

Just like, again, how Marx was one of the first to fully understand the very system that everyone was participating in.

Again, you throw absolutism into it, and completely misrepresent what I am saying. They did engage in class struggle because they wanted a society representing bourgeois interests.


Well, then you aren't to be taken seriously.

Too bad for me then, eh?


Come on.

"Revolution starts with U" implies the same old Dalai Lama bullshit: It's moralism, that we have to change our lifestyle in order for revolution.

No, it implies that the Revolution will never happen unless people actively revolt.

And your profile picture, on your profile.

A shaolin monk, representing hard work and discipline?


You're excessive romanticism of "nature".

How so?


You're over glorification and adherence to the great man theory,
No, I'm actually one of the most outspoken people I know AGAINST the great man theory of history. I'm just not a historical determinist.

and your Idealism.

That doesn't exist. At best I'm a radical materialist. I don't even view ideas as anything but matter/energy.



You don't. Not in the context Marxists use it.

That may be so. Probably would be easier to understand if not put in such contradictive terminology.



Shouldn't.

As said above; I get what you're saying here. Again, that's really easy to take out of context, based on how you phrase it.


Then this is us cutting off from our glorious roots in nature. This is, destroying the "harmoneus" nature, that we should just "leave alone" because it "Knows what it's doing".

You can't pick and choose when you love nature. You want nature without that which you oppose in nature. Then this is no longer "nature".

I would appreciate if you didn't put the views of others onto me, simply because we may agree on other things. Thank you. I am not this caricature of past people you've argued with.


I'm puzzled. Why do you think I'm a Marxist Leninist? Oh, I forgot, your self regulating ideological perversions must take in everything and adjust them into your oh so harmoneus understanding of the world. Your constrained thought cannot even articulate Orthodox Marxism.

It's the same way Ismail used to call me a "revisionist".

I call you as such because you talk like them, agree with them, and like their posts.


You're going to have to be more detailed, and be more specific. These empty words are meaningless.

Like just two seconds ago. Where did you get this idea I support a "harmonious laissez faire" approach to nature? You made it up, because I happen to agree with people who DO take that approach on completely separate issues.


I'm fine, actually. Your skewed understanding of Materialism and Marxism, on the other hand...

:rolleyes:


I want evidence for the assertion that Marx said there does not exist different factions of classes.

I was saying tell Marx that Napoleon didn't represent small peasantry over the bourgeoisie.


When I say proletariat, I mean proletarian class consciousness.. Though I do know you don't know anything of Marxism, so I wouldn't expect you to know what that means.

So basically it is more important that one holds to the idea of being a prole, than actually being a prole? Got it...


No, they don't have different class interests. They do have conflicting organizational methods in which those interests could be for filled, though.

*fulfilled
No offense, just sayin... it's fulfilled, not for filled.

My point: either someone's status as a prole is their relation to the means of production, or it is their idea of themselves. You can't have it both ways.


Good answer :rolleyes:

Thank you :cool:



You did blame vanguardism. So it did.

How so?



had it your way, a revolution would be impossible because you want a revolution (As the great Robesspiere put it) without a revolution!

No, that's false. I want a Revolution that people actually join, not that just happens.


Again, we know things happen. Why? Why did it happen? You can't explain it in the same complex process that I did. And when you tried, you failed miserably!

The complexity of a hypothesis does not add to its truthfulness.

I actually don't need a complex explanation, and prefer Occam's Razor. Why did they do it? Because they knew better what workers wanted than workers did, in their own heads at least.


There has been only one proletarian revolution that has adopted it. There has, on the other hand, been countless failed proletarian revolutions that did not adopt them (Spain, 19th century uprisings, Spartacus League uprisings, Anarchist attempts, and so on).

And they all failed. What's your point?


You know very well that's what you would have said.

No, it's not. Stop putting other people's traits on me, please...

Did a lack of Vanguardism contribute to the failure of these uprisings? Answer the question.

My limited knowledge tells me it was a lack of a real military, a problem I have with anarchist theory in general.
All movements have a vanguard. I think you mean to ask if I think it was a lack of a centralized vanguard.

