Stalinism and OI [Archive]

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th March 2013, 18:45

Also you have to note that there are two different schools of thought: the Anti-Revisionists who reject every "socialist" state post 1954 other than China and Albania, and the other ML's who still uphold these states while denouncing Stalin. so the term "Stalinist" is pretty inadequate.

Frankly, it seems to be a term of abuse more than anything else, which is why I avoid using it. By the way, don't hardline Hoxhaists consider China under Mao to have been revisionist and vice versa?

Not to shoot you down here, but only a fool would deny that primitivists and third worldists want to 'liberate humanity'* and abolish capitalism, and most advocate some form of revolution to achieve that. So no, I don't think what you've said here is particularly accurate, the problem not being that they don't want these things, only that...ah...their understanding of what exactly that entails can be a little skewed, which is actually the pertinent issue here...

*rephrase: either a fool or, on the contrary, somebody theoretically adept enough to recognise that phrases like 'liberate humanity' are all but meaningless.

They can't be meaningless; we are using them, after all, and we seem to be communicating. But perhaps you wanted to say that their meaning changes depending on the speaker? That is true, of course, but this is a forum for revolutionary Marxists and anarchists, so a certain meaning of that term is assumed. And that meaning does not include the "liberation" that primitivists talk about. And no common usage of the term "humanity" excludes the "First World". So I think my analysis stands.

Democratic socialism seems to be extremely controversial among the radical left. Most of them are completely anti-capitalist, they just don't advocate armed revolution like the rest of us do. Due to them being anti-capitalist alone I do consider them comrades of mine, however.

The only "democratic socialist" parties I am familiar with, comrade Stalin, are social democrats that have not turned neoliberal. But I notice that some even place DeLeon in the category, and Deleonists are revolutionary socialists that should not be restricted here.

I'm confused.

Just a thought here - isn't liberating humanity and abolishing capitalism inherently revolutionary in nature? Are you (I'm asking seriously, not trying to imply) saying that being for a violent revolution is a requirement/should be a requirement to not being stuck to OI? Shouldn't wanting to end capitalism and liberate humanity be enough, even if you or others solidly disagree some other method might be possible?

And I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders type self-described "socialists" who are social democrats, I'm talking about people who are for the abolishment of the private ownership of the means of production, and all workplaces to be democratically owned and operated by the workers. Like the Socialist Party USA types.

Most people on this site want that (but note that ownership by one group of workers is not the same as ownership by the entire society); however, if someone tries to exclude violence from the revolution, they either want something that is blatantly impossible, or they don't want a revolution at all.

Drosophila

15th March 2013, 18:54

That is true, of course, but this is a forum for revolutionary Marxists and anarchists

There are people here that wouldn't identify with either Marxism or Anarchism, but still consider themselves to be in support of revolution. There are also people who are sympathetic to primitivism to some degree, myself included.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th March 2013, 19:13

There are people here that wouldn't identify with either Marxism or Anarchism, but still consider themselves to be in support of revolution.

What would they identify with, then? As far as I know, every major revolutionary socialist current that was neither Marxist nor anarchist - currents like narodnism or guild socialism - have died out; there are still religious "socialists", but surely they don't want the same things as we Marxists and anarchists do?

There are also people who are sympathetic to primitivism to some degree, myself included.

That doesn't sound particularly coherent to me. Either industrial civilisation is an evil on par with capitalism, and we should drop both the hammer and the sickle, or it isn't.

Art Vandelay

15th March 2013, 19:36

What would they identify with, then? As far as I know, every major revolutionary socialist current that was neither Marxist nor anarchist - currents like narodnism or guild socialism - have died out; there are still religious "socialists", but surely they don't want the same things as we Marxists and anarchists do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchy

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

15th March 2013, 19:40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchy

Thank you. It seems that there is a post-everything everything; in any case, are such movements really within the scope of this site? And can it really be said that they are revolutionary in the Marxist or classical anarchist sense? The very short summary that Wikipedia provides suggests that they are closer to certain radical bourgeois theorists like Foucault - but this might be me sectarianism and distaste for post-movements showing.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

15th March 2013, 19:47

I think it's gotten kind of silly... I know democratic socialists used to be allowed, now market socialists are restricted. I understand restricting non-leftist, but it's continually moving toward a more and more specific version of what a leftist is, and is cutting people out that could usefully contribute. It's really too bad.

Market "socialists" are not socialists at all, it's that fucking simple.

Drosophila

15th March 2013, 21:26

That doesn't sound particularly coherent to me. Either industrial civilisation is an evil on par with capitalism, and we should drop both the hammer and the sickle, or it isn't.
Thank you. It seems that there is a post-everything everything; in any case, are such movements really within the scope of this site? And can it really be said that they are revolutionary in the Marxist or classical anarchist sense? The very short summary that Wikipedia provides suggests that they are closer to certain radical bourgeois theorists like Foucault - but this might be me sectarianism and distaste for post-movements showing.
Why should we keep the hammer and the sickle? Industry sucks and has only served to enslave the human species. I don't want to have to work every day on crap that nobody needs. There are definitely important technological developments that have come out of industrial capitalism, but that doesn't mean technology is necessarily a good thing.

I should also note that much of anarcho-primitivism is inspired by Jacques Camatte, an Italian Marxist.

Orange Juche

15th March 2013, 22:07

Market "socialists" are not socialists at all, it's that fucking simple.

According to you

Comrade Samuel

16th March 2013, 03:05

Market "socialists" are not socialists at all, it's that fucking simple.

It sounds like a pretty self contradicting term, almost like saying "communist country".

I for one am glad that we Marxist-Leninists are allowed to voice our thoughts and defend our beliefs on this forum.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th March 2013, 08:42

Why should we keep the hammer and the sickle? Industry sucks and has only served to enslave the human species. I don't want to have to work every day on crap that nobody needs. There are definitely important technological developments that have come out of industrial capitalism, but that doesn't mean technology is necessarily a good thing.

That sounds like primitivism simpliciter, not partial primitivism.

I should also note that much of anarcho-primitivism is inspired by Jacques Camatte, an Italian Marxist.

Much of fascism is inspired by G. Sorel, a Marxist; that doesn't mean that fascists should be allowed to post.

According to you

Socialists fight for social ownership of the means of production and for the abolishment of the anarchy of the market. "Market socialism" is to socialism what "National Bolshevism" is to Bolshevism.

Sasha

16th March 2013, 10:43

The left-wing of fordism is out in force again huh?

Anyways, funny enough, stalinoids where once restricted for the same reasons as market-socialists now. The remanagement of capital is not revolutionary. It seems that the state capitalists have a better lobby than the individualist capitalists though..

ellipsis

16th March 2013, 11:43

All Marxists-Leninists, or just tankies, or...? For the record, I don't think placing any of these groups in the OI was a good idea, and I'm glad the policy has changed. And now they're probably the most numerous group, heh.

The history of this site seems to be interesting - there was talk of some sort of massive purge in the past, a defunct "Central Committee" etc.

It was the commie club. And yes we have some silly history. The great purge is the largest of several purges that have occurred. To be fair most people purged got caught up in a shitstorm and got em selves banned for trolling or spamming. at no time, iirc has there been any purge of an ideology on the board.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th March 2013, 12:13

The left-wing of fordism is out in force again huh?

Ford died for our sins. Our revolutionary sins.

In unrelated news, I can't tell if this comment was directed at me, due to my opposition to primitivism, or what.

Anyways, funny enough, stalinoids where once restricted for the same reasons as market-socialists now. The remanagement of capital is not revolutionary. It seems that the state capitalists have a better lobby than the individualist capitalists though..

There is an actual debate about state capitalism on the revolutionary left; many obvious leftists reject the characterisation of the Soviet Union as state capitalist, for example, and most of them are not Marxists-Leninists. And surely someone that advocated a temporary state capitalism as a transitional form to socialism would not be restricted?

Market socialism has nothing to do with the sort of socialism we advocate - market socialists do not want a planned economy and production for use, whereas Marxists-Leninists do.

Sasha

16th March 2013, 13:43

In unrelated news, I can't tell if this comment was directed at me, due to my opposition to primitivism, or what.

in part, people that sing the hosanna of industrialism as a infallible force of good are just as silly as the worst primmie's. "primitivist"/anti-civ theory has a lot of valuable insight on a lot of subjects that should be of high interest to marxists and anarcho-communists/syndicalists alike and shouldnt be discarded out of some ignorant bias. Stuff like alienation through work and commodities, monopolization/concentration of wealth and recourses (not only raw material but also knowledge, labour and power), the precarisation of modern labour (to which the traditional left stuck in by gone ages of fordism still has to find an answer), etc etc

There is an actual debate about state capitalism on the revolutionary left; many obvious leftists reject the characterisation of the Soviet Union as state capitalist, for example, and most of them are not Marxists-Leninists. And surely someone that advocated a temporary state capitalism as a transitional form to socialism would not be restricted?

Market socialism has nothing to do with the sort of socialism we advocate - market socialists do not want a planned economy and production for use, whereas Marxists-Leninists do.

depends on what you qualify as the revolutionary left, in my view there is no debate on the revolutionary left because anyone that think "social-authoritarian" (as calling them social-democratic would be unfair to the social-dems) nation states have anything to do with revolutionary leftism is not a revolutionary leftist by definition. But if we include state-capitalists into the non-reactionary list there is def no reason to not include mutualists (as opposed to anarcho-capitalists who are not even remotely leftist) and democratic-socialist and if i'm honest even traditional social-democrats (not the new-labour variety obviously).

also, i dont think i want a planned economy either, at least not one remotely resembling what ML's would want. It would def be a lot closer to what primmies and mutalists envision than a dictatorship run by a bureaucratic class (even if they suddenly wouldnt be totally inept kafkean fuck ups like every time until now that its tried)

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th March 2013, 14:00

in part, people that sing the hosanna of industrialism as a infallible force of good are just as silly as the worst primmie's.

Good thing, then, that I have done nothing of the sort. I have simply pointed out that the "liberation" that primitivists talk about is not remotely similar to the "liberation" that Marxists, anarcho-communists etc. desire, and that it seems inconsistent to be partially primitivist.

"primitivist"/anti-civ theory has a lot of valuable insight on a lot of subjects that should be of high interest to marxists and anarcho-communists/syndicalists alike and shouldnt be discarded out of some ignorant bias. Stuff like alienation through work and commodities, monopolization/concentration of wealth and recourses (not only raw material but also knowledge, labour and power), the precarisation of modern labour (to which the traditional left stuck in by gone ages of fordism still has to find an answer), etc etc

There exist Marxist, and probably revolutionary anarchists, analyses of these subjects. I doubt that primitivism has anything substantial to offer since most "theoretical" primitivism is an idealist and reactionary (in the literal sense of basing social analysis on an adulatory view of some past social epoch) distortion of class analysis.

depends on what you qualify as the revolutionary left, in my view there is no debate on the revolutionary left because anyone that think "social-authoritarian" (as calling them social-democratic would be unfair to the social-dems) nation states have anything to do with revolutionary leftism is not a revolutionary leftist by definition.

Words are defined by the manner in which they are usually used in the relevant social group; most uncontroversial leftists would refer to the Marxists-Leninists as revolutionary leftists. They might not be good revolutionary leftists, their theory might be confused etc. - obviously as a Bolshevik-Leninist I believe the latter is true! - but it would be ridiculously sectarian to exclude them from revolutionary leftism, despite the fact that we share most of our goals (no, emels don't usually want to form oppressive bureaucratic states) and the method of analysis.

But if we include state-capitalists into the non-reactionary list there is def no reason to not include mutualists (as opposed to anarcho-capitalists who are not even remotely leftist) and democratic-socialist and if i'm honest even traditional social-democrats (not the new-labour variety obviously).

Mutualist do not want to abolish the anarchy of the market. As for "traditional" social democrats, if this means the Second International or LSI variety, yes they should be included. Sadly they appear to all have died out.

also, i dont think i want a planned economy either, at least not one remotely resembling what ML's would want. It would def be a lot closer to what primmies and mutalists envision than a dictatorship run by a bureaucratic class (even if they suddenly wouldnt be totally inept kafkean fuck ups like every time until now that its tried)

Obviously many of us do not think the Marxist-Leninist model of a planned economy is a good one, but this does not change the fact that those that do not wish to abolish the anarchy of the market have a very tenuous claim on being leftists.

Sasha

16th March 2013, 14:12

fair enough, its not that i dont respect your opinions, but I still thinks its silly that people who are offended by the fact that stalinists once where restricted here have no problem with tossing about everyone they dont like (but who still claims to be a revolutionary leftist and have the history and theory to proof it) in OI.

Sasha

16th March 2013, 14:15

Speaking of, i'm going to move this out of chitchat as it really doesnt fit here, lets try OI first, if it turns into a "but why am i then restricted" wining fest we'll move it again...

moved

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th March 2013, 14:22

I am not offended; I just think it was a bad policy if it applied to every Marxist-Leninist and not just the lunatic tankie fringe. I am not myself a Marxist-Leninist, nor do I think Marxism-Leninism is all that convincing, though by the standards of some ultrasectarians I'm practically a cryptostalinist because I don't think M-Ls are all little Yezhovs.

Once again, I think that primitivists, market socialists, mutualists, religious socialists, and so on, and so on, differ from the "classical" left (which I take to be revolutionary anarchism and Marxism) in terms of goals, methods, and the manner of social analysis enough to warrant their restriction. Admitting everyone that considers themselves left would, I think, defeat the purpose of the forum.

Anyway, those are my two rubles. Apologies if I was excessively abrasive.

Skyhilist

16th March 2013, 14:59

Most people on this site want that (but note that ownership by one group of workers is not the same as ownership by the entire society); however, if someone tries to exclude violence from the revolution, they either want something that is blatantly impossible, or they don't want a revolution at all.

You could also argue the same for Stalinists and other M-Ls though, because many of them support SioC, which many other leftists see as impossible. What consitutes a revolution that is "impossible" completely depends on who you're talking to, so it seems irrational to restrict based on only one opinion of what makes a socialist revolution "impossible".

Goblin

16th March 2013, 15:08

According to you
"Market socialism" = Oxymoron

Sasha

16th March 2013, 15:28

Mutualist do not want to abolish the anarchy of the market.

i rather have an anarchistic market than a managed one ;)1

Invader Zim

16th March 2013, 15:42

So why were Stalinists restricted? Because of some anti-authoritarian stance of the site? I get that most of the site is dominated by anarchists, but come on. M-L's are revolutionary leftists too even if you don't agree with their stances.

Also, if my memory serves me correctly this forum was originally "Che Lives". He was a M-L so restricting M-L's would have irony written all over it.

Because Stalinist's uphold, and offer apologism and denialism, for the activities of a regime that killed more communists than the Nazi regime, not to mention millions of workers. The owner, Malte got sick and tired of the bullshit as I recall.

AConfusedSocialDemocrat

16th March 2013, 16:47

"Market socialism" = Oxymoronhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proudhon-children.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Edvard_Kardelj.jpg

Okay...

Brutus

16th March 2013, 18:41

i rather have an anarchistic market than a managed one ;)1

He was referring to the anarchy of the capitalist market, which is why we have recession etc.
I would also like anarchy

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th March 2013, 20:11

You could also argue the same for Stalinists and other M-Ls though, because many of them support SioC, which many other leftists see as impossible. What consitutes a revolution that is "impossible" completely depends on who you're talking to, so it seems irrational to restrict based on only one opinion of what makes a socialist revolution "impossible".

It isn't that obvious an error (though to me it seems fairly obvious); the relation of the theory socialism in one country to the belief that the revolution can be nonviolent is like the relation of the belief that lemmings regularly hurl themselves off cliffs for no reason to the belief that the former Soviet Union is populated by purple people from the moon.

The point of that rather ridiculous analogy is that the theory of socialism in one country is the result (or so I see it) of an incorrect application of dialectical materialism, while "revolutionary" pacifism is the result of someone outright ignoring the historical record. The former can be resolved through comradely discussion; the latter simply betrays a long-distance relationship with reality.

