Humanism [Archive]

Jimmie Higgins

27th March 2013, 10:06

I don't think humanism is the same as human-centrism; I also don't think it implies necissarily a belif in human universiality (in class society). It's broad and religious people, right wingers, and IMO marxism could all be "humanist" while disagreeing on what that humanism means or represents. Humanism is just the idea that human agency (either collective or induvidual) shapes society, not a static "nature", not a divine "great chain of being", not supernatural forces or fates. The term was used to describe the shift in the Renassance towards Greek and Roman learning, a focus and glorification on human rather than divine agency, and so on. Humanism is also associated politically with the French Revolution and groups like the Left-Hegelians were "humanist" in outlook.

I think Marxism is a Humanist philiospohy since it places human social organization (classes and class struggle) at the heart of it's explaination for civilization. Marx also emphasized human subjective agency, while placing it in a larger objective context in which that agency is possible (but constrained to). It's a materialist humanism rather than some other common forms of humanism which talk about universal human natures and universal rights or an idealist version of human agency where our "will" shapes things.

I think in order to be a Marxist, you must also be a humanist. The self-emancipation of the working class implies a humanist view.

Rurkel

27th March 2013, 10:52

whereas the humanist assigns some arbitrary value to the lives of reactionaries and of whiteguards etc. etc. Careful here; the humanist assigns some arbitrary value to the lives of the bourgeoisie. A pseudo-revolutionary humanist may very well indeed argue that active reactionaries and whiteguards are worthy of death, but that doesn't absolve him of primary error from a true revolutionary standpoint; insisting that the bourgeoisie, the class enemies of the proletariat, have an inherent value at all (because they're beautiful human beings, of course), which only some members of bourgeoisie, namely the active reactionaries and whiteguards, supposedly cancel out by their actions. But this point of view is liberal. A revolutionary point of view strictly insists that the proletariat, the only revolutionary class, is the only one that has an inherent value. The only bourgeoisie that has inherent value, has it not because they are "human beings" but because they're proven traitors to their class (such exceptional cases, I acknowledge, do exist). It's

But you either serve the revolution,
Or your life is worth precisely nothing

not

Your life is worth something*
If you don't oppose the revolution.

*Why? Because you're a "human being"? The humanist has no recourse here but to reveal his own counter-revolutionary humanism.

The first point of view is revolutionary, the second one isn't. Unlike pseudoleftist cryptopacifist humanists, revolutionaries don't need bourgeois-legalistic "right to trial" concepts. Organs of proletarian terror don't judge whether a member of the oppressing class has committed some counter-revolutionary actions based on deeply and disgustingly humanistic "presumption of innocence towards the bourgeoisie" idea.

Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror.

Of course, presumptions of innocence towards proletarians should be upheld. Denial of it to the bourgeoisie and the upholding of it towards the proletarian is exactly the kind of thing that provokes humanist protests, but is indeed revolutionary. All humanists protesting against it only reveal their liberal "universal human brotherhood" ideas. Of course, according to them, applying different standards of evidence towards a bourgie and a prole "human brothers" is grossly unfair! But revolutionaries realize that they're no brothers at all.

My post reveals the true revolutionary attitude and provides a useful tool in figuring out the true nature of the supposed "revolutionary humanists". I hope that all members of RevLeft will agree with all sentiments expressed in it, else I would be forced to sadly conclude that it isn't a true revolutionary left site but merely a humanist site :(

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

27th March 2013, 12:53

Careful here; the humanist assigns some arbitrary value to the lives of the bourgeoisie. A pseudo-revolutionary humanist may very well indeed argue that active reactionaries and whiteguards are worthy of death, but that doesn't absolve him of primary error from a true revolutionary standpoint; insisting that the bourgeoisie, the class enemies of the proletariat, have an inherent value at all (because they're beautiful human beings, of course), which only some members of bourgeoisie, namely the active reactionaries and whiteguards, supposedly cancel out by their actions.

I think you're the one who should be careful here - what you're saying comes dangerously close in my estimation to a kind of dehumanisation; after all, if members of the bourgeoisie are not valued at all, not even as human beings, then why should we bother with things like trials and evidence when bringing them to account for their actions?