There's nothing inconsistent, as far as I can tell, in saying that Russia failed because the Vanguard lost sight of why they were Revolting in the first place; ie, too much emphasis on Vanguard. And Spain failed because they didn't mobilize effectively; ie, not enough Vanguard.





Here was my thesis:

Was the military structure not a factor external from that?

No. Again, it's one of the problems I have with libertarian theory in general. Real politics requires a real military. Guerrilla warfare has a completely different objective than a "professional" (for lack of a better term) army.


As a materialist, I uphold firmly that there is an objective reality. You seem to have this view that Vanguardism is what caused the Russian failure (And therefore can't be re approached) but then continued to say that you're postmodern and that you don't have an absolutist view regarding Spain.

I love this so much.
No, I'm merely saying I don't know that much about the Spanish situation. Whether or not I know much about the Russian one, I certainly know more about it than I do Spain.
And it can be reproached. One would have to prove that the Vanguard couldn't just completely overwrite and bypass actual working class will.



But for the Bolsheviks?

I never claimed to know the truth about them either.



You haven't attempted to, properly.

I have attempted, even if not successful.



No, you specifically disregarded the isolation, and the surroundings of foreign hostile powers in Russia and claimed the sole reason the Bolshevik revolution failed was due to vanguardism. That's an Idealist position.

No, I suggested Bolshevik policy helped foster the isolation. I gave as evidence, among other things, Luxembourg's rejection of working with the USSR because they were disregarding the will of the Soviets (at least in her view).


Then with all due respect, quit talking about the Bolshevik revolution.

No. I can talk about things and not be sure I'm right. I'm open to changing my views.
To me, our discussing right now is much the same as reading a book. I'm just here to learn. I take you with the same grain of salt I would any other piece of information.


I'm not trying to come off ans offensive, but you don't know much about either, in all honesty. What have you read? What are your sources? Wikipedia articles? Your wording correlates with them, very, very well...

And Marxists.org articles, Revleft threads, summaries and articles linked in certain threads here, things I learned in class, etc.


It's not bullshit. Anarchists like to bring it up to boast, but when we shun them with evidence, they are speechless.

You originally claimed that anytime "we" (M-Ls? Who else could you be talking about?) bring up spain, anarchists shut their mouth. But they don't. They bring up Spain and Ukraine all the time. You claim when you bring up evidence, they are speechless... but I think that's mostly a product of you already knowing beforehand that you have won the debate, and therefore aren't even listening to the other party.



You certainly don't know anything about the Bolshevik situation. So you are dealing with faith, more specifically, ideological pressuposions.

I know, something. Whether or not I pass your knowledge and purity tests are a different matter.



You know very well I did. The debate in regards to Vanguardism is done. You lose.

I've certainly seen no reason to concede your victory in regards to the issue... other than, of course, your arrogant delusions of grandeur.



Insults with context of great quality behind them, which you know exist but choose to ignore since you are incapable of addressing them, without blowing them out of proportion.

Again, I only blow them out of proportion when rational debate has proven pointless.
You already know you've won this debate. There is nothing I, nor anyone could say to sway you from that position. And you already knew you won this debate, before this debate was even an idea in either of our heads.
Even if I was a Marxist PhD on the Soviet Union, with infallible arguments for my position, you still, in your mind, would already have won this debate before it started.
That's what I mean by "insufferable."



It doesn't. But the critique exists and I'm not going to bring it back. It was relevant, though not an argument.

Ok. So you agree then. Thank you.


Well, we do live in Bourgeois society. What do you expect?

"The ruling class regulates the ruling Ideas" - K. Marx

Ok


That's why a poor man is sent to jail for years but when a Bourgeois scum is involved in drug trafficking they look the other way?

This is a good point. It's not always the case that a bourg will get away with it, but it is often the case.
But here's the thing to keep in mind; bourgeois drug traffickers rarely get "caught" dealing, because they don't often (even have to) get physically involved with the trafficking.

A friend of mine used to run a trap house. She didn't actually own the place, nor fund the drugs. She didn't even give the money to the person who did, but went through a third party. Had they gotten caught, the bourgeois dick behind it all would have been completely hands-off.