But this assumes that the pacifist believes a nonviolent revolution is possible, which I am not sure every pacifist believes.

i rather have an anarchistic market than a managed one ;)1

The anarchy of the market is not a kind of political anarchy, as cmrd. Baader-Meinhof points out. Apologies for the confusing phrase. Anyway, I am not entirely sure that an anarchist market could exist - since markets create hierarchies and require state violence to maintain.

Geiseric

16th March 2013, 20:19

LOLseph Stalin

16th March 2013, 20:34

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th March 2013, 20:41

One should be careful here; it isn't impossible that certain members of the RKP(b) had been traitors. Participation in the revolution and the earlier Bolshevik group is not some infallible guarantee - recall how Kamenev and Zinoviev tried to obstruct the Bolshevik seizure of power. But the actual evidence does not suggest that there was a Trotskyist conspiracy in the Soviet Union, let alone a terrorist Right-Left block that tried to place half of the Soviet Union under fascist control for... some reason... and in the mean time spent their time pretending to be loyal centrist security officers and hunting down other Trotskyists.

LOLseph Stalin

16th March 2013, 20:45

One should be careful here; it isn't impossible that certain members of the RKP(b) had been traitors. Participation in the revolution and the earlier Bolshevik group is not some infallible guarantee - recall how Kamenev and Bukharin tried to obstruct the Bolshevik seizure of power. But the actual evidence does not suggest that there was a Trotskyist conspiracy in the Soviet Union, let alone a terrorist Right-Left block that tried to place half of the Soviet Union under fascist control for... some reason... and in the mean time spent their time pretending to be loyal centrist security officers and hunting down other Trotskyists.

I do agree but many Stalinists act as if the entire party was traitorous. That seems extremely unlikely to me.

Leftsolidarity

16th March 2013, 21:46

I do agree but many Stalinists act as if the entire party was traitorous. That seems extremely unlikely to me.

I don't think I've seen a single person actually completely defend the purges. At most I've seen critical support from some of the most hardcore Stalinists. This seems to be a classic sterotype of people who defend Stalin but I've never talked to a single one. If anyone could point me to a person (who is not a troll and is completely serious) that 100% defends these purges and thinks they were all traitors then maybe we can continue to make these ridiculous claims but until then I really think people should stfu about it because it seems like a huge strawman that makes people feel better by going "hurr durr Stalinists R eViL!!".

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th March 2013, 21:57

I don't think I've seen a single person actually completely defend the purges. At most I've seen critical support from some of the most hardcore Stalinists. This seems to be a classic sterotype of people who defend Stalin but I've never talked to a single one. If anyone could point me to a person (who is not a troll and is completely serious) that 100% defends these purges and thinks they were all traitors then maybe we can continue to make these ridiculous claims but until then I really think people should stfu about it because it seems like a huge strawman that makes people feel better by going "hurr durr Stalinists R eViL!!".

L. Martens seems to defend the purges to the maximum extent; of course, as I recall it he doesn't defend the Yezhovshchina, but considers it to have been the work of the, you guessed it, Block of Rightists and Trotskyists. I am not saying, by the way, that "the Stalinists" are evil; if they genuinely believe there to have been a terrorist wrecker block, the executions outside the Yezhovshchina at least make sense - but the belief rests on the most tenuous evidence imaginable, and makes little sense if you ask me.

I am, however, all in favour of forgetting these sometimes silly debates; Marxists-Leninists are not Yezhov and they do not as a rule want to kill Trotskyists en masse.

LuÃs Henrique

16th March 2013, 22:32

This site is open to those that want to liberate humanity and abolish capitalism by revolutionary means. Bourgeois democratic "socialists" do not wish to do so; nor do the primitivists, third worldists and other restricted ideologies.

If so, this brings into question what "revolutionary means" are, which is more or less guaranteed to generate stupid periodic purges.

But I don't think so. This site is open to those who want a radically different kind of human society, not dominated by capital. In other words, to those who want a revolution in the strict sence of a radical transformation of the social structure as a whole.

The rationale for OI is, or at least used to be, to avoid every thread being hijacked into a "but is it even possible" discussion, which in our (including left-communists, anarchists, troskyists, stalinists, et caterva) opinion is already resolved.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

16th March 2013, 22:49

The left-wing of fordism is out in force again huh?

Most of the left is social-fordist, including left communists and most anarchists. Indeed, social fordism is the dominant ideology within the working class worldwide. Which means we have to start from there and make our way out from it. But that is a process.

The only wings of the left that don't seem to be fordist are usually worse than that, primitivists or seclusive "postists" who deem every action impossible and capitalism eternal for lack of any actual oppositional force. That, and a few guys like Jappe, Kurtz, Postone, Roswitha Scholz, etc, who aren't excessively representative.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

16th March 2013, 22:53

also, i dont think i want a planned economy either

I don't want an economy, planned or not. If I wanted, I would have to consider myself a left-fordist.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

16th March 2013, 23:00

it seems inconsistent to be partially primitivist.

On the contrary, primitivism must of necessity be partial - though of course you could argue that it must also be of necessity inconsistent.

The day I see a primmie arguing against lithic technologies and language as the beggining of a slippery slope that leads us into nukes, computers, anti-depressants, heart transplants and spacecraft, I will admit that I am wrong. But I doubt someone like that actually exists.

Luís Henrique

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th March 2013, 23:32

If so, this brings into question what "revolutionary means" are, which is more or less guaranteed to generate stupid periodic purges.

Revolutionary means include, at least, the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus and measures toward the socialisation of the means of production. It would be difficult to find revolutionary socialists that disagree with this mininal revolutionary program.

But I don't think so. This site is open to those who want a radically different kind of human society, not dominated by capital. In other words, to those who want a revolution in the strict sence of a radical transformation of the social structure as a whole.

The Khmer Rouge wanted a radically different kind of society, not dominated by capital, as well. There are left criticisms of contemporary society, and there are right, reactionary criticisms - surely this forum only encompasses the former and not the latter.

Most of the left is social-fordist, including left communists and most anarchists. Indeed, social fordism is the dominant ideology within the working class worldwide. Which means we have to start from there and make our way out from it. But that is a process.

Social Fordism being, what, exactly? A preference for industrial societies over pre-industrial ones? But then the entire Marxist labour movement is, and can not be anything else then, social Fordist, due to the role of the development of the productive forces in Marxist theory.

I don't want an economy, planned or not. If I wanted, I would have to consider myself a left-fordist.

Then it seems everyone that wishes to exchange commodities is a left Fordist. This Fordist bogeyman seems rather difficult to exorcise.

On the contrary, primitivism must of necessity be partial - though of course you could argue that it must also be of necessity inconsistent.

The day I see a primmie arguing against lithic technologies and language as the beggining of a slippery slope that leads us into nukes, computers, anti-depressants, heart transplants and spacecraft, I will admit that I am wrong. But I doubt someone like that actually exists.

Primitivists are not against all technology, obviously; just the technology that did not exist in the primitive communist period they idealise. I still don't see how one can advocate only a partial return to that era of social development - as if economic systems were confectionery that one can choose and mix however one likes.

Comrade Samuel

17th March 2013, 07:47

Stalinism and Maoism are the counter revolution. Until communists are historically literate about the fSU, the rest of the working class will be alienated due to people having idiotic positions such as "the grea leap forward was a GOOD thing," or "the people who were killed were all fascists." I mean you don't have to be Durkheim to see that people are repelled by apoligists for mass slaughter.

I'll disagree and say that we do not defend what happened (at least the more intelligent half of us do not). We may try to make sure that the numbers presented are factual and try to give a little context but not one genuine Marxist-Leninist would ever act as though the purges/5 year plans/ GLF/ cultural revolution didn't happen or didn't have insanely high death tolls.

I personally defend the ideological basis from which Stalin and Mao governed the Soviet Union and China but condemn their mutual lack of prolateriate democracy and the near-absolute power they ruled with (these things combined caused hierarchy and corruption and are perfectly good reasons to critique the men and their respective nations). Would you not even concede that they had the final goal of worldwide classless, stateless communism in mind when indirectly/directly causing such attrocities to be committed? Obviously they cannot be blamed personally for everything single killing- the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies had just as much to do with it but the point still remains; did they hope to achieve communism? If so then does no one here even consider the possibility that the greater good was the driving force behind such heinous acts? Before you respond calling me an apologist I would like to disclaim that I am only bringing up a point and do not think that it somehow justifies it.

I'll agree with you entirely when you say that people ARE in fact repelled by apologists for mass murder but at the same time I cannot stress enough how important it is for people to have their facts strait about Mao and Stalin and that they understand that these men contributed quite a bit theoretically despite their major short comings as leaders.

Crux

18th March 2013, 05:21

I don't think I've seen a single person actually completely defend the purges. At most I've seen critical support from some of the most hardcore Stalinists. This seems to be a classic sterotype of people who defend Stalin but I've never talked to a single one. If anyone could point me to a person (who is not a troll and is completely serious) that 100% defends these purges and thinks they were all traitors then maybe we can continue to make these ridiculous claims but until then I really think people should stfu about it because it seems like a huge strawman that makes people feel better by going "hurr durr Stalinists R eViL!!".
I wish what you said was true but unfortunately Grover Furr has a fanbase (A leading "theoretician" in the swedish CP echoes Furr word for word sometimes to the point where they made a pamphlet on it), and he is sadly not alone in holding that the Great Purge was necessary because all the charges were true. There really was a secret trotskyist-nazi-bukharinist-zinovievist-japanese bloc bent on overthrowing the leadership of the USSR through small terrorist cells. Despite this being completely divorced from reality.

Zostrianos

18th March 2013, 05:46

Orange Juche

18th March 2013, 06:50

however, if someone tries to exclude violence from the revolution, they either want something that is blatantly impossible, or they don't want a revolution at all.

So basically, we should think in absolutist terms. You can't put thoughts into other people's heads, and "impossible" is entirely subjective.

Orange Juche

18th March 2013, 06:56

I'll agree with you entirely when you say that people ARE in fact repelled by apologists for mass murder but at the same time I cannot stress enough how important it is for people to have their facts strait about Mao and Stalin and that they understand that these men contributed quite a bit theoretically despite their major short comings as leaders.

"Major short coming" being one of the biggest understatements of all time.

Kindness

18th March 2013, 07:19

however, if someone tries to exclude violence from the revolution, they either want something that is blatantly impossible, or they don't want a revolution at all.

I don't see how, for example, a non-violent syndicalist revolution via general strike is "blatantly impossible" (it worked in Spain) or "not revolutionary." Such a movement cuts to the very heart of capitalism -- economic activity -- and if sustained long enough would bring the capitalist system to a halt, allowing for the imposition of a new order. How is that not revolutionary?

Orange Juche

18th March 2013, 07:28

I don't see how, for example, a non-violent syndicalist revolution via general strike is "blatantly impossible" (it worked in Spain) or "not revolutionary." Such a movement cuts to the very heart of capitalism -- economic activity -- and if sustained long enough would bring the capitalist system to a halt, allowing for the imposition of a new order. How is that not revolutionary?

Because some people here are more interested in revenge than justice.

Zostrianos

18th March 2013, 07:36

I don't see how, for example, a non-violent syndicalist revolution via general strike is "blatantly impossible" (it worked in Spain) or "not revolutionary."

And the non-violent revolution in Portugal (though it later proved fruitless).

I don't think anyone debates the need for some violence to bring about a revolution, and that unfortunately some people might be killed in the process. But there's a difference between necessary force to bring down the ruling class (where a small number of people might die), and the savage bloodfest that many "revolutionaries" seem to want, replacing one form of tyranny with another (which is what happened in the Soviet Union).

Orange Juche

18th March 2013, 08:31

and the savage bloodfest that many "revolutionaries" seem to want, replacing one form of tyranny with another (which is what happened in the Soviet Union).

And unfortunately, with that mentality (which is way too common here), if we ever actually do get worker control, it'll be a slaughter of those who disagree (or whom we might vaguely suspect disagree).

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

18th March 2013, 09:40

So basically, we should think in absolutist terms. You can't put thoughts into other people's heads, and "impossible" is entirely subjective.

Impossibility is fairly objective - someone might think that they can pass through walls, but they will be rudely corrected.

I don't see how, for example, a non-violent syndicalist revolution via general strike is "blatantly impossible" (it worked in Spain) or "not revolutionary."

First of all, the revolution in Spain foundered fairly quickly; in part because the participants were reluctant to smash the bourgeois Generalidad. And it was by no means "non-violent". General strikes in general can not be non-violent - the police will intervene, strikebreakers will have to be dealt with etc. etc.

And the non-violent revolution in Portugal (though it later proved fruitless).

The change from one form of capitalism to another is not the sort of revolution revolutionary socialists want - and you're ignoring the role of the violence in Angola etc.

I don't think anyone debates the need for some violence to bring about a revolution, and that unfortunately some people might be killed in the process. But there's a difference between necessary force to bring down the ruling class (where a small number of people might die), and the savage bloodfest that many "revolutionaries" seem to want, replacing one form of tyranny with another (which is what happened in the Soviet Union).

No one finds killing people pleasant (if we did, we'd be capitalists and patriots), but the reaction will not dissolve itself after the revolution - the revolution will need to be defended, and that requires violence.

LuÃs Henrique

18th March 2013, 15:04

Revolutionary means include, at least, the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus and measures toward the socialisation of the means of production. It would be difficult to find revolutionary socialists that disagree with this mininal revolutionary program.

Mkay. But what does the "destruction of the bourgeois State apparatus" mean? Is it just the dismantling of such structures after seizing power, or does it start with the violent seizure of power? I would usually describe the Kaustkyist strategy of seizing the State via ballot, and then proceeding to dismantle the bourgeois State from a position of power as "reformist" - but it doesn't preclude, in principle, the belief that a radically different society, not dominated by capital (or other principles of exploitation, see below) is possible and desirable. So, hypothetically, do we restrict people who reason like that?

The Khmer Rouge wanted a radically different kind of society, not dominated by capital, as well. There are left criticisms of contemporary society, and there are right, reactionary criticisms - surely this forum only encompasses the former and not the latter.

So this site is open to those who want a radically different kind of society, not dominated by capital, nor by any of the historically previous principles of exploitation.

Social Fordism being, what, exactly? A preference for industrial societies over pre-industrial ones? But then the entire Marxist labour movement is, and can not be anything else then, social Fordist, due to the role of the development of the productive forces in Marxist theory.

No, not a preference for industrial over pre-industrial societies, but an ideology of efficient production, resting upon production for the sake of production (and consequently, accumulation);

Then it seems everyone that wishes to exchange commodities is a left Fordist. This Fordist bogeyman seems rather difficult to exorcise.

Well, yes: people who wish to exchange commodities are operating within the frame of capitalist ideology. Our point is to abolish commodities. And yes, capitalist ideology is rather difficult to exorcise: it is the dominant ideology of our times.

Primitivists are not against all technology, obviously; just the technology that did not exist in the primitive communist period they idealise. I still don't see how one can advocate only a partial return to that era of social development - as if economic systems were confectionery that one can choose and mix however one likes.

If they were consistent, they would be against all technology. But of course, the kind of conservatism they represent cannot be consistent, for it always means support for an state of affairs that has, in a way or other, evolved into the present state of things. Nostalgics of feudalism fail to understand that capitalism is the logical consequence of feudalism, nostalgics of pre-classist agricultural societies fail to understand that the logical consequence of these societies is the development of classes, nostalgics of pre-agricultural societies fail to understand that they necessarily lead to agriculture, etc.

I don't think primitivists can understand the relations between social development and technological development. In their fantasies, they probably wish a neo-primitive society with modern mores; so again I doubt that primitivists can be actually consistent.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

18th March 2013, 15:33

I don't see how, for example, a non-violent syndicalist revolution via general strike is "blatantly impossible" [...] or "not revolutionary."

The bourgeois State would probably militarise the companies, forcibly ejecting the striking workers from the factories and replacing them with soldiers and scabs.