Vengeance might be personally satisfying, but if we're truly interested in building a new society then we'll need something less emotive and more substantial; we'll need justice, real justice that so far under capitalism has been denied to us.

But this point of view is liberal. A revolutionary point of view strictly insists that the proletariat, the only revolutionary class, is the only one that has an inherent value.

No, revolutionaries are partisan, in that they come down on the side of the workers in class-based struggles. Inherent value has nothing to do with it.

The only bourgeoisie that has inherent value, has it not because they are "human beings" but because they're proven traitors to their class (such exceptional cases, I acknowledge, do exist). It's

But you either serve the revolution,
Or your life is worth precisely nothing

not
Your life is worth something*
If you don't oppose the revolution.

What does it mean to "serve the revolution"? Even if you're defining it very loosely as nothing more substantial than pro forma verbal support for the notion, most proletarians would not qualify for your consideration since they don't even think about it the vast majority of the time.

So, are the lives of the majority of proletarians "worth precisely nothing"?

*Why? Because you're a "human being"? The humanist has no recourse here but to reveal his own counter-revolutionary humanism.

Their lives are worth something because as human beings they have the potential to do better. Even if realising that potential would require the wholesale re-organisation of society.

The first point of view is revolutionary, the second one isn't. Unlike pseudoleftist cryptopacifist humanists, revolutionaries don't need bourgeois-legalistic "right to trial" concepts. Organs of proletarian terror don't judge whether a member of the oppressing class has committed some counter-revolutionary actions based on deeply and disgustingly humanistic "presumption of innocence towards the bourgeoisie" idea.

I see, so if you were to be accused of giving support to counter-revolutionaries, you would not be at all bothered if that accusation was accepted on the basis of absolutely no evidence?

Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror.

OK, so a proletarian, with no education or profession, who has a proven history of collaborating with counter-revolutionaries, would be let off under this "system".

That's fucking stupid.

Of course, presumptions of innocence towards proletarians should be upheld. Denial of it to the bourgeoisie and the upholding of it towards the proletarian is exactly the kind of thing that provokes humanist protests, but is indeed revolutionary. All humanists protesting against it only reveal their liberal "universal human brotherhood" ideas. Of course, according to them, applying different standards of evidence towards a bourgie and a prole "human brothers" is grossly unfair! But revolutionaries realize that they're no brothers at all.

Calling something "liberal" doesn't make it wrong, you know. You have yet to establish that your "kill em all" position won't just create another environment in which murderous authoritarians can flourish because they don't even need to bother trumping up charges.

My post reveals the true revolutionary attitude and provides a useful tool in figuring out the true nature of the supposed "revolutionary humanists". I hope that all members of RevLeft will agree with all sentiments expressed in it, else I would be forced to sadly conclude that it isn't a true revolutionary left site but merely a humanist site :(

You are a counter-revolutionary. I don't need any evidence for this accusation because any requirement to prove my claims would constitute bourgeois liberalism.

Report to a firing squad.

AConfusedSocialDemocrat

27th March 2013, 13:04

Why do some Marxists call themselves "Marxist humanist"

A focus on the earlier works of Marx, the ontology of man (the wonderful creative being that he is).

Check out Dunayevskaya (https://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/index.htm) for more information.

The Idler

27th March 2013, 13:28

Yep, humanism is great, ignore the petty generals fantasising over reenacting massacring of the Tsar and his family.

There is something called "Marxist-Humanism" which is something different (and unrelated I think), and comes from the Trotskyist tradition, the man who led the Red Army to massacre the Tsar and his family. Doesn't sound very humanist.

Rurkel

27th March 2013, 13:40

Vengeance might be personally satisfying, but if we're truly interested in building a new society then we'll need something less emotive and more substantial; we'll need justice, real justice that so far under capitalism has been denied to us.It's not vengeance, it's revolutionary pragmatism and revolutionary justice.

most proletarians would not qualify for your consideration since they don't even think about it the vast majority of the time.
So, are the lives of the majority of proletarians "worth precisely nothing"?No, since the proletariat is the revolutionary class. Therefore, they do have value by default. Other classes do not merit such a description.