Contradictory, at best.

The concept doesn't exist, and that's what you presuppose.

It doesn't exist if you're approaching it in absolutist terms.
It would be like saying socialized medicine doesn't exist because Norway is still capitalist.


Examples? I need specifics. You can't just declare things (like Chomsky) without divulging into detail.

Bernie Maddoff is in jail.



So you think it's possible it upholds this magical concept of "the rule of law" ?

It's possible, yes. Idk.



I reckon the same could be said about the United States and Europe for 90% their existence...

I guess you could say that.

Maybe, just maybe this has more to do with industrialization then your abstract, mythological bourgeois formulations.

Maybe. I'm open to being convinced.


Well, that's how your argument works.

I'm not sure it is...



Why did you separate that quote from the rest of the sentence? Why?

Thought it was just a premise.


People's actions are the only moving factor, it's just that those actions are what are determined, not the states themselves. And they aren't "historically determined". They are brought about through complex relationships between individual class interests between classes (I.e. Class war).

But the mode of production is what determines the efficiency.

It was a great point I made, but you totally evaded it... It makes me wonder why?

Because I grow tired of going around in circles. Was it a great point, or did you just think it was?



Well, if you're going to disregard facts and logical arguments because you interperate some cheap insult as "homophobia" (which it clearly isn't, as I stated above) then you're opinion isn't of great worth anyway.

Without some kind of citation, your facts and logic are only as good as your reputation. And you haven't established why "shove it up your ass" doesn't assume there is something wrong about shoving things in your ass. I'm not trying to get you into trouble or anything.


The Americans have been using it for a while. There is only rule of stick. It's efficiency acts in correlation with the mode of production's efficiency.

I actually agree with that. Again, I see the RoL as a strategy, not as an absolute.


Majority did not, at least under Stalin. More trusted him than they did Bhreznev, and so on, whom they deemed cheap and corrupt.

Cite?


A fraction of the population.

Also, at which time?



I'm sure it's dated after Stalin.

Stalin was notorious for literally rewriting history (even as it happened). Are you sure you would trust his statistics?


A revolutionary would go at no ends... Including killing hostages.. to for fill the interests of his class. If you don't go all the way, you are not.

Again, I have said numerous times I agree with that position. Where I disagree is that we must kill innocents to fulfill our interests. In many cases I think that might just work against our interests.


Again, stop blowing things out of proportion.

I really don't see it as that far-fetched. This was not, unlike other times, hyperbole. This was exactly how I honestly think you would act in such a situation.



Beyond me why new agers are obsessed with that. Who cares? That has nothing to do with the science I am talking about (which is just the scientific method in general, without bourgeois rationalism, but of real rationalism).

1) New Age?
2) Because it's the foundation of understanding the relationship between energy and matter, space and time, and therefore reality in general. It's kind-of important.
3) You mean falsifiability, experiment, observation, etc? Or just "supports my pre-conceived views?"



But this overlaps material conditions. A moral as a basis for a view is weak. It means nothing.

My views in regards to politics is not about what "should" be, but what must be, with a Scientific basis.

It doesn't matter what you want or what you think should be, it matters what is possible, why, and what best serves the interests of the proletarian class.

Not really. You like to claim you're just saying what must be done. But you have no way of knowing. So really you just substitute a "must" where a "should" would work perfectly fine.
You think we SHOULD censor, we SHOULD murder innocents, we SHOULD have a vanguard. Again, you have no way of knowing the future, so this is just guesswork... made to appear as more than a guess because you include the word "scientific" in your sentence.


I'm trying to be nice, as you can see now.

But if you want, you can go ahead and report me. I know that was a threat, why else would you include it?

You've insulted me in worse ways, blowing everything I've said out of proportion in the most ridiculous manner possible. Sorry, but calling you a "dumb shit" is extremely kind compared to what you've been doing.

Everything I said, I meant. If I was going to report you, I would have.




Again, it's not simplistic, and I'm not a postmodernist. I do believe in objective reality.


As do I. I just don't extend absolutism into every facet of it, because things can be far more complex at times, especially when dealing with conscious actors.