So... Impossible? perhaps not. Probable? Not so. Something to rely upon? By absolutely no means. Something that should change our views of a given empirical revolution (hey, those workers in factory X reacted to the policiac attempt to evict them with violence, even shooting some police officers dead, I no longer support this revolution)? Hell no.

If it happens, very good; there is no reason to make a fetish of violence. But it is "not revolutionary" to only support a revolution if it is bloodless: we would be subordinating revolution to other considerations, and that is "not revolutionary".

(it worked in Spain)

Did it?

Such a movement cuts to the very heart of capitalism -- economic activity -- and if sustained long enough would bring the capitalist system to a halt, allowing for the imposition of a new order. How is that not revolutionary?

In my reckoning, it is revolutionary. It is extremely improbable, though; the bourgeois State in all likeliness will react with violence.

But putting the idea of non-violence above the ends of such movement - as in preferring its defeat at the hands of the bourgeois police and military to escalating into organised violence against bourgeois repression, that is non-revolutionary.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

18th March 2013, 15:52

And the non-violent revolution in Portugal (though it later proved fruitless).

Sorry, what "non-violent revolution in Portugal"?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pRpi6cz23wM/T5fZdmIiWnI/AAAAAAAAL0M/cARabdujtjY/s1600/522825_368440783202084_100001084965387_1079182_443 193954_n.jpg

This one?

I don't think anyone debates the need for some violence to bring about a revolution, and that unfortunately some people might be killed in the process. But there's a difference between necessary force to bring down the ruling class (where a small number of people might die), and the savage bloodfest that many "revolutionaries" seem to want, replacing one form of tyranny with another (which is what happened in the Soviet Union).

I think it is obvious that some do indeed debate the need for some violence to bring about a revolution; it seems to be what Kindness is doing. I don't think people should be restricted for defending such non-violence-only approach, as I don't think it would disrupt discussions in the main forum; but this is a different issue.

I don't know how many people need to die in a socialist revolution; ideally, no one. I would however prefer that, no matter how many they are, they die in assuring the success of the revolution, not in being defeated by the bourgeois State. And I do realise that stopping an insurrection before it effectively succeeds will result in extreme and widespread violence by the State against the insurrects, with certainly many deaths.

What happened in the Soviet Union is more complex than just the replacement of one tyranny with another - though that was evidently the final result. It was the transformation of a dictatorship of the masses into a dictatorship against the masses, through the intermediate steps of a dictatorship for the masses and a dictatorship albeit the masses, in which violence was fetishised, from an undesirable but unavoidable aspect of revolution, into the defining aspect of said revolution - quite probably as a necessary ideological disguise for the transformation of revolution into counter-revolution.

Luís Henrique

Rurkel

18th March 2013, 16:09

I don't know how many people need to die in a socialist revolution; ideally, no one.
This seems to assign a certain value to human life in itself; while nor exactly bourgeois-liberal-pacifist-social-democratic humanism, it reeks of its poisonous, opium-like fumes. I understand it that way: for a genuine and true revolutionary, who rejects bourgeois-liberal-pacifist-social-democratic humanism, human life as such is worth nothing, and the value of human life, and everything else, is directly dependent on its usefulness for the revolution, as elaborated in my glorious poem against bourgeois-liberal-pacifist-social-democratic humanism. Am I right?

LuÃs Henrique

18th March 2013, 16:34

This seems to assign a certain value to human life in itself; while nor exactly bourgeois-liberal-pacifist-social-democratic humanism, it reeks of its poisonous, opium-like fumes. I understand it that way: for a genuine and true revolutionary, who rejects bourgeois-liberal-pacifist-social-democratic humanism, human life as such is worth nothing, and the value of human life, and everything else, is directly dependent on its usefulness for the revolution, as elaborated in my glorious poem against bourgeois-liberal-pacifist-social-democratic humanism. Am I right?

Yes, you are right. Far-right, indeed. :rolleyes:

A genuine and true revolutionary rejects the bourgeois notion that the value of human life is dependent on its "usefulness".

Luís Henrique

Kindness

18th March 2013, 17:24

But putting the idea of non-violence above the ends of such movement - as in preferring its defeat at the hands of the bourgeois police and military to escalating into organised violence against bourgeois repression, that is non-revolutionary.

I'm human before I'm communist, I'm kind before I'm revolutionary. I'd rather lose honorably than resort to the oppressive tactics used by the reactionaries. I would not support a violent revolution.

Kindness

18th March 2013, 17:32

I also need to point out that I have no problem dying for a revolution, I'm just unwilling to kill for one. I'm willing to become the victim of violence to change society, but I am completely unwilling to participate in violence or support any movement that participates in violence because I believe it to be fundamentally wrong and offensive to human dignity.

Orange Juche

18th March 2013, 17:36

Impossibility is fairly objective - someone might think that they can pass through walls, but they will be rudely corrected.

I was speaking in the context of what was being talked about, that it is subjective as far as the claims being made go. Obviously, saying "I can travel faster than light in a vacuum" is objectively impossible - you're getting into semantics and entirely evading the point I was making.

Orange Juche

18th March 2013, 18:24

You know what should put people in OI, in my opinion? Comments like "after the revolution, I'd like to hang person x".

You know, the bloodlust vengeance sentiments that the person clearly would have no problem with no fair trial and just want violent execution as revenge. That has nothing to do with socialism, and has no place in it. I mean, if some of the oi-able offenses are going to still exist, might as well add this one.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

18th March 2013, 18:34

Mkay. But what does the "destruction of the bourgeois State apparatus" mean? Is it just the dismantling of such structures after seizing power, or does it start with the violent seizure of power?

Why should it be either? It seems to me that the seizure of power is primarily a process, of which the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus is simply one aspect. If the proletarian state has not smashed that apparatus, the seizure of power is not complete - as the events in northern Germany at the end of the First World War demonstrate.

I would usually describe the Kaustkyist strategy of seizing the State via ballot, and then proceeding to dismantle the bourgeois State from a position of power as "reformist" - but it doesn't preclude, in principle, the belief that a radically different society, not dominated by capital (or other principles of exploitation, see below) is possible and desirable. So, hypothetically, do we restrict people who reason like that?

The chief theoretical fault of the late Kautsky, it seems to me, was not parliamentarianism per se, but an ambiguous attitude toward the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus. In any case, the reformist in the strict sense wishes to retain and control this apparatus; someone that thinks that it should be destroyed through parliamentary means is - well they might not be reformists in the strict sense, but they are just as confused about politics as pacifists. Everything that has been said about pacifists applies to them.

So this site is open to those who want a radically different kind of society, not dominated by capital, nor by any of the historically previous principles of exploitation.

To an extent - I mean, obviously those that promote religious utopias or the destruction of the human species should be restricted. As should those that hold reactionary social views.

No, not a preference for industrial over pre-industrial societies, but an ideology of efficient production, resting upon production for the sake of production (and consequently, accumulation);

Then I must confess that I do not have the slightest idea why cmrd. psycho considers me a part of the "left wing of Fordism" - I am certainly not one of those people that think statistics about the production of pig iron, to use Draper's example, are more important than the material situation of the proletariat etc. etc. But at the same time, I do emphasise that the development of the productive forces has an immense net benefit when it comes to the material circumstances of the lower and middle strata. If that makes me a Fordist, so be it. As in the assembly line, so on the Earth.

Well, yes: people who wish to exchange commodities are operating within the frame of capitalist ideology. Our point is to abolish commodities. And yes, capitalist ideology is rather difficult to exorcise: it is the dominant ideology of our times.

I had meant to say "product" and not "commodity" - any exchange of products, even if those products do not assume the commodity form, constitutes an economy, and surely even in the higher stages of the communist society, there will be an exchange of products. Not an equal exchange that will predominate in the lower stages (which means that the commodity form will still exist), but an exchange nonetheless, since production for personal use is all but impossible in the present and in the future stages of the development of the forces of production.

I was speaking in the context of what was being talked about, that it is subjective as far as the claims being made go. Obviously, saying "I can travel faster than light in a vacuum" is objectively impossible - you're getting into semantics and entirely evading the point I was making.

I am not evading the point; that peaceful revolutions are impossible is an objective truth that should be apparent to anyone that realises that the revolution means the destruction of the bourgeois state machine.

You know what should put people in OI, in my opinion? Comments like "after the revolution, I'd like to hang person x".

I have never seen comments like that, though I have been accused of making them, as have comrades Rafiq, l'Enfermé and others.

I'm human before I'm communist, I'm kind before I'm revolutionary. I'd rather lose honorably than resort to the oppressive tactics used by the reactionaries. I would not support a violent revolution.

Then lose honourably and be killed, if you want to; your liberal friends would forget that you ever existed since it would inconvenience the reactionaries they support. But in the name of Lenin's bald spot, don't pretend that you want the same thing as revolutionary leftists.

Geiseric

18th March 2013, 18:35

This thread is filled with idealists, the only violence that's necessary for revolution is the violence needed to exprpiate the economy, by any means necessary. The amount of violence depends on the bourgeoisie's reaction to expropiation, and their support among the working class. Russia was violent because of a famine, which I can't believe nobody's mentioned. Spanish revolutionaries were fighting fascists, so what do you honestly expect?

If the choice was kill a rapist or allow him to rape a girl, I would assume to kill the rapist.

Leftsolidarity

18th March 2013, 20:24

I'm human before I'm communist, I'm kind before I'm revolutionary. I'd rather lose honorably than resort to the oppressive tactics used by the reactionaries. I would not support a violent revolution.

This is why you're a privledged idealist. This isn't a game. This is the real world with billions of people at risk over it. You would rather lose and continue to let the vast majority of the world get exploited, oppressed, and destroyed if you actually have to put up or shut up when the time comes? You would condemn the most oppressed and exploited layers of people in society for picking up arms against their oppressors? That puts you on the side of the ruling class.

Either you want to achieve a communist future or you just want to talk about how nice it would be until people are actually trying to achieve it.

Brutus

18th March 2013, 20:29

The capitalists achieved their power using violence, the capitalists have held onto their power using violence. The capitalists will not give up when an group of anarchists, or communists, or leftists in general, protest outside their parliament.
We can not begin this transition from capitalism to a stateless, classless, equal society if they give it to us peacefully.
In fact, if the bourgeoisie did give us power peacefully, I would be very suspicious of their motives.

Kindness

18th March 2013, 23:26

Then lose honourably and be killed, if you want to; your liberal friends would forget that you ever existed since it would inconvenience the reactionaries they support. But in the name of Lenin's bald spot, don't pretend that you want the same thing as revolutionary leftists.

I do want the same thing, I just want it by different means. Our ends are the same, we just want different paths of getting there.

This thread is filled with idealists,

This is why you're a privledged idealist.

Fine, I'm an idealist. I'm tired of running from the label. I want what is ideal for society using means that are morally acceptable, and I'm not really ashamed of that. We've seen the results of revolution by violent means, which were horrific (1918 Russia). I don't want a repeat of that scenario.

Le Socialiste

18th March 2013, 23:49

We've seen the results of revolution by violent means, which were horrific (1918 Russia). I don't want a repeat of that scenario.

You are aware that the Russian revolution was initially nonviolent, right? That it was the counterrevolution that began utilizing 'violent means' to drown the revolution, before the Bolsheviks or the working-class ever did the same? Way to go though, you really have a knack for drawing on examples devoid of any context.

Leftsolidarity

18th March 2013, 23:55

Fine, I'm an idealist. I'm tired of running from the label. I want what is ideal for society using means that are morally acceptable, and I'm not really ashamed of that. We've seen the results of revolution by violent means, which were horrific (1918 Russia). I don't want a repeat of that scenario.

"Morals" are bullshit. Take your morals and shove them up your.... well ya know.

I'll fight for liberation while you're on the other side of the barricades with the pigs fighting us. You're no revolutionary.

Kindness

19th March 2013, 01:47

You are aware that the Russian revolution was initially nonviolent, right?

Yes.

That it was the counterrevolution that began utilizing 'violent means' to drown the revolution, before the Bolsheviks or the working-class ever did the same?

Yes, of course. Unfortunately, the Bolsheviks went beyond self-defense and initiated atrocious acts against civilians, and that is what crossed the moral line.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

19th March 2013, 01:49

Yes.

Yes, of course. Unfortunately, the Bolsheviks went beyond self-defense and initiated atrocious acts against civilians, and that is what crossed the moral line.

Revolutions are violent, horrible things. The only thing worse than revolutions are the things that precede them.

Now, please name a non-violent revolution that was of any worth?

Kindness

19th March 2013, 01:50

"Morals" are bullshit. Take your morals and shove them up your.... well ya know.

Morals are the very reason I'm anti-capitalist, they're why I'm a socialist. Capitalism is immoral, which is why I oppose it. I oppose non-defensive violence for the same reason. Communists believe economic exploitation, bigotry, and fascism are harmful, what is that if not a moral code?

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

19th March 2013, 01:55

Morals are the very reason I'm anti-capitalist, they're why I'm a socialist. Capitalism is immoral, which is why I oppose it. I oppose non-defensive violence for the same reason. Communists believe economic exploitation, bigotry, and fascism are harmful, what is that if not a moral code?

All of those things are material conditions that oppress the proletariat, we don't oppose them out of morality, we do it out of the rational self interest of our class.

And admittedly Alturism is philosophically bankrupt, I hate even saying this, but have you read any Ayn Rand? Even though she is a reactionary she was at least capable of doing one thing right and that is proving how non-nonsensical notions of "common good" and "justice" are

Kindness

19th March 2013, 01:55

Now, please name a non-violent revolution that was of any worth?

The expulsion of the British from India. The anarcho-syndicalist revolution in Spain (before the fascists turned it violent).

Leftsolidarity

19th March 2013, 01:58

Morals are the very reason I'm anti-capitalist, they're why I'm a socialist. Capitalism is immoral, which is why I oppose it. I oppose non-defensive violence for the same reason. Communists believe economic exploitation, bigotry, and fascism are harmful, what is that if not a moral code?

Because it is an objective reality not a view coming from a moral code. We say capitalism is bad because it exploits our labor and keeps us in poor conditions. We fight for working class liberation because we are the working class and we're fighting for our own self-interest. It is in our self-interest to stop the exploitation of the working class and to achieve a communist society.

This is the fundamentals of Materialism which you should really learn about. Morals are the product of the current society and ruling class. "Being determines conciousness" and all that stuff. Morals are completely relative and have no place in the movement.

Kindness

19th March 2013, 02:01

All of those things are material conditions that oppress the proletariat, we don't oppose them out of morality, we do it out of the rational self interest of our class.

Understandable, but I feel that's a case of believing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Rational self-interest is why we have the exploitative world order we do today; after all, capitalists promote capitalism due to rational self-interest. In my humble opinion, we need to move beyond rational self-interest to true selflessness, altruism, and human solidarity to ensure the success of socialism.

And admittedly Alturism is philosophically bankrupt,

Why? What exactly is philosophically bankrupt about altruism / kindness?

I hate even saying this, but have you read any Ayn Rand?

No, I don't think I could stand it ;).

Even though she is a reactionary she was at least capable of doing one thing right and that is proving how non-nonsensical notions of "common good" and "justice" are

Why do you feel they're nonsensical?

Leftsolidarity

19th March 2013, 02:01

The expulsion of the British from India.

That wasn't really as non-violent as it was made out to be and shouldn't be looked at as if it was in a vacuum from other world events and conditions.

The anarcho-syndicalist revolution in Spain (before the fascists turned it violent).

Lol hardly. Show me where you read that it was a non-violent revolution.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

19th March 2013, 02:02

The expulsion of the British from India. The anarcho-syndicalist revolution in Spain (before the fascists turned it violent).

Gandi was a racist bag of filth, an Indian Mussolini

The Myth of Mahatma Ghandi

By: Velu Annamalai, Ph.D. [email protected]

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. might have heard the word of non-violence from Gandhi, but it is certain that Dr. King did not know the true colors of Mr. Gandhi. From the beginning to the end, M.K. Gandhi was loyal to imperialism. The Western news media and their Indian allies by a massive propaganda exercise created the illusion of sainthood around Gandhi and made people believe that he fought Apartheid in South Africa, and in the process of doing so developed a new method of non-violent struggle called satyagraha. Nothing is farther from the truth. Gandhi, for the major part of his life, worshipped British imperialism and too often proudly proclaimed himself a lover of the Empire. He was Kipling's Gunga Din in flesh and blood.