Their lives are worth something because as human beings they have the potential to do better. That's liberal-humanist. A revolutionary never says "as human beings...", he says "as proletarians..." or "as members of the bourgeoisie...". Class-based morality versus a liberal-humanist-universalist one.

I see, so if you were to be accused of giving support to counter-revolutionaries, you would not be at all bothered if that accusation was accepted on the basis of absolutely no evidence?It depends on my class position. Am I bourgeios or proletarian in that example? Being bourgeios is already substantial evidence of opposing the revolution.

OK, so a proletarian, with no education or profession, who has a proven history of collaborating with counter-revolutionaries, would be let off under this "system".Of course, this would make such a proletarian a class traitor entirely fit for punishment. However, that glorious and revolutionary wholesome quote should be used when deliberating whether to apply the "presumption of innocence" principle.

You have yet to establish that your "kill em all" position "Kill em all" is objectionable, because it, by itself, can't abolish capitalism, thus attempting to kill the bourgeoisie as the ultimate goal just wastes time and bullets. However, this "kill em all" approach isn't wrong because the bourgeoisie are all "beautiful human beings". A true revolutionary, a glorious revolutionary, an example of revolutionary morality worthy of having gold statues of him/herself on every square after the revolution, never condemns killing or harm done to a member of the bourgeoisie, unless that member is a proven traitor to his class.

ed miliband

27th March 2013, 14:07

Humanism is any philosophy that places supreme importance on "humanity"; usually understood as existing human individuals. Most revolutionary Marxist reject humanism since it disregards class differences and the existence of oppressed and oppressing groups, and since it does not recognise the supreme importance of the revolution.

Marxist humanism is a revisionist tendency that focuses on the semi-Hegelian works of the early Marx, ignoring his later scientific work.

the marxist-humanist tendency is certainly very focused on the work of the 'young marx', but they don't ignore his later work and in fact talk of the "totality of marx's marxism", from 1841 to 1883:

In particular, we stand on the philosophical new beginnings articulated in Marx’s 1844 Humanist Essays, especially the “dialectic of negativity as a moving and creating principle,” as well as on the whole of his critique of political economy and of the value form of production—from the Communist Manifesto (1848), to the Grundrisse (1857-1858), to Capital (1867-1872). We also base ourselves in the multicultural writings of the late Marx on gender and non-European societies, especially the Ethnological Notebooks (1879-1882). We see Marx’s vision of a new society in the Critique of the Gotha Program (1875), as well as Capital and The Civil War in France (1871), as philosophical foundations for the non-statist liberated society of the future, and as indications of how to get there. Inseparable from this, we consider Marx’s organizational practice and principles, especially in the Critique of the Gotha Program, as important ground for organization today.

Lord Hargreaves

27th March 2013, 14:26

It might also useful to see Humanism as commitment to the "ethic" of the humanities, i.e. in terms of seeing how one learns in the humanities as an approach to understanding the world and one's own relation to it.

Thus: it is opposition to religious dogma, opposition to totalizing metaphysics, opposition to sheer biological reductionism (seeing the human being as just a biological machine), etc. And it is also about keeping a certain distance from purely social-scientific conceptions of humanity and society, and being critical of complete, systemic ideologies.

In this above sense, Marxist Humanism is resistance to the idea of Marxism as a sheer technical science of societal development, and to the concomitant of such a conception: the idea that "the revolutionary" can stand outside of his own humanity and his relation to others, ignore people and appeal merely to History (capital H "History", since "the revolutionary" seems to have a distinct lack of interest in actual history). It is Humanism as opposition to "the revolutionary" and his abdication of personal, human, responsibility.... something which is to blame for much of the mass slaughter of the 20th century

Lord Hargreaves

27th March 2013, 14:41

The revolutionary, whether they consider themselves an antropocentrist or not, condones revolutionary violence that furthers the aims of the revolution without second thought; whereas the humanist assigns some arbitrary value to the lives of reactionaries and of whiteguards etc. etc.