This is completely contradictory. What is, and What must are one and the same in regards to the interests of the proletariat. Their interests aren't "libertarian" or "authoritarian", their interests are simple: To depose the class enemy and to abolish themselves.

I've said numerous times I agree with this (yes I took out state dictatorship because that's just you adding on how you think they SHOULD do it).


Not mutually exclusive. Especially considering your recent developments in your sympathy with NGNM... This will put you in an ideological black hole.

I could just let you rot in there, with him. But I'm being nice, and I don't want that to happen to you.

Are you suggesting I deserve a restriction because I am tired of people making a knee-jerk "you're not an anarchist, but a liberal" response to anything he has to say? Are you suggesting I am a liberal because I told people to stop engaging in ad hominems? So now logic is bourgeois?


Well, yes. "If we don't have direct democracy, power will corrupt in the hands of the representatives".



Yes.

Is that my position?
I think I have said, a couple times now, that when making decisions that effect people's lives, they will better represent those people's interests if those people have a say in the matter.


Thirty people can be put into a single room and their interests can be heard accordingly. 30 million people can't directly choose whatever they wish, as there are far too many complex relationships, interests at hand. It would be difficult to organize them as such...

It will be difficult to overthrow the bourgeoisie... that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.


More people: more of an organizational problem. One billion people all over China's positions are not going to be the same as thirty million and Egypt. There will be overlapping and contradictory wants.

There are overlapping and contradictory views within a group of two.


Age of enlightenment ideology, on the contrary.

ok :rolleyes:


Power is inherently shared by the Bourgeoisie in the rule of the Bourgeois class. That should answer your question.

Yes, and so for power to accurately represent prole interest it must be shared among the proles. That's been my position.




That's still not a direct democracy.

Ok, point still stands, I support the working class however we deem appropriate to express our power. I just encourage libertarianism because I find it more effective.


It will probably take hundreds of years for classes to disappear. They aren't going to be the only class left in existence.

What classes?
Wasn't Marx's whole point that Capitalism forces all of humanity into two distinct classes?



So what's the problem, here?

I would like to see a prole state have the ability to depose its representatives without the need for civil war.




Slavery was still in existence.

Anti-slavery mindset came long before the abolition of slavery.




You claimed that about Napolean and several prominant Roman politicians.

I said that conscious choice matters. Where did I say that it is the be-all of social change?


New Age thought is based in Liberalism.

Good for New Agers. When are you going to discuss me?



This gets tiring. You are in no position to identify that which conflicts with your ideology as "in name only".

Yo, if you think it is necessary to reject worker's power in order to protect worker's power, you support worker's power in name only. Sorry...



Well, they're not really scared of New Age Liberals, so they hardly would care. Neither would a proletarian dictatorship.



This is getting too personal. I don't care.



On the contrary... Facebook rage isn't quite my definition of exclusion from those labels.

Again, I don't fear death. That's the point.


So you don't "test" them and use the populace as guinea pigs.

Ok...? :confused:


Unsurprising. This used to happen to me.


It will only take one heavy loss to destroy this.

Unless that loss is somebody proving that worker's abolition of bourgeois society is not in the interests of worker's abolition of bourgeois society... that can't happen.

Maybe you're just projecting yourself onto me... and that's why you think my leftism is so tentative... idk.


Let's not get carried away. You're not at all a "full blown Marxist". Not by any means.

Maybe not. I do agree with Marx on a lot of things.


It isn't over.

So you're just gong to continue presuming to know who I am?



Well, you see, I've just done that... Again.

In your own head, which would have been the case no matter what I did.




Why do you tell me to "explain" when you respond with this?

If you're just going to lie, don't expect much more of a response than "that's false."



I've been listening with open ears. I've heard the same nonsense.

ok


What is "very violent and authoritarian"? If you define the Bolshevik revolution as such, then you're wrong, and it does.

Very violent and authoritarian is doing things like killing innocent people just to make a statement, purging even friendly opposition, disregarding popular will, etc etc.


You said you called yourself a Libertarian. Why?