To understand Gandhi's politics in South Africa, it is essential to note the three fundamental trends which all along persisted underneath all his activities. They were:

(1) his loyalty to the British Empire,
(2) his apathy with regard to the Indian "lower castes", India's indigenous population, and
(3) his virulent anti-African racism.

Gandhi was once thrown out of a train compartment which was reserved exclusively for the Whites. It was not that Gandhi was fighting on behalf of the local Africans that he broke the rule in getting into a Whites' compartment. No! that was not the reason. Gandhi was so furious that he and his merchant caste Indians (Banias) were treated on par with the local Africans. This is the real reason for his fighting race discrimination in South Africa, and he had absolutely no concern about the pitiable way the Africans were treated by the Whites.

On June 2, 1906 he commented in the Indian Opinion that "Thanks to the Court's decision, only clean Indians (meaning upper caste Hindu Indians) or colored people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trains."

During the `Kaffir Wars' in South Africa he was a regular Gunga Din, who volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to put down the Zulu uprising and was decorated himself for valor under fire.

Gandhi said on September 26, 1896 about the African people: "Ours is one continued struggle sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."

Again in an editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, in the Indian Opinion of March 18, 1905, Gandhi wrote: "Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough.

One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians...?" Again on September 9, 1905, Gandhi wrote about the local Africans as: "in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year" (meaning that the locals are lazy).

Nothing could be farther from the truth that Gandhi fought against Apartheid, which many propagandists in later years wanted people to believe.

He was all in favor of continuation of White domination and the oppression of Blacks in South Africa.

In the Indian Opinion of March 25, 1905, Gandhi wrote on a Bill regulating fire-arms: "In the instance of fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there the slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indians?"
Gandhi always advised Indians not to align with other political groups in either colored or African communities. He was strongly opposed to the commingling of races.

In the Indian Opinion of September 4, 1904, Gandhi wrote: "Under my suggestion, the Town Council (of Johannesburg) must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. It think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen."

In the Indian Opinion of September 24, 1903, Gandhi said: "We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do... by advocating the purity of all races."

Again on December 24, 1903, in the Indian Opinion Gandhi stated that: "so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is purity of type."

When he was fighting on behalf of Indians, he was not fighting for all the Indians, but only for his rich merchant class upper caste Hindus!

In the Anglo-Boer War of 1899, Gandhi, in spite of his own belief that truth was on the side of the Boers, formed an ambulance unit in support of the British forces. He was very earnest about taking up arms and laying down his life for his beloved Queen. He led his men on to the battlefield and received a War Medal.

Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. One needs to read the entire history of Bambata Rebellion to place Gandhi's nazi war crimes in its proper perspective.

Link that describes his man-crush on Hitler

http://rupeenews.com/2008/03/gandhis-wrote-letters-to-his-friend-hitler-and-supported-him/

And this is false, there was plenty of violence in the Indian Independence movement, and if WW2 hadn't weakened imperialism then there would have been alot more bloodshed

Kindness

19th March 2013, 02:06

Because it is an objective reality not a view coming from a moral code.

I'm highly skeptical of any "objective reality" claims concerning the social world. Everything, sociologically speaking, is constructed, contingent, and subjective. That includes the system of capitalism itself and the oppression it produces.

We say capitalism is bad because it exploits our labor and keeps us in poor conditions. We fight for working class liberation because we are the working class and we're fighting for our own self-interest. It is in our self-interest to stop the exploitation of the working class and to achieve a communist society.

How is this viewpoint, philosophically and ethically speaking, any better than that of the capitalist? The capitalist looks out for himself and his, and you're claiming to support socialism for the same reason.

This is the fundamentals of Materialism which you should really learn about.

I've learned about materialism, and rejected it because it is too reductionistic and simplistic.

Morals are the product of the current society and ruling class.

Some of them are, but many (such as the "golden rule") seem to be general human principles common to most societies. Morality is subjective, constructed, and relative, but that doesn't mean it's useless. It's possible to arrive at good moral principles through the use of reason and empathy.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

19th March 2013, 02:07

Also the Irish tried to win their freedom through non-violence just like Martin Luther King and Ghandi, and you know what it got them?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRocslTLzsOedZFpM1s1S1GfRdTQaJBK d2vebpbNSVPY5qjqz8_

And after that the Irish took up arms? Do you know what it got them? Legal equality and a better future for their children

Leftsolidarity

19th March 2013, 02:16

I'm highly skeptical of any "objective reality" claims concerning the social world. Everything, sociologically speaking, is constructed, contingent, and subjective. That includes the system of capitalism itself and the oppression it produces.

What? The oppression is real. The exploitation is real. Like I said, you're a privledged idealist so if you don't see these things in the world around you then lucky you but the rest of us live in it.

How is this viewpoint, philosophically and ethically speaking, any better than that of the capitalist? The capitalist looks out for himself and his, and you're claiming to support socialism for the same reason.

We aren't. We're not talking about ethics or philosophy. We're talking about what is in the interests of the vast majority of the people in the world. If that's not enough for you then you obviously don't care as much about people as you claim you do.

I've learned about materialism, and rejected it because it is too reductionistic and simplistic.

lol ok

Some of them are, but many (such as the "golden rule") seem to be general human principles common to most societies. Morality is subjective, constructed, and relative, but that doesn't mean it's useless. It's possible to arrive at good moral principles through the use of reason and empathy.

I really don't care. Morals are relative to every individual, society, class, location, etc. Morals are made up, they are nothing.

Kindness

19th March 2013, 02:31

Of course the oppression is real, but my point was that it results from a socially constructed system.

Leftsolidarity

19th March 2013, 02:50

Of course the oppression is real, but my point was that it results from a socially constructed system.

Ok.... how does that prove any of your points?

LOLseph Stalin

19th March 2013, 02:58

Wow, people here are seriously saying revolution can be non-violent? Sure, they can start out non-violent but it's fucking revolution so isn't going to stay that way for long. Even the Bolshevik Party's original coup was bloodless. Of course they started being attacked later though. So yes, I will say that people who believe revolution can be non-violent are idealists. I don't like violence, but in some cases it is necessary.

NGNM85

19th March 2013, 03:28

Because it is an objective reality not a view coming from a moral code. We say capitalism is bad because it exploits our labor and keeps us in poor conditions. We fight for working class liberation because we are the working class and we're fighting for our own self-interest. It is in our self-interest to stop the exploitation of the working class and to achieve a communist society.

This is the fundamentals of Materialism which you should really learn about. Morals are the product of the current society and ruling class. "Being determines conciousness" and all that stuff. Morals are completely relative and have no place in the movement.

I've said for a very long time that morality is a greatly misunderstood concept, in this community, and statements such as this are the proof.

First of all; overthrowing capitalism is certainly in your class interest, but it just as certainly is not in your self interest. Participating in Radical politics is probably the worst possible way to improve your standard of living. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of Radical politics; quite the contrary. I'm only suggesting you disabuse yourself of such illusions.

Another thing you have yet to realize is that even if it were in our immediate self interest; that would still constitute a moral argument. All arguments are moral arguments. There's no escaping it. You're arguments are just as moral as Kindness's, or anyone else's. You might as well make peace with that fact.

NGNM85

19th March 2013, 03:31

LOLseph Stalin

19th March 2013, 03:52

I tend do agree. However; where in the FAQ does it say idealism is a Restrictable offense? If we start Restricting people for that; what's next? Where does it end?

I don't think Kindness was restricted for idealism nor did I even once advocate restricting people for idealism. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Kindness

19th March 2013, 04:01

Thanks for the support, but this thread isn't about my restriction, and I respect the admins' decision. The issue is closed.

Leftsolidarity

19th March 2013, 04:03

I've said for a very long time that morality is a greatly misunderstood concept, in this community, and statements such as this are the proof.

First of all; overthrowing capitalism is certainly in your class interest, but it just as certainly is not in your self interest. Participating in Radical politics is probably the worst possible way to improve your standard of living. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of Radical politics; quite the contrary. I'm only suggesting you disabuse yourself of such illusions.

Another thing you have yet to realize is that even if it were in our immediate self interest; that would still constitute a moral argument. All arguments are moral arguments. There's no escaping it. You're arguments are just as moral as Kindness's, or anyone else's. You might as well make peace with that fact.

No, I know as a member of the working class I'll make it only so far and at a high cost to myself and those around me. It's not like my politics really affect my standard of life other than knowing what's going on around me and how I want to change it. I still play their game when I have to, as does most everyone else. Fighting for working class liberation is most definitely in my self-interest.

And no, you're just wrong. It's not a moral argument.

I tend do agree. However; where in the FAQ does it say idealism is a Restrictable offense? If we start Restricting people for that; what's next? Where does it end?

lol anything to start whining about restrictions huh? This doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Kindness

19th March 2013, 04:04

Ok.... how does that prove any of your points?

It demonstrates that social factors, rather than just material ones, play a role in working-class exploitation and that any revolution must be social, not just material.

Leftsolidarity

19th March 2013, 04:07

It demonstrates that social factors, rather than just material ones, play a role in working-class exploitation and that any revolution must be social, not just material.

asdk;gvjadnfviuwbefaeoiervh

Why am I in OI? I avoid this place for a reason.

Bye.

NGNM85

19th March 2013, 04:07

I don't think Kindness was restricted for idealism nor did I even once advocate restricting people for idealism. Please don't put words in my mouth.

He was Restricted for pacifism, if pacifism is a form of idealism, which is what I understood you to be saying, (and I'm not arguing otherwise) then; he was Restricted for idealism.

Of course you didn't. I never meant to imply anything of the sort. I'm simply asking an open question, not just for you, but for anybody; How do we feel about this? Where do we draw the line? I think it merits discussion.

LOLseph Stalin

19th March 2013, 04:12

He was Restricted for pacifism, if pacifism is a form of idealism, which is what I understood you to be saying, (and I'm not arguing otherwise) then; he was Restricted for idealism.

Of course you didn't. I never meant to imply anything of the sort. I'm simply asking an open question, not just for you, but for anybody; How do we feel about this? Where do we draw the line? I think it merits discussion.

I'd say my personal views on the subject are pretty irrelevant in this case. I pretty much just came to this thread to make a single point and I did.

NGNM85

19th March 2013, 04:27

No, I know as a member of the working class I'll make it only so far and at a high cost to myself and those around me. It's not like my politics really affect my standard of life other than knowing what's going on around me and how I want to change it. I still play their game when I have to, as does most everyone else. Fighting for working class liberation is most definitely in my self-interest.

The fact that it hasn't improved your standard of living, and probably isn't likely to in any foreseeable future means that it isn't in your self interest, not in the sense in which you are talking about.

And no, you're just wrong. It's not a moral argument.

'...you're just wrong.' Brilliant. Seriously; even you can do better than that.

You might as well resign yourself to the fact that all arguments, ultimately, rest on moral foundations. There's no escaping it. Condolences.

lol anything to start whining about restrictions huh? This doesn't have anything to do with anything.

I wasn't whining, I was asking a question, a question that needs to be asked. It's also both topical, and substantive. There's a great deal about how Restrictions are handled, here, that is worthy of criticism, but enough of that. Read the OP's post; who gets Restricted, and why, is the subject of the fucking thread.

NGNM85

19th March 2013, 04:41

Thanks for the support, but this thread isn't about my restriction, and I respect the admins' decision. The issue is closed.

You're welcome, however I wasn't doing it purely, or, even, primarily, for your benefit. I said it for everyone who has been, or will be Restricted for stupid, or arbitrary reasons, myself included.

Kindness

19th March 2013, 04:42

Lol hardly. Show me where you read that it was a non-violent revolution.

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

While not perfectly non-violent, there was very little bloodshed until the fascists came in.

Le Socialiste

19th March 2013, 07:41

The expulsion of the British from India. The anarcho-syndicalist revolution in Spain (before the fascists turned it violent).

Hate to burst your bubble buddy, but India's independence came after decades of militant, violent struggle. Gandhi's pacifism and opportunism overshadowed that fact, unfortunately.

Rurkel

19th March 2013, 11:57

until the fascists came in.
Isn't that the point?

LuÃs Henrique

19th March 2013, 12:32

I'm human before I'm communist, I'm kind before I'm revolutionary. I'd rather lose honorably than resort to the oppressive tactics used by the reactionaries. I would not support a violent revolution.

So you would rather "lose honourably", allowing the bourgeois State to slaughter 100,000 workers in reprisal, than kill 1,000 white guards and put an end to State violence?

Luís Henrique

DDR

19th March 2013, 12:33

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

While not perfectly non-violent, there was very little bloodshed until the fascists came in.

Yeah, sure it was non violent, that's why there were church burnings, banks expropiations, street gunfights against the "free union", etc. If you understand spanish I recomend you to watch this little speech from Joan Gracía Oliver, militant of the CNT in the begining of the XXth Century:

SxBWAbKQfSE

LuÃs Henrique

19th March 2013, 12:39

The expulsion of the British from India. The anarcho-syndicalist revolution in Spain (before the fascists turned it violent).

The Indian Independence, as much as necessary and progressive as it was, was not a revolution. It wasn't completely non-violent either, and it was only possible due to the crisis of the British Empire - WWII and its extraordinary violence included.

The anarcho-syndicalist revolution in Spain wasn't anarcho-syndicalist for starters, nor it was successful. It wasn't particularly non-violent either; Catholic priests were shot dead by revolutionaries without much practical justification, just out of revenge.

Luís Henrique

Kindness

19th March 2013, 14:07

If revolution is necessarily violent, then it is necessary to find an alternative to revolution, not accept violence.

I don't feel that revolution must be violent, however. An anarcho-syndicalist or DeLeonist-style general strike movement should be enough to grind the wheels of capitalism to a halt, allowing workers to take control of the economy. Violence wouldn't be necessary here, and any kind of class revenge (crimes against humanity) should not be tolerated.

Kindness

19th March 2013, 14:10

So you would rather "lose honourably", allowing the bourgeois State to slaughter 100,000 workers in reprisal

That wouldn't happen today, at least not in a liberal constitutional democracy. It violates international law.

DDR

19th March 2013, 14:12

If revolution is necessarily violent, then it is necessary to find an alternative to revolution, not accept violence.

Better I think is you to better find politics better suited for your views, since leftism isn't for you.

I don't feel that revolution must be violent, however. An anarcho-syndicalist or DeLeonist-style general strike movement should be enough to grind the wheels of capitalism to a halt, allowing workers to take control of the economy. Violence wouldn't be necessary here, and any kind of class revenge (crimes against humanity) should not be tolerated.

Yeah, because that never ends in violence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_Week_(Catalonia)

That wouldn't happen today, at least not in a liberal constitutional democracy. It violates international law.

Oh, it's right every single constitutional democracy respect human rights and international laws, state terrorism doesn't exist, and we all live in my Little Ponny world.

Kindness

19th March 2013, 14:17

Zukunftsmusik

19th March 2013, 14:23

DDR

19th March 2013, 14:33

In the case of tragic week, violence was delivered by the fascist state, not the revolutionaries. The strikers didn't initiate violence. I'm willing to accept that, and even die from such an event (as I mentioned earlier). That is the cost of change. Besides, such an event -- the state firing on nonviolent strikers / protestors -- would only result in more people supporting the revolution.

By the time of the events of the tragic week the Spanish State was a constitutional monarchy (with some undemocratic procedures, but still a constitutional state) so, who could they done that? that goes against the international law, and the moral values of the burgeoise!

Jimmie Higgins

19th March 2013, 14:39

If revolution is necessarily violent, then it is necessary to find an alternative to revolution, not accept violence.Not having a revolution in the context of class society doesn't avoid violence - it just saves our oppressors from violence!

Aside from some immature internet tough-guys, tankies or romantic Che-worshipers no radical workers WANT violence. Violence is just a fact of class society and any attempt to change that.