A revolutionary point of view strictly insists that the proletariat, the only revolutionary class, is the only one that has an inherent value. The only bourgeoisie that has inherent value, has it not because they are "human beings" but because they're proven traitors to their class (such exceptional cases, I acknowledge, do exist).

Any revolution I'd myself like to be part of would pick "the revolutionary" as the first type of person to be lined up against the wall and shot. Only then would there be any chance of the revolution instituting a better society and not a profoundly uglier one.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

27th March 2013, 15:18

It's not vengeance, it's revolutionary pragmatism and revolutionary justice.

How is it pragmatism? Are proletarians and revolutionaries incapable of assessing the evidence for a claim?

How is it justice when someone can be condemned not on the basis of their actions, but on circumstances which they have no control over?

Remember that people don't choose what class they are born in, and the nature of class society and its dominant narratives mean that people of all classes can coast through their entire lives without doing anything substantially revolutionary. Since the universal presence of capitalism makes us all complicit in its continuing existence, we then have to consider the degree of that complicity. I would consider being a proletarian to be a sufficiently mitigating circumstance to obviate any automatic suspicions.

When it comes to members of the bourgeoisie we have something of the opposite problem - their class position makes it highly likely that they've done something, but as part of the re-organisation of society we need to establish what that something is and what to do about it. But even for members of the bourgeoisie, guilt isn't a certainty - would bourgeois children and other dependents be up for the chop in your glorious "revolutionary" bloodbath?

No, since the proletariat is the revolutionary class. Therefore, they do have value by default. Other classes do not merit such a description.

You don't correct a double standard by introducing a new one. If we are to have laws, then they should apply equally to everyone within its jurisdiction. Thus someone from a proletarian background who attempted to maintain or reintroduce wage-slavery would be just as in the wrong as a former member of the bourgeoisie who did the same.

That's liberal-humanist. A revolutionary never says "as human beings...", he says "as proletarians..." or "as members of the bourgeoisie...". Class-based morality versus a liberal-humanist-universalist one.

So torture, arbitrary killings, and rape are perfectly acceptable as long as they are committed against the bourgeoisie?

Are you at all familiar with findings in the psychological sciences which demonstrate that such dehumanising actions affect the perpetrators as well as the victims? Since humans are social creatures, such negative effects on individuals will translate into negative effects upon society as a whole.

People who torture and abuse animals are more likely to abuse human victims (http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/abuse_connection.php). If moving from animal to human victims happens so casually, don't you think we should be extremely cautious when it comes to sanctioning violence and dealing with abuse concerning other human beings? Bourgeois and proletarian will break the same way if you subject them to that kind of treatment.

Do we really want to put ourselves in the position of approving or even enabling the actions of sadists simply because their victims weren't "people like us"?

It depends on my class position. Am I bourgeios or proletarian in that example? Being bourgeios is already substantial evidence of opposing the revolution.

You are what you are. Since I doubt you're bourgeois, would you really want your freedom and welfare contingent on whether or not you pass some kind of political test? Especially since history strongly suggests that "revolutionary" justice can and will be used as a cloak for eliminating and/or neutralising political rivals. Just ask the Trotskyists or the anarchists.

Of course, this would make such a proletarian a class traitor entirely fit for punishment. However, that glorious and revolutionary wholesome quote should be used when deliberating whether to apply the "presumption of innocence" principle.

I think we should be judging people on their actions, not their class origins. If one's actions do not conflict with the revolutionary transformation of society, then it doesn't matter one jot or tittle what one's class origins are. They could be hailing from the Martian aristocracy for all that it matters.

"Kill em all" is objectionable, because it, by itself, can't abolish capitalism, thus attempting to kill the bourgeoisie as the ultimate goal just wastes time and bullets. However, this "kill em all" approach isn't wrong because the bourgeoisie are all "beautiful human beings".

No, it's wrong because it motivated solely by base revenge, rather than a sincere effort to improve things.

A true revolutionary, a glorious revolutionary, an example of revolutionary morality worthy of having gold statues of himself on every square after the revolution, never condemns killing or harm done to a member of the bourgeoisie, unless that member is a proven traitor to his class.