Mostly because others call me as such, and I don't run from it. Also because I see Libertarian methods as more effective politically.

It's all easy to hold such positions that have no correlation with the material conditions in the USSR. The Mensheviks and the Left SR's would have had to deal with the same problems the Bolsheviks did.

yes, but again, would they have even had such bad problems had they gotten over their small differences? Could they, like the American Revolution, put off those differences for a hundred years?



Makhno had everyone appointed... The Bolsheviks elected military officials.

Don't be a fool. The Makhnovists were a thousand times more brutal than the Bolsheviks, and a thousand times more Authoritarian. At least teh Bolsheviks fed the populace in the best way possible. If you were starving and went to the Makhnovists, they said "We are not like the Bolsheviks who will feed you" (literally a direct quote).

Yes, I've read that quote. And shame on them. Again, because I call myself an anarchist doesn't necessitate my support of Makhno.

Don't talk out of your ass. They were much worse than the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks at least represented order and stability, to some extent.

So libertarian partisans claim one thing, and Bolshevik partisans claim another....
General consensus seems to be that many of the Bol claims are inflated.



When did I say you would?

It seemed to be implied in this whole counterrevolutionary accusation you throw around. Forgive me if I am wrong.



You say you're a Libertarian... So choose a position!

I'm not an absolutist. I support what works.



They couldn't. It was impossible to do so, in those conditions.

I'm not convinced that is true.



Regardless of what it "looks like", the bolsheviks carried out a successful proletarian revolution, and failed due to external forces at hand, but still managed to hold off for a long time.

Carried out a successful rebellion at best. The Revolution is about FAR MORE than just the military engagements. They failed at the Revolution.

The Anarchists never have carried out a successful proletarian revolution, and were crushed militarily.

By other so-called socialists in conjunction with bourgeois enemies...



Maybe you should start reading more Marx.

Perhaps. I have restarted reading Capital.



Deja vu?

Stop blowing things out of proportion. Yes, older Marx had very different views than Younger Marx. Explain how that necessitates him "kicking" his own ass? What the fuck are you trying to accomplish here, debate wise? You look really, really dumb, and I'm telling you that for your own sake.

The fact that you need to blow things out of proportion means you can't address or approach my arguments in a rational manner.

Or I've just grown tired of approaching it rationally, as it is entirely noneffective.


It was in the case of the Bolsheviks. And we must always be ready.

I've never disagreed with that... which I have said on NUMEROUS occasions, in this debate, and in every other debate we've had. Why you refuse to listen is not known to me.


No... (?)

So you had to identify yourself and who you were voting for, and could be punished for voting the "wrong" way?
Doesn't sound like an effective way of gauging actual popular will.


Well, you're making it as if the Bolsheviks were some kind of shady Bakunin esque group without mass support.

At times they were, at times they weren't.


It's my answer. Do as you please with it.

I

Go back and read.



Then don't engage in this conversation.



Fuck no. I didn't just respond to all of that so you can pretend to forget.

I'm not pretending to forget. I'm just not going back to check. These posts are far too long as it is, for me to spend hours slogging through it.




And that's a ludicrous assertion. The bolsheviks had majroity support strictly in the Industrial proletariat, and the Industrial Proletariat's radical demands were not met by any other party.

It's not as if the Bolsheviks hijacked a revolutionary situation. The April thesis was out of fucking no where, as a matter of fact. They were acting on behalf of the proletariat, otherwise they would have resorted to Nationalist rhetoric, promised the Bourgeois class it's property, the rich Peasants, and so on. They wouldn't have gone through all of the fucking trouble representing the Proletariat in almost every single way.

Like I said before, one of the main criticisms deployed against them by Kulaks and Cossacks was that they were too favorable towards the Industrial proletariat.

And, as I said; 1) That is probably a major problem for them, that they could have handled more effectively, imo.
2) At times they lost the support of the proles, and proceeded just to purge any opposition when that happened.


There's no money there. Those were genuine proletarians. The military apparatus hated the Bolshevik party. It was the soldiers who supported them.

Stop talking out of your ass.