The CNT is the perfect example, they didn't want workers to "take power" they thought that if we organize ourselves to a great extent we could simply take the means of production and the state would be irrlevant. Well the various early 20th centrury governments in Spain didn't have much authority compared to a vibrent radical traddition and CNT and other radical actions. They would come in, try and "modernize" the archaic economy of Spain and then the CNT or other parts of the movement would have a general strike and the governmnet would collapse or reverse course. But they could resist particular moves by capital, but they couldn't create an alternative and so Sapin was stuck. So ultimately to "solve" the problem, a section of landowners and big capital backed military dictatorship and repression to smash the vibrent worker's and pesant and anarchist movement!

The ruling class generally rules through a more common hegemony of ideas and "legalities" but backing this up is a repressive force. Whenever their rule has been challenged through insurrection or even reformist populist parties and reformist socialists being elected, they have used that repressive force to re-establish their rule - this has generally meant physically smashing organization and even militant induviduals. From Syndicalism to Allende, the capitalists will murder us to keep power and so the question of "violence" on our side isn't one of choice, but how to best protect ourselves and counter their ability to use force against us.

I don't feel that revolution must be violent, however. An anarcho-syndicalist or DeLeonist-style general strike movement should be enough to grind the wheels of capitalism to a halt, allowing workers to take control of the economy. Violence wouldn't be necessary here, and any kind of class revenge (crimes against humanity) should not be tolerated.

Revenge serves no purpose, but what if you are striking and have exhausted all efforts and the company wants to take scabs through the picket-line which would mean that they can continue production and the strikers can not outlast the company. In these cases workers have and will need to use physical force to keep the scabs and police out. Turning the other cheek means the end of the strike and workers power is nullified because they have been effectivly replaced in that location.

Understandable, but I feel that's a case of believing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Rational self-interest is why we have the exploitative world order we do today; after all, capitalists promote capitalism due to rational self-interest.

Well capitalism is rational self-interest for capitalists - for the rest of the population it is either irrational self-interest (i.e. petty-bourgoise who support a system where they are mearly economic toadies or footnotes in relation to big capital) or not at all in our self-interest (workers).

A worker's self-interest as a worker in capitalism is to try and hold onto as much of the surplus they create as possible (more wages, benifits, social welfare) and for the capitalist it's to also try and get as much of the surplus value as possible. This is why class-conflict is unavoidable ultimately (though worker fight back can be muted or co-opted and pacified, efforts by capitalists can be fought back as well).

You speak of putting human interests first, but in class society, there is not single human interest. Our relations to how we survive determine our objective interests and so the ruling class has an interest to maintain exploitation and workers have an interest in resisting exploitation. In order to have a universal human experience, universal human morals, classes must be eliminated so that some don't have power over others and for one to benifit we must all benifit.

Orange Juche

19th March 2013, 16:05

I tend do agree. However; where in the FAQ does it say idealism is a Restrictable offense? If we start Restricting people for that; what's next? Where does it end?

Don't we have to kind of be honest when it comes to the state just "withering away" into stateless communism... I'd say that's rather idealistic.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

19th March 2013, 17:26

I do want the same thing, I just want it by different means. Our ends are the same, we just want different paths of getting there.

First of all, do you think violence will disappear in the communist or anarchic stage of social development? I think not; there will still be situations in which coercive violence is necessary, and the organisation of that coercive violence is one of the tasks of the new society. But you would have us think that if, for example, someone becomes extremely mentally distressed and tries to kill another person, then the area soviet or militia should not use violence to restrain the potential killer.

Second, you say you want a revolution, but only if it's convenient to you and you conscience. And that is not what revolutionary socialists and anarchists want - they want a revolution, without qualification.

Third, you have indicated, several times, that you would actively oppose attempts by the revolutionaries to defend themselves if that defense exceeds the bounds of direct individual self-defense. Assuming that you would also want to stop the fascists and counterrevolutionaries, you would be on one side of the barricades one moment, and on the other the next. Revolutionary socialists and anarchists stay on one side of the barricades, and they stay there until they can storm the other side.

I'm highly skeptical of any "objective reality" claims concerning the social world. Everything, sociologically speaking, is constructed, contingent, and subjective. That includes the system of capitalism itself and the oppression it produces.

Then try to find some new subjective standpoint from which capitalism doesn't exist, and we'll meet you there. Or is it the case that capitalism can't be wished away?

I've learned about materialism, and rejected it because it is too reductionistic and simplistic.

Why do you claim to be a revolutionary, then?

So you would rather "lose honourably", allowing the bourgeois State to slaughter 100,000 workers in reprisal

That wouldn't happen today, at least not in a liberal constitutional democracy. It violates international law.

God's sake, Kindness, when have liberal democracies ever cares about international law? When they gunned down workers in South Africa? When they bombed Cambodia "back into the Stone Age" and then provided arms and shelter to the Khmer Rouge? When?

It seems that every "ethical" socialist or anarchist has to rely on the "ethical" bourgeoisie at some point.

Don't we have to kind of be honest when it comes to the state just "withering away" into stateless communism... I'd say that's rather idealistic.

Except that the theory of the withering away of the state is based on a meticulous analysis of social realities, and not wishful thinking.

Le Socialiste

19th March 2013, 18:31

That wouldn't happen today, at least not in a liberal constitutional democracy. It violates international law.

...Wow.

Wait, what? Wow...

Guess that explains why an estimated 70,000 Syrians have been killed since the revolution two years ago (a conflict that is ongoing, btw). The majority of 'casualties' have been inflicted by the Assad regime, military, and ruling interests on the Syrian population.

That's just one example, and a recent one at that. Want me to keep going? Say the word.

Edit - And don't think for a minute things would be different under a 'liberal' constitutional democracy. Otherwise we can just add naivety to the list.

Edit2 - Thought of another one: Israel is technically a liberal democracy. In 2003, there were an estimated 7 million Palestinians who had been internally displaced and expelled from their places of origin - out of 10 million. 1 in 3 refugees in the world are Palestinian. Thousands more have been murdered by the Israeli state.

NGNM85

19th March 2013, 18:44

[QUOTE=Le Socialiste;2594423 Otherwise we can just add naivety to the list.[/QUOTE]

Is naiveté a Restrictable offense, now?

LuÃs Henrique

20th March 2013, 02:40

That wouldn't happen today, at least not in a liberal constitutional democracy. It violates international law.

Do you remember Waco?

Luís Henrique

Orange Juche

20th March 2013, 06:04

Except that the theory of the withering away of the state is based on a meticulous analysis of social realities, and not wishful thinking.

Thoery and practice are pretty different at the end of the day.

Le Socialiste

20th March 2013, 07:43

Is naiveté a Restrictable offense, now?

Oh ffs, the major reason why Kindness was restricted was because they said they'd use nonlethal force to prevent radicals, leftists, ordinary people from engaging in violence against reactionary or conservative forces. The official reason for their restriction was, I think, poorly worded - but the gist of it remains the same. Now drop it.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th March 2013, 08:18

Thoery and practice are pretty different at the end of the day.

Not if the theory is any good; and thus far, Marxist theory holds up fairly well.

Orange Juche

20th March 2013, 08:24

Not if the theory is any good; and thus far, Marxist theory holds up fairly well.

I agree that Marxist theory is good and holds up well. That doesn't mean that "the state withering away" should be viewed more as the ideal rather than the inevitable (or that it would make sense to do otherwise).

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th March 2013, 08:31

I agree that Marxist theory is good and holds up well. That doesn't mean that "the state withering away" should be viewed more as the ideal rather than the inevitable (or that it would make sense to do otherwise).

In Marxist theory, the withering away of the state is inevitable as soon as a classless society has been established; to view it as "an ideal" is to revise Marxism (to revise it, in fact, in the manner of the first revisionist, Bernstein), and to lose the predictive power and consistency of orthodox Marxism.

Orange Juche

20th March 2013, 08:56

In Marxist theory, the withering away of the state is inevitable as soon as a classless society has been established; to view it as "an ideal" is to revise Marxism (to revise it, in fact, in the manner of the first revisionist, Bernstein), and to lose the predictive power and consistency of orthodox Marxism.

Marx, I would say, was right most of the time. But you make it sound like Marxism has the "predictive power" of a powerful psychic, which is an inaccurate way to evaluate his predictive power anyway - he didn't see capitalism's resilience to find ways to extend its life as long as it has, and certainly wouldn't have predicted the current way of things.

And there's nothing wrong with legitimate revision - if you're taking stuff an economist wrote in the 19th century and looking at things in the 21st, you're going to have to revise some things.

Marx's writings aren't some purist dogma handed down from the lips of God, and I'm not going to begin treating it like it is. I'm a Marxist, yes, but I'm willing to critique even the things I believe in when they don't entirely add up.

Jimmie Higgins

20th March 2013, 09:16

leftism isn't for you.

As an aside, can folks tone-down some of the judgement in their statements in this debate. I disagree with the positions argued by Kindness too, but I think they seem sincere and relativly knowledgeable, just wrong about this IMO. I think it would be better to just adress the political disagreements and not make sweeping or personal judgements. Debates get heated and this is a serious disagreement (but not an uncommon one in real life) and so it's easy for these discussions to get polarizing or escalate beyond anything useful. I'd rather try and win Kindness to our position than shame them away.

Let's debate and criticize politics, not the people holding positions - at least not unless they are a libertarian or avowed liberal or conservative or something:lol:.

Remember what Abe Lincoln wisely said: "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

Rurkel

20th March 2013, 09:21

Jimmie Higgins

20th March 2013, 09:27

Being "sincere and relatively knowledgeable" won't save you from proletarian revolutionary terror, dontcha know? In fact, it can be argued that the more knowledgeable bourgeois-liberal-social-democratic-pacifists are, the more necessary proletarian terror against them will be!

Bourgeois-liberal-social-democratic-pacifists are, of course, liberal.

Ok, sorry I thought we were debating a view of this induvidual poster, not of a counter-revolutionary force acting against working class interests in a time of revolution. My mistake in not realizing a website for discussion would determine the dominant ideas in the worker's movement - I thought this was relativly low-stakes and we could afford to treat someone who disagrees and has been restricted but is interested in revolutionary politics with a little pacience and political explanation.

I totally think that restriction on the basis of passifism even at the cost of worker's losing is totally consistant and fair because this site wants to keep a certain level of agreement in the revolutionary section of the board because our ideas are a minority view compared to much more wide-spread liberal and reformist ideas. But I also don't think revolutionaries come into this world with a worked-out theroy of capital and struggle against it. People learn and change their ideas all the time.

Rurkel

20th March 2013, 09:30

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th March 2013, 09:38

Marx, I would say, was right most of the time. But you make it sound like Marxism has the "predictive power" of a powerful psychic, which is an inaccurate way to evaluate his predictive power anyway - he didn't see capitalism's resilience to find ways to extend its life as long as it has, and certainly wouldn't have predicted the current way of things.

All of which is besides the point. Orthodox Marxism is not identical to the work of K. Marx; while the middle and late works of Marx established the basics of the theory, Marxism had to be systematised and developed; this was done by Engels, by Kautsky, Hilferding, Lenin and others.

The predictive power I mentioned is the predictive power of a scientific theory; if you start by denying one of the basic postulates of the Marxist theory (the role of the state as an instrument of class dictatorship), your new theory can no longer claim to predict the same things as orthodox Marxism.

And there's nothing wrong with legitimate revision - if you're taking stuff an economist wrote in the 19th century and looking at things in the 21st, you're going to have to revise some things.

There is quite a difference between developing Marxism, and revising Marxism by denying the basic postulates of Marxist thought, in order to "correct" Marx in the manner of some bourgeois philosopher or economist.

Marx's writings aren't some purist dogma handed down from the lips of God, and I'm not going to begin treating it like it is. I'm a Marxist, yes, but I'm willing to critique even the things I believe in when they don't entirely add up.

So why does the withering away of the state "not add up"? So far, you have only mentioned that it seems idealistic - as far as criticism goes, that's not going to convince anyone that understands the orthodox Marxist theory of the state.

Orange Juche

20th March 2013, 10:14

So why does the withering away of the state "not add up"? So far, you have only mentioned that it seems idealistic - as far as criticism goes, that's not going to convince anyone that understands the orthodox Marxist theory of the state.

Because I never once have heard or read anything near a descriptive explanation as to how a supposedly heavy-handed state just "withers". It's always very vague. If someone can argue to me that it isn't idealistic, I'm open to that, I just haven't seen it seem to be argued as something that is more within the realm of the realistic.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th March 2013, 10:18

Orange Juche

20th March 2013, 10:46

Marxists are not prophets; it would be ridiculous for us to try to predict every single detail of the process. In broad terms, however, the "heavy-handedness" of the proletarian state is necessary for the suppression of the remnants of the bourgeoisie and other oppressor classes and groups; when these have disappeared, there will be no more need for "heavy-handed" action. The state would lose its state character, and would cease being a state - administrative and political organs would still exist, but they would not form a separate body detached from the population, since the ruling group and the population would be identical.

It is entirely unrealistic to think that any government could ever rid the world of groups that disagree with it.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th March 2013, 10:52

It is entirely unrealistic to think that any government could ever rid the world of groups that disagree with it.

No one thinks the proletarian state should be rid of everyone that disagrees; but history demonstrates that it is entirely possible to destroy an economic group and to break any resistance from the remnants of that group. Seen any American slave-owners lately? Or French nobility?

Orange Juche

20th March 2013, 10:58

No one thinks the proletarian state should be rid of everyone that disagrees; but history demonstrates that it is entirely possible to destroy an economic group and to break any resistance from the remnants of that group. Seen any American slave-owners lately? Or French nobility?

There will always be people leafleting against the system in one form or another, who will organize to resist - sometimes violent, far more often, not. But that's the world.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th March 2013, 11:03

There will always be people leafleting against the system in one form or another, who will organize to resist - sometimes violent, far more often, not. But that's the world.

If their leafleting is not violent, why should anyone care? I highly doubt the citizens will care about some idiot preaching the restoration of wage slavery. If it is violent, the local soviet or militia can take care of it; but why would this require the state?

Jimmie Higgins

20th March 2013, 13:20

Because I never once have heard or read anything near a descriptive explanation as to how a supposedly heavy-handed state just "withers". It's always very vague. If someone can argue to me that it isn't idealistic, I'm open to that, I just haven't seen it seem to be argued as something that is more within the realm of the realistic.

This question is a valid concern in light of the experiences of 20th century states that have claimed to be socialism as well as with reformist parties before and after that that promise socialism someday if we keep voting for them.

But I don't think you could have a "withering away of the state" perspective without it being based in a materialist understanding of states and class societies. The short answer is that states developed out of conditions of societies in which people had different relations and different power in the productive process: class societies. They didn't appear fully formed or from bad ideas or a desire to oppress for the sake of oppression (which would be the idealist version of history, and inverse of "great man" ideas where "bad men" made states and classes).

With this understanding, that states are a product of and a development from class antagonisms in society (and the desire to "order" them by the exploiting class), then I think it also follows that the elimination of these antagonisms and class differences creates the potential for "state" as a tool of a specific group in society shaping society around their interests to become less and less necissary. Given that such a worker's state is actually run through new accontable institutions of proletarian democracy and workers have democratic control of production and designed to enable this mass democratic rule over the newly forming society then people would not choose to continue tasks which no longer serve a purpose - in general I think workers would want to begin immediately dumping tons of unessessary labor - including beurocratic tasks.

For example, ignoring other problems, if the Spanish Revolution had defeated franco and the Bourgoise Republic and there was no longer a threat (again hypothetical since they would just be in the same position that Russia was in - and isolated revoltion) then why maintain militias? Wouldn't those workers rather be back home than drilling and polishing weapons? Wouldn't the democratic worker's militias want to disband?

So here is a concrete example of how institutions of worker's power could be simply abandoned as they become redundant. Immiediatly after a revolution, workers would probably have to take on a lot of beurocratic organizing in order to re-shape a society based on inequality. So people would have to be elected to organize housing distribution because capitalism isn't set up to allow this and hoseing currently reflects the inequalities of society. But once society and production are focused on fufilling needs and desires, simple negotiation or just putting in a request for new housing would be all that's needed. Votes might still happen if there is some unexpected contingancy, but otherwise a permanent housing committe of elected and accountable reps wouldn't be needed.