I condemn all killing and harm that comes to those who have done nothing to deserve such treatment. Violence is not something we should engage in without erring on the side of caution, no matter the target (after all, we don't yet have the means to bring an executed innocent back to life). As much for our own sake as for theirs.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

27th March 2013, 17:40

I think you're the one who should be careful here - what you're saying comes dangerously close in my estimation to a kind of dehumanisation; after all, if members of the bourgeoisie are not valued at all, not even as human beings, then why should we bother with things like trials and evidence when bringing them to account for their actions?

Should we bother? Trials are, of course, nice things to have, but in the middle of the revolution, one is deprived of many nice things. If might be the case that there is no time for trials, or justice; that the preservation of the revolution requires the organs of the proletarian state to, as Dzerzhinsky puts is, "not judge, but strike".

What does it mean to "serve the revolution"? Even if you're defining it very loosely as nothing more substantial than pro forma verbal support for the notion, most proletarians would not qualify for your consideration since they don't even think about it the vast majority of the time.

So, are the lives of the majority of proletarians "worth precisely nothing"?

Any notion of worth as anything but emotional and ideological seems anti-materialist to me; and yes, in the course of the revolution the success of revolutionary movements takes precedence over the lives of individual proletarians and so on.

There is something called "Marxist-Humanism" which is something different (and unrelated I think), and comes from the Trotskyist tradition, the man who led the Red Army to massacre the Tsar and his family. Doesn't sound very humanist.

Not that it matters, but the emperor and his family were killed by the order of the Ural Soviet, chaired by Beloborodov (another future member of the Left Opposition). Anyway, old man Trotsky wrote quite a bit against "humanism" and moralising; you are perhaps thinking of Dunayevskaya, but she broke with Bolshevism-Leninism soon after the war.

Rurkel

27th March 2013, 19:08

How is it pragmatism? Are proletarians and revolutionaries incapable of assessing the evidence for a claim?
That matters only if you think that the life of the repressed bourgeoisie member has some inherent value, which my proletarian terror hat quickly points out as humanism, not class analysis. Mere possibility is enough. If that member is innocent of specific accusation, it's still no loss.

If we are to have laws, then they should apply equally to everyone within its jurisdiction.
Why? Because everyone is a "beautiful human being"? "Double standards" towards the proletarian and the bourgeoisie are inevitable in a revolution, since its goal is to establish a dictatorship of one class over the other before abolishing them both.

Are you at all familiar with findings in the psychological sciences which demonstrate that such dehumanising actions affect the perpetrators as well as the victims?
That's because current times are affected by the bourgeois-liberal-humanist ideology. Conditions of revolution will bring forward a new proletarian morality, that doesn't assign a sentimental value to bourgeios human life, and views killing a bourgie just like you would view killing a fly*.

*A bourgeios fly, of course, not a proletarian one.

Especially since history strongly suggests that "revolutionary" justice can and will be used as a cloak for eliminating and/or neutralising political rivals. Just ask the Trotskyists
A knife can cut meat for cooking, or it can cut human* flesh. Don't blame the knife.

*Proletarian human, to be exact. I almost slipped into liberal-humanism here by presuming for a moment that all cutting of human flesh is bad! See, even dedicated advocates of proletarian morality like me can slip in our bourgeios society :crying:

rather than a sincere effort to improve things.
A revolutionary is driven by an effort to improve things for the proletarian, and to make things worse for bourgeoisie. Hence the double standard.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

27th March 2013, 22:23

Should we bother? Trials are, of course, nice things to have, but in the middle of the revolution, one is deprived of many nice things. If might be the case that there is no time for trials, or justice; that the preservation of the revolution requires the organs of the proletarian state to, as Dzerzhinsky puts is, "not judge, but strike".

I see that excuse thrown around a lot, but I don't believe a word of it. If a trial is not practical in the immediate instance, then detain them until it is practical to do so, and no longer than that. Since the prisons will be empty due to a general amnesty, there'll certainly be room for them. If there are large numbers of such detainees, then to keep them down, start with the ones for which evidence of wrongdoing is strongest.