Seems like the military enjoyed a lot of power, wealth, and status. That's why I put "money" in quotations. Follow where the "thing that money represents."


:confused: What bureaucracy? Are you really just spouting out nonsense, now? You're not making any sense. I thought they were, eventually, the Bureaucracy. Who supported them in this case? Huh?

Can you rephrase this so as to make sense? It seems like you're saying there was no bureaucracy.


God damnit. I suspected you were a New Age Liberal esque type... I had no fucking clue you were a conspiracy theorist.

Link me some credible sources that International bankers supported them. You can't just fucking declare things without providing adaquet evidence for your assertions. That's an extremely bizarre claim right there, one that originates from the likes of David Duke.

Are you just slinging shit now, to try and make an argument?

This either signifies one of two things:

1. You're actually a conspiracy theorist

2. The Defeat you went through was so bad you had to resort to this.

You're absolutely right, I was mislead. I can find plenty of sources showing different people funding the Revolution... but not a single credible one.

The only banker I could find credible information on was Schiff, who after seeing Soviet treatment of Jews stopped his standing order that none of his banks should send money to Russia. It doesn't say anything about him actually sending money, just that he allowed it to be sent if it were to be so.


You don't have any knowledge at all on anything regarding the Bolsheviks, actually.

You just asserted all of that bullshit and then said "But idk who was benefiting, oh well lol, intenrational jew bankers lol"

Jesus fucking Christ. That's ridiculous. I hope you have something of worth to say to this. Because I may very well be waiting. I'm done with my exams..
If you paid attention to the context I didn't claim any knowledge of where the wealth went. I basically said "from my view it seems... tho I don't have any special knowledge." If you have any information on who funded and benefited monetarily from the USSR, I am all ears.

Sucks to end on a mistake on my part. But I'm not here to win anything, just to learn. Best regards, comrade :D

[Comrade Mitja]

Censorship is the tool of capitalist system,they think if we listen to music online for free we wount buy their precious cd's,so that they can make sweet sweet money.

In a socialist state musicians will mostly survive out of live concerts. So if the band has some sweet tons,people will go to their concerts and buy their cd's and so on.

Great comparison for this are the grateful dead,they had awesome concerts with low prices tickets,and you were free to record their music and share with others,thats why they got so famous!

Free music helps the musicians to spread thur the world and reach global fame i dont know why this is an crime in todays times


ah capitalism the worst mistake in human kind

[Baseball]

Rev with U-- did you start post 181 on Wednesday??? What the hell!!

[Revolution starts with U]

long post. I took about a 4 hour break between starting and finishing

[NGNM85]

long post. I took about a 4 hour break between starting and finishing

I can imagine. The posts in this thread appear to be expanding, exponentially.

[Sectarian]

I am confident that there will be. The hills will echo with the soulful melodies of thousands of amphibians blowing on tiny trumpets.

[TheFakeMovement]

Yes. Arts will be censored too, only proper socialist realist art will be allowed not shitty minimalist art.

[Che a chara]

i honestly hope the soul destroying and mind numbing reality tv shows would be censored, in this case the talent shows which showcase manufactured pop turds who get a career when they sign on the dotted line with seedy indecent moguls and music corporations at the expense of actual original and real talented individuals and bands with instruments who don't want to sell their soul.

say what you want about hamas but they got it right in banning the palestinian version of 'american idol'.

[Thirsty Crow]

The answer is "yes".

Everything apart from gorenoise, and perhaps some other forms of...err, that, will be censored into nonexistence. Posterity will be thankful. As a sidenote, people might want to honor the brilliant person necroing this thread by allowing hosts of tiny amphibians blowing on tiny trumpets.

[SkepticalofYourDogma]

A Socialist State is an organized government that works under a Socialized means and mode of production. Meaning, people work together in workplaces and the profit produced is shared by the collective. This is the bottom line of what it means to be a Socialist State by definition. Anything beyond that goes into the realm of ideology. I believe censorship is wrong no matter what. It is a matter of principle.

[Tankie]

Long as it does not promote capitalism/fascism/nazism/etc and long as it is not anti-soviet/socialist/communist/etc. I have no problem with it. :)