By contrast, capitalist states always tend to increase their militaries and the military beurocracy - but this is not simply "beurocratic interests" in maintaining their position (although this does come into play in a less fundamental way). Ultimately they maintain this because they need to permanently maintain this unequal system and as long as capitalism exists, they will need to have militaries to protect their interests both in terms of supressing other classes, but also in their competition with eachother. They also increase beuocracy as they develop and this is because as workers become more concentrated not only are there more beurocratic tasks, but also because the ruling class needs to create buffers to manage this powerful but exploited group daily.

As far as a description of the withering of a worker's state, I think Lenin's "State and Revolution" is a good place to start. The first thing to note is that he's not talking about a "heavy-handed" state, but democracy wielded by the formerly exploited mass of laborers and held over the former exploiting minority: a condition of the exploited expropriating from the expropriators (as Engels said? - I think, maybe Marx). This is a "worker's state" in the way Marx and Lenin talked about it: organized workers power over the former capitalists and members of inbetween classes who may still have an interest in maintaining capitalist relations. In this view the free areas of Spain in the Revolution were a de-facto "worker's state" (that was never able to fully establish itself) even if revolutionaries rejected this idea and this language... organized militias out of the worker's movement and unions, and worker-siezed production and services, and the repression of Fascist supporters. I think many anarchists who do share this materialist view of the relationship between class and states and the necissity for workers power, mearly reframe the language and time-frame and consider the "worker's state" transition phase to simply be the revolution itself (armed workers against the old rulers, worker control of production and society).

Anyway, here's a link to where Lenin talks about the withering away of the state after worker's revolution:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

So he argues that Marx's conception was that worker's achieve their power and hegemony over all of society, wield a true democracy to transform society into one where there are no different relations between people when it comes to power and production, and then even that democracy is no longer needed (which was kind of a shocking concept to me when I first read it).

Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state... ceases to exist", and "it becomes possible to speak of freedom". Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized, a democracy without any exceptions whatever. And only then will democracy begin to wither away, owing to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, absurdities, and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copy-book maxims. They will become accustomed to observing them without force, without coercion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for coercion called the state.

The expression "the state withers away" is very well-chosen, for it indicates both the gradual and the spontaneous nature of the process. Only habit can, and undoubtedly will, have such an effect; for we see around us on millions of occassions how readily people become accustomed to observing the necessary rules of social intercourse when there is no exploitation, when there is nothing that arouses indignation, evokes protest and revolt, and creates the need for suppression.

And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord.

In other words, under capitalism we have the state in the proper sense of the word, that is, a special machine for the suppression of one class by another, and, what is more, of the majority by the minority. Naturally, to be successful, such an undertaking as the systematic suppression of the exploited majority by the exploiting minority calls for the utmost ferocity and savagery in the matter of suppressing, it calls for seas of blood, through which mankind is actually wading its way in slavery, serfdom and wage labor.

Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism suppression is still necessary, but it is now the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority. A special apparatus, a special machine for suppression, the “state”, is still necessary, but this is now a transitional state. It is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word; for the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of the wage slaves of yesterday is comparatively so easy, simple and natural a task that it will entail far less bloodshed than the suppression of the risings of slaves, serfs or wage-laborers, and it will cost mankind far less. And it is compatible with the extension of democracy to such an overwhelming majority of the population that the need for a special machine of suppression will begin to disappear. Naturally, the exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a highly complex machine for performing this task, but the people can suppress the exploiters even with a very simple “machine”, almost without a “machine”, without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the armed people (such as the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, we would remark, running ahead).

Lastly, only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be suppressed--“nobody” in the sense of a class, of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the population. We are not utopians, and do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scuffle or to prevent a woman from being assaulted. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the people, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away". We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we do know they will wither away. With their withering away the state will also wither away.

Rurkel

20th March 2013, 14:11

If their leafleting is not violent, why should anyone care?Careful here; we should care very much indeed. If some idiot is busy doing his counter-revolutionary leafletting, that means that he probably someone to tell him to do so, had someone print these leaflets, and we have a counter-revolutionary organization on our hands, that is not guaranteed to remain peaceful in the future. Remember: opposition implies organization, organization implies plotting, plotting implies treason. Even some bourgeois-pacifist-social-democratic humanists despise traitors. "Freedom of speech" is a bourgeois-pacifist-social-democratic-humanist value that should have no value for a revolutionary. No freedom of speech for counter-revolution.

No one thinks the proletarian state should be rid of everyone that disagreesYes; however, we need to underline that we think so not because "everyone that disagrees" is a 'beautiful human being' or some bourgeois-pacifist-social-democratic-humanist crap like that - we think so because we realize that merely killing all bourgeoisie will accomplish nothing. Our goals are much, much more ambitious.

Kindness

20th March 2013, 14:47

Rurkel

20th March 2013, 14:52

Religious fundamentalism and fascism don't strive for revolution and emancipation of the proletariat. Both use terror, but the objects of terror and their goals are different. Your liberal-bourgeois-pacifist-social-democratic-humanist posts lack any class analysis.

DarkPast

20th March 2013, 15:05

Like a great man said, "he who is not with us, is against us". Anything else is pure bourgeois-liberal-social-democratic-pacifist-humanism.

cpPABLW6F_A

A great man and true socialist. Fuck those bourgeois-liberal-social-democratic-pacifist-humanists who oppose him.

Rurkel

20th March 2013, 15:24

Indeed. You're either for Bush and other bourgeoisie, or you're for revolutionary, merciless terror against liberal-bourgeois-social-democratic-pacifist humanism and other counter-revolutionary ideologies and people.

Kindness

20th March 2013, 16:07

Fine, but let my post be a metaphorical warning to all the bourgeois-liberal-social-democratic-pacifists-humanists on that board. When the revolution comes, they'll have to decide whether they are fighting on its side, or are subjected to brutal repression from the hammer of the revolutionary terror. Like a great man said, "he who is not with us, is against us". Anything else is pure bourgeois-liberal-social-democratic-pacifist-humanism.

Careful here; we should care very much indeed. If some idiot is busy doing his counter-revolutionary leafletting, that means that he probably someone to tell him to do so, had someone print these leaflets, and we have a counter-revolutionary organization on our hands, that is not guaranteed to remain peaceful in the future. Remember: opposition implies organization, organization implies plotting, plotting implies treason. Even some bourgeois-pacifist-social-democratic humanists despise traitors. "Freedom of speech" is a liberal-humanist value that should have no value for a revolutionary. No freedom of speech for counter-revolution.

Indeed. You're either for Bush and other bourgeoisie, or you're for revolutionary, merciless terror against liberal-bourgeois-social-democratic-pacifist humanism and other counter-revolutionary ideologies and people.

What drew me to socialism in the first place (years ago) is the fact that it respects human dignity. Later on, I learned about class conflict, labor theories of value, Marxist and anarcho-syndicalist theories, and so on, but the first thing that led me to call myself a socialist was the fact that it was the only ideology I knew of that was based on universal compassion and truly promoted human dignity.

Because of this, I've developed a deep antipathy for Leninism-Stalinism (the ideology, not the people that hold it, who are still beautiful human beings :)) and other destructive, violent pseudo-socialist fascisms that see people as mere cogs in the "revolutionary" machine, mere means to an end. People -- whether proletarian, bourgeois, or other -- are ends in themselves, and I am opposed to any ideology that reduces them to mere means and, by extension, objects for "merciless terror" and "brutal repression." I'll take "bourgeois" social-democratic Humanism over the anti-human, destructive, and dare I say evil form of Stalinist fascism you promote. Hell, I'd even prefer bourgeois conservatism over that dogmatic, cult-like nonsense. Red fascism is no better than any other kind of fascism -- and make no mistake, it is indeed a form of fascism.

Kindness

20th March 2013, 16:36

Religious fundamentalism and fascism don't strive for revolution and emancipation of the proletariat. Both use terror, but the objects of terror and their goals are different.

I don't see how this is anything other than wholly irrelevant. Terror is wrong. Period. Any use of it is sickening.

Rurkel

20th March 2013, 19:13

Liberalism, liberalism, liberalism everywhere.... Gah! I must run away from all the liberals! Or, not. Maybe it's liberals who will run away from the revolutionary terror. Run, liberals, run! But there're so many of them, they might overrun the revolutionaries, and we don't want that. It's all so annoying, I can't decide what to do with all the liberals and who shall run away from whom... Very confusing! I think I shall go to sleep for now.

Old Bolshie

20th March 2013, 19:41

Because of this, I've developed a deep antipathy for Leninism-Stalinism (the ideology, not the people that hold it, who are still beautiful human beings :)) and other destructive, violent pseudo-socialist fascisms that see people as mere cogs in the "revolutionary" machine, mere means to an end. People -- whether proletarian, bourgeois, or other -- are ends in themselves, and I am opposed to any ideology that reduces them to mere means and, by extension, objects for "merciless terror" and "brutal repression." I'll take "bourgeois" social-democratic Humanism over the anti-human, destructive, and dare I say evil form of Stalinist fascism you promote. Hell, I'd even prefer bourgeois conservatism over that dogmatic, cult-like nonsense. Red fascism is no better than any other kind of fascism -- and make no mistake, it is indeed a form of fascism.

I don't have nothing against your pacifism but can you stop with this ideological diarrhea?

Leninism-Stalinism is something that doesn't exist and associating Lenin with fascism is laughable. Even Stalinism is not remotely close to fascism despite its autocratic nature.

Brutus

20th March 2013, 19:52

You must throw your pacifism out the window, kindness. We can not simply ask for liberty and equality- it will not be given. We must take it.
And whom is preventing us being free and equal? The capitalists and the state.
The capitalists will not give up their position as rulers of the earth easily. We need to take it from them, we need to wrestle it from their hands, and take what is our right as human beings.
You claim you are a human first. Don't you see that by denouncing revolution, you are condemning billions to exploitation and misery, and allowing the privileged, exploitative few to live in luxury.
Opulence is sinful, and we all pay for it.

Orange Juche

21st March 2013, 01:11

Careful here; we should care very much indeed. If some idiot is busy doing his counter-revolutionary leafletting, that means that he probably someone to tell him to do so, had someone print these leaflets, and we have a counter-revolutionary organization on our hands, that is not guaranteed to remain peaceful in the future. Remember: opposition implies organization, organization implies plotting, plotting implies treason. Even some bourgeois-pacifist-social-democratic humanists despise traitors. "Freedom of speech" is a bourgeois-pacifist-social-democratic-humanist value that should have no value for a revolutionary. No freedom of speech for counter-revolution.

Using phrases like "bourgeois-pacifist-social-democratic-humanist value" doesn't improve your argument unless you explain why, which you didn't, so again, it's used as a strawman.

The idea that "someone told them to" is quite paranoid, and realistically would not be the likely case. If socialism is so great, and I think real socialism would be, people like that would be irritating at worst - but the success of the system would prove them wrong and make them look foolish.

Saying "a person shouldn't be locked in a cell/shot for expressing an idea" is none of that line you spewed out. It's a moral principle, the same moral principle - for me - that has made me anti-capitalist/socialist. You can't just falsely equivocate it with some group of people we disagree with and say "well, you're part of them!", brush your hands, and call it a day. Life is not that simple.

Orange Juche

21st March 2013, 01:12

You must throw your pacifism out the window, kindness. We can not simply ask for liberty and equality- it will not be given. We must take it.

Why do so many people here live in a world of absolutes?

LOLseph Stalin

21st March 2013, 07:16

The liberalism in this thread is too damn high!

http://www.memecreator.org/static/images/templates/110.jpg

ind_com

21st March 2013, 07:40

I don't see how this is anything other than wholly irrelevant. Terror is wrong. Period. Any use of it is sickening.

Right. Let the bourgeoisie starve and stab us. We will not take to terror or violence. Because it's wrong. :)

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

21st March 2013, 12:10

What drew me to socialism in the first place (years ago) is the fact that it respects human dignity. Later on, I learned about class conflict, labor theories of value, Marxist and anarcho-syndicalist theories, and so on, but the first thing that led me to call myself a socialist was the fact that it was the only ideology I knew of that was based on universal compassion and truly promoted human dignity.

Because of this, I've developed a deep antipathy for Leninism-Stalinism (the ideology, not the people that hold it, who are still beautiful human beings :)) and other destructive, violent pseudo-socialist fascisms that see people as mere cogs in the "revolutionary" machine, mere means to an end. People -- whether proletarian, bourgeois, or other -- are ends in themselves, and I am opposed to any ideology that reduces them to mere means and, by extension, objects for "merciless terror" and "brutal repression." I'll take "bourgeois" social-democratic Humanism over the anti-human, destructive, and dare I say evil form of Stalinist fascism you promote. Hell, I'd even prefer bourgeois conservatism over that dogmatic, cult-like nonsense. Red fascism is no better than any other kind of fascism -- and make no mistake, it is indeed a form of fascism.

You prefer bourgeois conservatism over "evil" "Stalinist" "fascism" - doesn't that tell us something? This has been the refrain of every "Marxist" that has abandoned the labour movement for liberalism or worse - even if they used different terms, depending on the period.

You claim to value "human dignity", but at the same time you prefer the bourgeois order, that starves, murders and humiliates millions, to realistic attempts to overthrow it. And you would actively oppose any attempt to overthrow the bourgeois system that displayed even the most elementary proletarian solidarity - which demands that every militant protects others, as well as themselves.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what you do with your life; if you want to get killed passively resisting the reaction, knock yourself out. But when you advocate that the entire proletariat do so, and when you state that you would oppose all realistic attempts by the proletariat to defend itself, you shouldn't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.

By the way, you do realise that words lose their meaning if you use them indiscriminately? If everyone is a "beautiful human being", the oppressed worker as well as a Whiteguard murderer, those words mean nothing.

Kindness

22nd March 2013, 01:43

You prefer bourgeois conservatism over "evil" "Stalinist" "fascism" - doesn't that tell us something? This has been the refrain of every "Marxist" that has abandoned the labour movement for liberalism or worse - even if they used different terms, depending on the period.

The fact that I oppose Stalinofascism to the point of preferring the detestable bourgeois conservatism to it doesn't mean I'm going liberal. Also, I don't consider myself a Marxist in the classical sense . . . I think neo-Marxist analyses are useful at analyzing sociological issues, but I'm definitely not an ideological Marxist (neither was Marx, by the way).

And you would actively oppose any attempt to overthrow the bourgeois system that displayed even the most elementary proletarian solidarity - which demands that every militant protects others, as well as themselves.

No, I would not actively oppose such a campaign. What I said was that I would actively oppose any kind of "red terror" campaign (an offensive violent campaign, especially one directed against civilians), not that I would oppose the type of movement you describe.

By the way, you do realise that words lose their meaning if you use them indiscriminately? If everyone is a "beautiful human being", the oppressed worker as well as a Whiteguard murderer, those words mean nothing.

I stand by what I have said. All people are beautiful human beings; that doesn't mean their actions are beautiful.

Orange Juche

22nd March 2013, 02:13

Kindness

22nd March 2013, 02:33

terror

. . . serves no revolutionary purpose. It doesn't defeat counter-revolutionary armies, it doesn't protect the revolution, it doesn't do anything to build socialism, it is simply mindless revenge borne of childish anger. Even if I were in favor of revolutionary violence, I'd still oppose terror because it is not only evil, it is pointless.

Le Socialiste

22nd March 2013, 02:48

Red fascism is no better than any other kind of fascism -- and make no mistake, it is indeed a form of fascism.

Far be for it me to defend the theoretical and historical wreck that is Stalinism, but how is it in any way a form of fascism? Better yet, what do you think fascism is?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

22nd March 2013, 03:19

The fact that I oppose Stalinofascism to the point of preferring the detestable bourgeois conservatism to it doesn't mean I'm going liberal.

It means that you have already become a liberal or worse, frankly, not to mention that the reasons you criticise "Stalino"-"fascism" (!) are hardly exclusive to Marxism-Leninism.