Any notion of worth as anything but emotional and ideological seems anti-materialist to me; and yes, in the course of the revolution the success of revolutionary movements takes precedence over the lives of individual proletarians and so on.

The point is that using any standard other than what the evidence says is a recipe for gross miscarriages of justice.

That matters only if you think that the life of the repressed bourgeoisie member has some inherent value, which my proletarian terror hat quickly points out as humanism, not class analysis. Mere possibility is enough. If that member is innocent of specific accusation, it's still no loss.

Mere possibility is enough? For fuck's sake. Anyone could "possibly" be a counter-revolutionary, including your fine self. Are you seeing the problem yet?

Why? Because everyone is a "beautiful human being"? "Double standards" towards the proletarian and the bourgeoisie are inevitable in a revolution, since its goal is to establish a dictatorship of one class over the other before abolishing them both.

Why? Because laws that don't apply to everyone make a mockery of any reasonable conception of justice. That's why the rulings of bourgeois courts are suspect if not outright invalid, because it's one law for them and another law for the rest of us, de facto if not de jure.

The point of a revolutionary transformation of society is to eliminate that imbalance, not to simply invert it. It's also part of the point behind the elimination of private property and the laws protecting it, which serve to entrench inequity. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a means to the end of establishing communism, not a self-serving end in itself.

That's because current times are affected by the bourgeois-liberal-humanist ideology. Conditions of revolution will bring forward a new proletarian morality, that doesn't assign a sentimental value to bourgeios human life, and views killing a bourgie just like you would view killing a fly*.

*A bourgeios fly, of course, not a proletarian one.

Please tell me you are fucking trolling.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the negative effects of personally inflicting suffering and death upon others can be obviated through dehumanisation? I have some bad news for you on that front - although the SS in WWII saw Jews as sub-human vermin to be murdered and tortured at their convenience, even they were sickened at times by what they were doing, hence the industrialisation and depersonalisation of the killing process in the Holocaust using gas chambers.

A knife can cut meat for cooking, or it can cut human* flesh. Don't blame the knife.

I'm not blaming any tools; people make the decision to persecute rivals under the pretence of protecting the revolution. It's harder to do that if people have to substantiate their accusations with evidence.

*Proletarian human, to be exact. I almost slipped into liberal-humanism here by presuming for a moment that all cutting of human flesh is bad! See, even dedicated advocates of proletarian morality like me can slip in our bourgeios society :crying:

"Cutting human flesh" is by itself a neutral act. Surgeons do it for the good of their patient. Murderers do it because their implement of choice is bladed.

A revolutionary is driven by an effort to improve things for the proletarian, and to make things worse for bourgeoisie. Hence the double standard.

No, a revolutionary is driven by a sincere desire to abolish capitalism and class society. Double standards are not necessary and are in fact counter-productive; private property and wage-slavery are to be abolished for everyone, yes?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

27th March 2013, 22:33

I see that excuse thrown around a lot, but I don't believe a word of it. If a trial is not practical in the immediate instance, then detain them until it is practical to do so, and no longer than that. Since the prisons will be empty due to a general amnesty, there'll certainly be room for them. If there are large numbers of such detainees, then to keep them down, start with the ones for which evidence of wrongdoing is strongest.

But this misses the point; protracted processes, even if they are the most just in the world, can not serve as an instrument of revolutionary terror against the remnants of the bourgeoisie, against whiteguards and so on.

Not to mention cases in which the proletarian state has to retreat, and so on, and so on.

The point is that using any standard other than what the evidence says is a recipe for gross miscarriages of justice.

But is justice, whatever it might be, more important than the victory of the revolution?

blake 3:17

27th March 2013, 22:57

But is justice, whatever it might be, more important than the victory of the revolution?

Yes.

Fourth Internationalist

27th March 2013, 23:24

This is a little embarrassing, um, what exactly is humanism?

Oxford-English Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/humanism?q=humanism)

Definition of humanism
noun

[mass noun]

a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
(often Humanism) a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.
(among some contemporary writers) a system of thought criticized as being centred on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the conditioned nature of the individual.