Also, I don't consider myself a Marxist in the classical sense . . . I think neo-Marxist analyses are useful at analyzing sociological issues, but I'm definitely not an ideological Marxist (neither was Marx, by the way).

Not that it matters, but Marx's quip about not being a Marxist was directed at the economist tendency in Marxism, that claimed to be the only "true" Marxists.

No, I would not actively oppose such a campaign. What I said was that I would actively oppose any kind of "red terror" campaign (an offensive violent campaign, especially one directed against civilians), not that I would oppose the type of movement you describe.

Come, now, you should still remember this little exchange:

What is your definition of murder? Is the masses taking up arms against their oppressors something you can't condone because it's not in direct self-defense? They could have just stayed home and not fought for socialism. You're a social-democrat and should be restricted for adhering to an ideology that betrayed the working on many occasions.

I stand by what I've said. I don't condone violence except in direct defense. Plus, my view of revolution is much different than that of most on this website. I support non-violent gradual change according to the dual power theory, not a sudden overthrow of the existing order.

I stand by what I have said. All people are beautiful human beings; that doesn't mean their actions are beautiful.

The distinction is fairly spurious; the actions of a person are the primary means by which we evaluate them; and you're claiming that the Nazi guard and the murdered Jew have the same value. So much for human dignity, then.

Kindness

22nd March 2013, 22:25

Far be for it me to defend the theoretical and historical wreck that is Stalinism, but how is it in any way a form of fascism? Better yet, what do you think fascism is?

Fascism is any system in which the state exercises totalitarian authority over its subjects (people) and its economy. The "Soviet" Union under Stalin certainly qualifies as fascist under that definition, as does Germany under Hitler.

The point of socialism is to liberate human beings from the oppression of capitalism and the state, not to simply replace one oppressive system (bourgeois statism and market capitalism) with another (Stalinist totalitarianism and state capitalism). To achieve this liberation, the state -- especially in its totalitarian, Stalinist form -- must be abolished.

conmharÃ¡in

22nd March 2013, 22:32

Fascism is any system in which the state exercises totalitarian authority over its subjects (people) and its economy.

I think fascism's definition is much more complicated than that. While I find "totalitarianism" to be a useless word, I get what you mean. But I think any critique of the Stalin period brings us back to the nature of the state (inherently oppressive) and the character of social transformation. The question surfaces as what such a social transformation would look like, and I suspect it will always be a turbulent process. I guess the trick is in finding something more towards our idealistic conception of revolution while arming ourselves with more realistic expectations.

Kindness

22nd March 2013, 22:35

It means that you have already become a liberal or worse, frankly, not to mention that the reasons you criticise "Stalino"-"fascism" (!) are hardly exclusive to Marxism-Leninism.

My criticisms also apply to Maoism, orthodox Trotskyism, and any other unrevised system to come out of the Bolshevik tradition. I guess I'm more broadly an anti-Bolshevist, though I do appreciate Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution.

Come, now, you should still remember this little exchange:

I never said I'd actively oppose a revolution in that statement. I just want to make it clear: I will not actively oppose a socialist revolution.

The distinction is fairly spurious; the actions of a person are the primary means by which we evaluate them; and you're claiming that the Nazi guard and the murdered Jew have the same value. So much for human dignity, then.

Fundamentally, all human beings are of equal value, but that does not mean that one should not be punished for her/his actions if those actions are unethical. The Nazi murderer deserved severe punishment for his actions, she/he abdicated her/his value by carrying out such atrocities.

Kindness

22nd March 2013, 22:40

I think fascism's definition is much more complicated than that.

I just put forward a minimalist definition of fascism, one that would include all authoritarian modern state regimes. Obviously, one could put forth more nuanced definitions, but the core of fascism remains state domination over the private and economic spheres.

But I think any critique of the Stalin period brings us back to the nature of the state (inherently oppressive) and the character of social transformation.

I agree that the state is inherently oppressive, which is why I believe it must be abolished, it cannot be used as a "class tool" (as M-L's advocate) to advance the interests of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. Empirically, all attempts at using the state in that fashion have ended in disaster and human suffering (the USSR, China, the Eastern Bloc, etc.). The state must be removed and the class structure abolished as part of the revolution, otherwise socialism will simply degenerate into state capitalism and red fascism.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

22nd March 2013, 22:47

My criticisms also apply to Maoism, orthodox Trotskyism, and any other unrevised system to come out of the Bolshevik tradition.

Give yourself more credit, man; you also oppose every classical and orthodox form of Marxism, as well as most tendencies that originated in classical Marxism, anything from the Second International to the various Fourths.

I guess I'm more broadly an anti-Bolshevist, though I do appreciate Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution.

I am surprised that you can appreciate it; the theory of the permanent revolution entails the necessity of, well, a revolution. And the old man provided one of the best expositions, in my view, of the communist morality or communist amoralism, if you will, in "Their Morals and Ours" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm).

I never said I'd actively oppose a revolution in that statement. I just want to make it clear: I will not actively oppose a socialist revolution.

So, you would not oppose revolutionary violence that does not arise from immediate individual self-defense?

Fundamentally, all human beings are of equal value, but that does not mean that one should not be punished for her/his actions if those actions are unethical. The Nazi murderer deserved severe punishment for his actions, she/he abdicated her/his value by carrying out such atrocities.

The Nazi murderer deserves censure and repudiation; to say that he has the same value as his victims is repugnant, and to say that he should be given the same consideration is counterrevolutionary. We communists do not care for the sacred equality in the value of the oppressed and the oppressor; if we have to kill ten oppressors to save one proletarian, we should do so without flinching.

conmharÃ¡in

22nd March 2013, 22:50

I just put forward a minimalist definition of fascism, one that would include all authoritarian modern state regimes. Obviously, one could put forth more nuanced definitions, but the core of fascism remains state domination over the private and economic spheres.

How does the fascist state differ from any other kind of state under this definition? You'd be hard-pressed to find any state in history that doesn't exercise power over the private sector as well as the economy. And I'm not sure how one would quantify the degree to which this power extends, from "minimal" power to "total" power.

I agree that the state is inherently oppressive, which is why I believe it must be abolished, it cannot be used as a "class tool" (as M-L's advocate) to advance the interests of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. Empirically, all attempts at using the state in that fashion have ended in disaster and human suffering (the USSR, China, the Eastern Bloc, etc.). The state must be removed and the class structure abolished as part of the revolution, otherwise socialism will simply degenerate into state capitalism and red fascism.

How does one abolish the state? A state is the systemic violence used by a class to protect its property. This necessarily implies a violent conflict. "Disaster" is hardly the word I'd use to describe the Soviet Union or China, even for the atrocities surrounding their histories. Empirically, democratic revolutions have likewise created widespread suffering, but we view those as (potential) steps forward rather than readily classing them as, at best, meaningless and, at worst, tyrannical. And since we know the global capitalist class cannot be overthrown in an instant by the world proletariat, and that their expropriation demands violent method, really, what realistic choice is there other than to seize state power?

Kindness

22nd March 2013, 23:02

The Nazi murderer deserves censure and repudiation; to say that he has the same value as his victims is repugnant, and to say that he should be given the same consideration is counterrevolutionary.

I never claimed the Nazi scumbag doesn't deserve censure or repudiation or that he should be given the same consideration as his victims; that would be absurd and immoral.

I'll address the rest of your post later today.

Kindness

23rd March 2013, 05:42

Give yourself more credit, man; you also oppose every classical and orthodox form of Marxism, as well as most tendencies that originated in classical Marxism, anything from the Second International to the various Fourths.

I agree; I don't see why this is a problem.

I am surprised that you can appreciate it; the theory of the permanent revolution entails the necessity of, well, a revolution. And the old man provided one of the best expositions, in my view, of the communist morality or communist amoralism, if you will, in "Their Morals and Ours" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm).

I have no problem with revolution, as long as violence is eschewed. Revolution does not entail violence, and in fact, could be successfully pulled off without firing a shot provided there are enough participants.

I agree with Trotsky's critique of the class structure behind Western morality. It is true much of morality is a power play, whether by the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Still, I think that empathy and reason can guide us to some general ethical points (e.g., universal human dignity, opposition to gratuitous violence, etc.) that aren't power plays or based on an underlying class structure.

So, you would not oppose revolutionary violence that does not arise from immediate individual self-defense?

It depends on the situation. I'd have no problem with, for instance, a minimal amount of defensive violence used to protect a group of innocent civilians from death or grave bodily harm. I don't think such an act would be unethical or inhuman, in fact, it is in line with the ethics of human dignity and flourishing.
What I oppose is violence as a tactic, violence meant to advance the aims of an individual or group outside of immediate protection of life. It is this excessive violence that I condemn as both unethical and needless, not the necessary use of minimally violent means to protect innocents (provided no non-violent option is available, of course).

On the other hand, I'd vigorously oppose any sort of "revolutionary terror" meant to oppress or torture people, such as what happened under the Bolshevik Cheka in 1918-19. Such actions are unnecessary, wanton, and criminal, and deserve nothing but the sharpest condemnation and opposition.

conmharÃ¡in

23rd March 2013, 06:10

I agree; I don't see why this is a problem.

I think I can explain why in just a moment.

I have no problem with revolution, as long as violence is eschewed. Revolution does not entail violence, and in fact, could be successfully pulled off without firing a shot provided there are enough participants.

This is the problem. Non-violent revolution is unprecedented by anything in history. Please explain how you've come to arrive at the conclusion that revolution "does not entail violence" and "could be successfully be pulled off without firing a shot." I guess what I'm asking is: what within what we know about human history suggests to you that any of this is feasible? I'm afraid that I can't even imagine such a revolution that doesn't involve a global musical number.

I agree with Trotsky's critique of the class structure behind Western morality. It is true much of morality is a power play, whether by the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Still, I think that empathy and reason can guide us to some general ethical points (e.g., universal human dignity, opposition to gratuitous violence, etc.) that aren't power plays or based on an underlying class structure.

Isn't it an amazing coincidence, then, that never using violence against the ruling class just happens to be one of those points?

What I oppose is violence as a tactic, violence meant to advance the aims of an individual or group outside of immediate protection of life. It is this excessive violence that I condemn as both unethical and needless, not the necessary use of minimally violent means to protect innocents (provided no non-violent option is available, of course).

Comrade, I know this isn't cool, but I'd like to breach Godwin's law and use Hitler in a rhetorical concoction. Consider that the Führer, after he had ordered the systematic mass-murder of millions of innocent people, was technically no longer an immediate threat to the people he had condemned to death. In fact, the immediate danger to their lives was represented by the S.S.-Totenkopfverbande. Despite his no longer being an immediate threat to their lives, his continued existence meant a degree of stability for the system that generated these more immediate threats. To what degree of immediacy must a threat to life reach to allow defensive violence? The bourgeoisie systematically condemn people to death by the millions, whether through direct violence (war, genocide, etc.) or through a much more sinister indirect violence (withholding health care, draining economies, aiding dictators, etc.). Hitler was not captured alive, but had he been, there is no question he'd be executed. And executed hard. And fathers would let their sons, if they'd been good lately, watch that execution on television.

On the other hand, I'd vigorously oppose any sort of "revolutionary terror" meant to oppress or torture people, such as what happened under the Bolshevik Cheka in 1918-19. Such actions are unnecessary, wanton, and criminal, and deserve nothing but the sharpest condemnation and opposition.

Put simply, my trouble with stuff like this is that it sounds exactly like what the Man would say to try to save his own ass.

Jimmie Higgins

23rd March 2013, 08:31

I don't see how this is anything other than wholly irrelevant. Terror is wrong. Period. Any use of it is sickening.Well let's take this out of the abstract. What do you think about the use of troops by the North to prevent terror against freed slaves after the Civil War. The old Southern Elite certaintly thought these armed men were "terrorizing the south" and bolstering "negro domination".

When the North made peace with the old Southern eliete, it meant terror for southern blacks for 100 years! Armed supression is necissary because the old rulers will turn to fascists and armed men in hoods to try and sabotage and terrorize liberated people.

For workers I think the main thing would be that militias would have to be under the direction of democratic class bodies like soviets or other councils or revolutionary union formations so that it would be an orginization by the liberated in their own interest (as opposed to the northern forces who would gladly bury the hatchet with the Southern slavocracy when it suited their interests).

"having enough people" organized is of the utmost importance and will play a large part in how peacfully we are able to excercize our collective power and supress counter-revolutionaries without all-out bloody street-fighting. But having enough people is not enough because the main reason the ruling class organizes repressive power is to be abile to maintain domanence over the majority. Our best bet is in neutralizing them and splitting their army (general class consiousness being high enough that when push comes to shove some GIs and national guard will refuse orders to break general strikes or forcibly take back occupied work and distribution sites and making the police ineffective. But there is really no way to ensure a revolutionary consensus - epsecially since for the sliver of the population that really won't benifit directly from it (think of all the prison guards and police and not to mention ideologically opposed right-wingers). There will be some level of sabotage if not outright terrorist tactics used against workers and they will have to have some method of supression as self-defense.

Old Bolshie

23rd March 2013, 14:54

Fascism is any system in which the state exercises totalitarian authority over its subjects (people) and its economy. The "Soviet" Union under Stalin certainly qualifies as fascist under that definition, as does Germany under Hitler.

Even taking account your distorted definition of fascism one can show you why you can't associate Stalinism to fascism. While Stalinism advocates full control of the economy by the state, fascism doesn't. In a fascist regime the state is subordinated to bourgeoisie interests and protects its dominance over the economy, in a Stalinist one the bourgeoisie is dead.

You are clearly taking the definition of fascism from bourgeoisie literature where this confusion is usual.

The point of socialism is to liberate human beings from the oppression of capitalism and the state, not to simply replace one oppressive system (bourgeois statism and market capitalism) with another (Stalinist totalitarianism and state capitalism). To achieve this liberation, the state -- especially in its totalitarian, Stalinist form -- must be abolished.

I think we all agree that the state must disappear. However, as Engels put it "the proletariat needs the state, not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist".

Kindness

23rd March 2013, 18:28

I
Isn't it an amazing coincidence, then, that never using violence against the ruling class just happens to be one of those points?

It isn't one of those points. One should never use non-defensive violence, whether against the ruling class or otherwise.

Comrade, I know this isn't cool, but I'd like to breach Godwin's law and use Hitler in a rhetorical concoction. Consider that the Führer, after he had ordered the systematic mass-murder of millions of innocent people, was technically no longer an immediate threat to the people he had condemned to death. In fact, the immediate danger to their lives was represented by the S.S.-Totenkopfverbande. Despite his no longer being an immediate threat to their lives, his continued existence meant a degree of stability for the system that generated these more immediate threats. To what degree of immediacy must a threat to life reach to allow defensive violence?

I don't support the death penalty or revenge killings, so I wouldn't support killing Hitler after the war was over. I do support fighting organized, ruling fascist groups like the Nazi SS because fascism is a direct threat to human life.

The bourgeoisie systematically condemn people to death by the millions, whether through direct violence (war, genocide, etc.) or through a much more sinister indirect violence (withholding health care, draining economies, aiding dictators, etc.).

I agree with this, but nonviolent options are available.

Hitler was not captured alive, but had he been, there is no question he'd be executed. And executed hard. And fathers would let their sons, if they'd been good lately, watch that execution on television.

Your last line gives away what I think lies behind many of the calls for violence: a hyper-masculine bravado that, ironically, comes from reactionary ideas like Christianity, American rugged individualism, and bourgeois capitalism. It is crypto-sexist and very reactionary.

Put simply, my trouble with stuff like this is that it sounds exactly like what the Man would say to try to save his own ass.

Hardly; I'm part of the proletariat and probably always will be.

Kindness

23rd March 2013, 18:34

You are clearly taking the definition of fascism from bourgeoisie literature where this confusion is usual.

I don't believe in "bourgeois literature" or "proletarian literature." Literature is literature, and research is research. I read research with which I agree and research with which I disagree, and from there I try to find the truth, which is usually somewhere in the middle. I throw out obvious propaganda from both sides because it is useless misinformation.