Why do some Marxists call themselves "Marxist humanist" and why do others vehemently hate them?

Some Marxists believe in humanism, others do not. However, I think everyone is a little humanist, it's just that some are more humanist than others.

What is Marxist Humanism?

Marxist humanism is a form of Marxism that believes that all people have rights. We believe humans are not just disposable robots to be used for a political agenda, whether it be capitalist, fascist, social democracy, or communism.

Why do most revolutionaries dislike humanism in general (I know that sounded a little redundant)?

Many people don't have empathy for anyone and don't care who dies and how as long as it helps their own agenda. In my opinion, I think doing that would be counter-productive, especially in the long-term. If you don't treat other humans like humans, they won't ever consider treating you like a human. This does not mean strict pacifism, this does not mean reformist. It is a way to get people to sympathise with your cause. If a person is killing his or her enemy's friends and family in a fight between two people, who are you more likely to sympathise with? A communist killing innocent people, or a social democrat that is not?

Rurkel

28th March 2013, 00:31

Mere possibility is enough? For fuck's sake. Anyone could "possibly" be a counter-revolutionary, including your fine self. Are you seeing the problem yet?Bourgeois me or proletarian me? Class distinctions, not universal humanity is what makes the revolutionary click.

That's why the rulings of bourgeois courts are suspect if not outright invalid, because it's one law for them and another law for the rest of us, de facto if not de jure.They are valid for the bourgeoisie and are glorified by it, while being hell for proletariat; just like the courts that refuse presumption of innocence to bourgeoisie, will be valid for the proletariat and be glorified by it, while being hell for bourgeoisie. There's no such thing as universal justice, only class one. Behind the benevolent mask of universality always hides the hideous (wow, nice wordplay here! *claps*) face of the bourgeoisie.

Brutal, arbitrary and violent terror against the bourgeoisie = good.
Brutal, arbitrary and violent terror against the proletariat = bad.

That's all to it. Just add water, and your Instant Revolutionary Ramen of Proletarian Terror is done!

Liberal-cryptopacifist-humanist-pseudomarxists had written long philosophical tracts on "ethics and morality", but a true revolutionary disperses with these tracts. For a true revolutionary, the above two simple rules is where it's at. To a true revolutionary, the only use for these pseudo-marxist tracts is to light a fire under a bourgeios counter-revolutionary's home.

Fourth Internationalist

28th March 2013, 00:37

Brutal, arbitrary and violent terror against the bourgeoisie = good.
Brutal, arbitrary and violent terror against the proletariat = bad.

That's all to it. Just add water, and your Instant Revolutionary Ramen of Proletarian Terror is done!

Liberal-cryptopacifist-humanist-pseudomarxists had written long philosophical tracts on "ethics and morality", but a true revolutionary disperses with these tracts. For a true revolutionary, the above two simple rules is where it's at. To a true revolutionary, the only use for these pseudo-marxist tracts is to light a fire under a bourgeios counter-revolutionary's home.

I don't know if you're trolling or not, but there are many leftists who agree with this, so to them I say...

Please don't set my family and friends on fire. Don't terrorise them. Please consider that many socialists love their friends and family that are capitalists and non-socialists.

Rafiq

28th March 2013, 02:35

And you all presume that mass terror, and revolutionary violence is in itself an act of justice, of morals, or revenge? This is why we call you bourgeois liberalists. You cannot concieve a simple truth: These are measures that are necessary to sustain the young dictatorship, they are necessary for the proletariat to purge the remnants of the old superstructure. All drastic social power shifts are horrific in nature to watch, because for us westerners, liberal capitalism has mystified the very violent and terrible mechanisms which sustain the state. The revolution is thus an act of brutal honesty which reveals the true nature of state dictatorship and power, blood and terror. Thus it is not the act of revolution which brings the terror directly, but the act of dismantling the old order which in the process shakes the foundations of our social existence, which unleashes the supressed direct violence. The question then resides not with whether terror should exist, whether it is pleasant or not, but whether you are willing to destroy or oppose the revolution because of the horrors that it requires to sustain it. Are you willing to go to the end (intellectually, i don't expect anyone, not even myself, to engage in direct violence right now or prepare for that psychologically) and identify with the other side of the revolution? The french revolution drew the line between the noble and cowardly members of the bourgeois class, during the rule of the jacobins

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Taters

28th March 2013, 03:32

Bourgeois me or proletarian me? Class distinctions, not universal humanity is what makes the revolutionary click.