I think we all agree that the state must disappear. However, as Engels put it "the proletariat needs the state, not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist".

By that time the state would take on a life of its own, and it would become a dictatorial, oppressive force over the people / working class. We saw this during the 20th century with the USSR and China. The state won't just wither away, it has to be dismantled.

Rafiq

23rd March 2013, 18:43

Stalinism has as much in common with fascism as it does with liberalism, namely, that they are bourgeous ideologies. It ends there. Fascism and Stalinism have absolutely nothing to do with each other, the former was a final desperate defense of capitalist relations and the latter was a result of the degeneration of a proletarian revolution. When they say "Ah, but both were authoritarian, had secret police, blah blah blah" one must re emphasize that all forms of bourgeois dictatorship are like this, it's just that Fascism and Stalinsim are more apparent in that regard: At least in Fascism or Stalinism, there is a reason for this excessive state violence. In contemporary liberalism, false consciousness is so strong there is no need. Fascism is not characterized by authoritarianism or excessive force.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Old Bolshie

23rd March 2013, 20:34

I don't believe in "bourgeois literature" or "proletarian literature." Literature is literature, and research is research. I read research with which I agree and research with which I disagree, and from there I try to find the truth, which is usually somewhere in the middle. I throw out obvious propaganda from both sides because it is useless misinformation.

When I refer to bourgeoisie literature I mean bourgeoisie culture in general, the same one which considers USSR or China communist and Norway socialist. If you give the same degree of importance to bourgeoisie literature as you do to a Socialist one (regardless if is Marxist or not) like you claim to do then your distorted view is well explained.

By that time the state would take on a life of its own, and it would become a dictatorial, oppressive force over the people / working class. We saw this during the 20th century with the USSR and China. The state won't just wither away, it has to be dismantled.

The state doesn't take a life on its own. The state isn't an independent or autonomous body from society but rather a product from the class antagonism which exists within it. It depends of social relations and as long as you have classes you will always have a state regardless of what you want.

You may abolish the state but you won't abolish classes by doing so. Therefore, your final aim of achieving communism will always remain unfulfilled.

The state just wither away as long as you have no classes.

As far as the USSR is concerned (I won't take China instance since its revolution wasn't proletarian) it really degenerated into some form of autocracy but it will be to simplistic and certainly wrong to place the reason of it on the state. There were many reasons behind it but the most important of all the failure to spread the revolution globally leading USSR to close in itself.

conmharÃ¡in

24th March 2013, 02:04

It isn't one of those points. One should never use non-defensive violence, whether against the ruling class or otherwise.

Why not, though? Whence this almost mystical mandate?

I don't support the death penalty or revenge killings, so I wouldn't support killing Hitler after the war was over. I do support fighting organized, ruling fascist groups like the Nazi SS because fascism is a direct threat to human life.

So how exactly do we quantify the immediacy with which something threatens human life? And at what point would the immediacy reach a level acceptable for the approval of violence? And why, exactly, are we dependent on this approval and from what agency does it come?

I agree with this, but nonviolent options are available.

Could you do your comrades a real solid and include some examples when you say things like this? What options are available and why are they preferable?

Your last line gives away what I think lies behind many of the calls for violence: a hyper-masculine bravado that, ironically, comes from reactionary ideas like Christianity, American rugged individualism, and bourgeois capitalism. It is crypto-sexist and very reactionary.

2yqUpypQwGs

I think the above video sums up my feelings about the preceding passage succinctly. Now, had I said something like "Man up and kill Hitler" or maybe if I had extolled the manly virtues of the patriots who were "slapping" Japanese people and all, this quasi-feminist retort would've at least had some context. Keep in mind that the conflicts of World War II ended before the 1950's. Thinking as a soldier returning home to the United States in the hypothetical I created, is it very likely that the man of the house would find it acceptable for the womenfolk (what with their delicate sensibilities) to watch a man die?

Why do some people seem to think that the key to their opponent's argument rests solely in the absolutely most hyperbolic rhetorical device?

Also, if you did actually have any kind of substantive feminist background, you probably wouldn't have declared hyper-masculine aggression a product of "reaction," much less assign its genesis specifically to America, capitalism, and Christianity. "Reaction" is exactly what it sounds like: it is a reaction to progressive attitudes. As such, it can perpetuate or rationalize sexist attitudes, but those attitudes are already alive.

Hardly; I'm part of the proletariat and probably always will be.

"Hardly?" No, not "hardly" by any stretch. Prole or not, the kind of morality you espouse is exactly the kind of morality that works directly in favor of the ruling class.

Jimmie Higgins

24th March 2013, 09:13

It isn't one of those points. One should never use non-defensive violence, whether against the ruling class or otherwise.But isn't what we are talking about, revolutionary violence, ultimately a defensive violence? If the people in Tarhir Square got chased out of the square by the regime thugs and paid mercenaries when they attacked, would that just mean that then Mubarak would round up as many people as he could and treat them the same as he's treated members of the underground union movement and pro-democracy activists in the past? Wouldn't it have become even worse? What if it's not just one regime that hangs in the balance, but the whole system. In this context, fighting is survival, not defending the "barricades", not defending worker-siezed factories and distribution and shops means that things just don't go back to "normal" if we are defeated, it means a whole wave of repression by the resurgant ruling class to dicipline the entire class back into shape.

I think some of what the revolutionaries did in Spain was quite shocking, but I also don't blame them for shooting fascist sympathizers on sight because they knew what the stakes were and what would happen if the situation was reversed or if they allowed the fascists to organize. If I were in that position, I would definately want to just detain people rather than shoot them, but that's from the comfort of my computer. IN mass revolutions people can and do excercize popular power and force sometimes more peacfully: the Bolsheviks initially just made counter-revolutionaries sign a contract saying they would leave and not try and overthrow the revolution, in Egypt while cops were beating people bloody, the movement "arrested" cops and detained them with more kindness than police hold anyone ever! But other times things can get desperate and revolutions might be more bloody. It's conditional, not principle to revolutions and there is no way to really mandate the peacfulness or violence of such a vast change.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

24th March 2013, 10:14

I never claimed the Nazi scumbag doesn't deserve censure or repudiation or that he should be given the same consideration as his victims; that would be absurd and immoral.

Yet you claimed that the whiteguard butchers were all "beautiful human beings" (!) and that it was wrong for the proletarian state to institute a vigorous terror against them and against the saboteurs that objectively assisted them - so it seems that you think that the whiteguards should have been given at least as much consideration as their victims. And there is no significant difference between the Nazis and the Whites in this regard - both were militant, reactionary, pogromist movements.

I have no problem with revolution, as long as violence is eschewed. Revolution does not entail violence, and in fact, could be successfully pulled off without firing a shot provided there are enough participants.

The proletarian revolution entails the smashing of the bourgeois state apparatus and the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, of the landowners and so on, and so on. How could this be achieved without violence? Do you think the officers of the former state, the high ministerial functionaries, the "lords of the factories", and so on, will simply go home and drink themselves to sleep because, I don't know, someone presented a petition with millions of signatures to them? Hardly; they will need to be evicted by force and their attempts to restore the old order will have to be destroyed by force.

I agree with Trotsky's critique of the class structure behind Western morality. It is true much of morality is a power play, whether by the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Still, I think that empathy and reason can guide us to some general ethical points (e.g., universal human dignity, opposition to gratuitous violence, etc.) that aren't power plays or based on an underlying class structure.

Trotsky's point is precisely that all morality depends on the class structure of society; to posit some "universal", "objective", supra-class morality is to distort Marxism in an idealist manner.

"Empathy and reason" has been the rallying cry of petite-bourgeois moralists for over a century now, and what good has it done them? The proletariat will not listen to them and disregard their interest in order to appease the bourgeoisie; and those hypocrites dare not even criticise the bourgeoisie and the reaction except in the mildest of tones.

It depends on the situation. I'd have no problem with, for instance, a minimal amount of defensive violence used to protect a group of innocent civilians from death or grave bodily harm. I don't think such an act would be unethical or inhuman, in fact, it is in line with the ethics of human dignity and flourishing.

In another thread, you claimed that you "don't condone violence except in direct defense". How "direct" must the "direct defense" be?

What I oppose is violence as a tactic, violence meant to advance the aims of an individual or group outside of immediate protection of life. It is this excessive violence that I condemn as both unethical and needless, not the necessary use of minimally violent means to protect innocents (provided no non-violent option is available, of course).

On the other hand, I'd vigorously oppose any sort of "revolutionary terror" meant to oppress or torture people, such as what happened under the Bolshevik Cheka in 1918-19. Such actions are unnecessary, wanton, and criminal, and deserve nothing but the sharpest condemnation and opposition.

They deserve the highest praise for having saved the revolution and for safeguarding the interests of the proletariat.

DarkPast

24th March 2013, 13:25

They deserve the highest praise for having saved the revolution and for safeguarding the interests of the proletariat.

No, and that's a point I've been trying to make in both this and other threads. They did not "save" the revolution - they saved the Bolshevik party and assured their complete hold over state power. True, the original bourgeoisie and state were demolished through the mass action of the working-class, in alliance with the peasantry.

However, a new military-bureaucratic elite established itself in late 1917/early 1918, and fully consolidated its power as early 1921, long before Stalin became the "great helmsman". This elite had dictatorial control of the state and the forces of production, with no recourse but to manage commodity production by alienated labour. Power was transferred from the Soviets and factory committees to the Party, and those leftists who refused to obey the Bolsheviks were ruthlessly crushed (again, all this happened 1918-21). The Russian Revolution failed in the sense that it did not produce a socialist society- the society of the RSFR/USSR was based on structural antagonism between the decision-making class (managers/supervisors) and the working class. There was no democratic control over the army, no superstructure of proletarian democracy, there were very real differences in income and consumption etc. How could this be in the interest of the proletariat?

Old Bolshie

24th March 2013, 14:50

those leftists who refused to obey the Bolsheviks were ruthlessly crushed (again, all this happened 1918-21).

Which leftists are you talking about? Those who opposed the October Revolution in favor of the Provisional Government and supported the White Army like the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks? Or the Left Socialist Revolutionaries who tried to overthrow the Bolsheviks by force with France support?

human strike

24th March 2013, 15:12

Somebody recently suggested I be restricted for being anti-work. :( I think anybody who thinks I should be restricted for being anti-work should be restricted for being pro-work and therefore pro-capitalism.

Kindness

25th March 2013, 01:31

But isn't what we are talking about, revolutionary violence, ultimately a defensive violence? If the people in Tarhir Square got chased out of the square by the regime thugs and paid mercenaries when they attacked, would that just mean that then Mubarak would round up as many people as he could and treat them the same as he's treated members of the underground union movement and pro-democracy activists in the past? Wouldn't it have become even worse? What if it's not just one regime that hangs in the balance, but the whole system. In this context, fighting is survival, not defending the "barricades", not defending worker-siezed factories and distribution and shops means that things just don't go back to "normal" if we are defeated, it means a whole wave of repression by the resurgant ruling class to dicipline the entire class back into shape.

Yes, failure is a possibility, but I'm unwilling to justify large-scale violence to prevent it. Violence is inherently destructive and dehumanizing, and it has been the ultimate force for human suffering over the hundreds of thousands of years our species has spent on this planet. Violence is the driving force behind the state and capitalism, and resorting to violent means to bring change will only re-start the endless cycle of death and pestilence, ultimately leading to a new repressive system of social relations every bit as destructive as the statist capitalism it replaces (we saw this in the "Soviet" Union, Maoist China, Cuba, and other "socialist" states). We can't become the monsters we seek to defeat. As a wise person once said, "you can't use the master's tools to dismantle his house."

IN mass revolutions people can and do excercize popular power and force sometimes more peacfully: the Bolsheviks initially just made counter-revolutionaries sign a contract saying they would leave and not try and overthrow the revolution, in Egypt while cops were beating people bloody, the movement "arrested" cops and detained them with more kindness than police hold anyone ever!

This was good.

But other times things can get desperate and revolutions might be more bloody. It's conditional, not principle to revolutions and there is no way to really mandate the peacfulness or violence of such a vast change.

Yes, there is: every participant can agree to eschew violence as a tactic before the revolution starts.

Rurkel

25th March 2013, 11:46

Taking off my "revolutionary terror" hat for a while, I can say that there's a grain of truth to Kindness' insisting that methods and ends are inseparable. Violence, potential violence at least, indeed plays a major role in maintaining state and capitalism.

The question is, violence towards whom? The violence of capitalism is directed mainly towards the working class and poorer sections of other classes, like "petty bourgeoisie". Capitalists are not completely safe from violence, but the state resorts to it only to preserve the system in which capitalists are dominant. Capitalists, as a rule, are not enthusiastic fans of fascism, which does in a certain way limit capitalists' freedoms, but when they support it, they do it because "the alternatives are worse".

Seeing violence in the abstract, and then condemning it, like pacifists do, or praising/refusing to condemn it, like certain people with a violence fetish do it, is misguided. Violence towards the working class is the dominant violence of the capitalist system. Indeed, you cannot liberate the working class by advocating violent, immiserating methods against it, and every "social engineer"-type leftist that advocates such methods is deserving of scorn. But this doesn't apply to violence towards the capitalists. It's stupid to oppose it as a matter of principle.

(Puts the proletarian terror hat back on) Of course, there's such a thing as unnecessary violence towards the capitalists. Bourgeois-liberal-humanist-pacifist-social-democrats condemn it, but true revolutionaries, who judge an act according to it furthering proletarian aims, understand that it is to be neither condemned, nor supported.

garrus

25th March 2013, 12:36

There's a difference between praising eating babies, and claiming baby-eating never happened.

Jimmie Higgins

25th March 2013, 13:32

Yes, failure is a possibility, but I'm unwilling to justify large-scale violence to prevent it. Violence is inherently destructive and dehumanizing, and it has been the ultimate force for human suffering over the hundreds of thousands of years our species has spent on this planet. Violence is the driving force behind the state and capitalism, and resorting to violent means to bring change will only re-start the endless cycle of death and pestilence, ultimately leading to a new repressive system of social relations every bit as destructive as the statist capitalism it replaces (we saw this in the "Soviet" Union, Maoist China, Cuba, and other "socialist" states). We can't become the monsters we seek to defeat. As a wise person once said, "you can't use the master's tools to dismantle his house."

But the "monsterousness" of capitalism is not its violence, violence is necissary, ultimately, to enforce its monsterous goals of accumulation irregardless of the human or environmental toll and prevent any challenges to this monsterous order. Capitalists are violent because they compete with eachother economically and must control the population to continue to exploit it - they don't exploit or compete because of violence.

But BECAUSE they ultimately use this violence to maintain their order, we can not possibly hope to actually pose any kind of challenge to them without them unleashing violence against us!

The same goes for the so-called socialist states of the 20th century. They weren't violent because they used violence, they ended up being repressive because despite the claims to socialism they were minority run societies where production was being organized above the workers and therfore the population had to be "diciplined" from above.

As workers, we can not win with guns or violence, we have inherent economic power as workers and that's where our real power is. Stockpiling weapons and heading to the hills only teaches workers to be soldiers, not the organic rulers of all of society (which would come from learning how to coordinate, self-lead, and organize through the process of class struggle and ultimatly revolution). But as much as we may wish otherwise, our strikes, our protests and if we come to a revolution, our liberated neighborhoods and workplaces will be confronted by men with guns and if it's a revolutionary situation, we either fight back or things get much much worse... as in Germany after their revolutions failed, as in Spain after their revolution failed, as in Italy when the two red years ended and fascism organized to prevent any movement like that from happening again. If the government of Greece had a revolutionary crisis, then if workers started a revolution but then backed down when confronted by armed thugs, things would not just return to Greece as it was the year before. At that point either workers would have to win or Golden Dawn would come to power because the Greek government showed itself to be unable to really deal with a threat to capitalist power - either that or it wouldn't be the Golden Dawn but the Government would adpot new authoritarian measures that allow it to act like the Golden Dawn would in repressing the movement and diciplining the whole class.