They are valid for the bourgeoisie and are glorified by it, while being hell for proletariat; just like the courts that refuse presumption of innocence to bourgeoisie, will be valid for the proletariat and be glorified by it, while being hell for bourgeoisie. There's no such thing as universal justice, only class one. Behind the benevolent mask of universality always hides the hideous (wow, nice wordplay here! *claps*) face of the bourgeoisie.

Brutal, arbitrary and violent terror against the bourgeoisie = good.
Brutal, arbitrary and violent terror against the proletariat = bad.

That's all to it. Just add water, and your Instant Revolutionary Ramen of Proletarian Terror is done!

Liberal-cryptopacifist-humanist-pseudomarxists had written long philosophical tracts on "ethics and morality", but a true revolutionary disperses with these tracts. For a true revolutionary, the above two simple rules is where it's at. To a true revolutionary, the only use for these pseudo-marxist tracts is to light a fire under a bourgeios counter-revolutionary's home.

...Hm, I'm getting a serious "Poe's Law" vibe here.

Rurkel

28th March 2013, 03:45

You cannot concieve a simple truth: These are measures that are necessary to sustain the young dictatorship, they are necessary for the proletariat to purge the remnants of the old superstructure. The ultimate issue is that while the cryptopacifist-bourgeiois-social-democratic-liberal-pseudoleftists affirm the proletarian terror on words, in practice they want the proletarian terror to be done according to the bourgeiois legal norms like "presumption of innocence". Of course, that's self-evidently nonsense. These pseudo-leftists will probably switch to the side of counter-revolution the moment first bunch of class enemies who is likely to be innocent of specific charges receives bullets from proletarian firing squads*. A true revolutionary knows that a class enemy is a class enemy, no matter what. No "presumption of innocence" or other liberal, permissive crap towards the class enemy.

*For anarchists: if that sounds too Stalinist for you, substitute "black-block style killers who suddenly burst on the streets and release bullets towards bourgeois passers-by" for "firing squads".

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th March 2013, 10:29

But this misses the point; protracted processes, even if they are the most just in the world, can not serve as an instrument of revolutionary terror against the remnants of the bourgeoisie, against whiteguards and so on.

So fucking what? If we're really interested in establishing communism, then "revolutionary terror" won't be necessary - for the bourgeoisie and their supporters, the prospect of losing all their wealth and power will be terrifying enough!

Not to mention cases in which the proletarian state has to retreat, and so on, and so on.

You talk as if it's impossible to transport detainees. Hint: it isn't!

But is justice, whatever it might be, more important than the victory of the revolution?

If the victory of the revolution and justice ain't synonymous, then it's no revolution of mine.

Bourgeois me or proletarian me? Class distinctions, not universal humanity is what makes the revolutionary click.

Both, fool! You yourself have admitted the possibility of class treason. That individuals can turn against their own class of origin blows your naive determinism right out of the water.

They are valid for the bourgeoisie and are glorified by it, while being hell for proletariat; just like the courts that refuse presumption of innocence to bourgeoisie, will be valid for the proletariat and be glorified by it, while being hell for bourgeoisie. There's no such thing as universal justice, only class one. Behind the benevolent mask of universality always hides the hideous (wow, nice wordplay here! *claps*) face of the bourgeoisie.

Brutal, arbitrary and violent terror against the bourgeoisie = good.
Brutal, arbitrary and violent terror against the proletariat = bad.

That's all to it. Just add water, and your Instant Revolutionary Ramen of Proletarian Terror is done!

Did you type all that shit one-handed? The fact that you have completely ignored valid points and questions of mine, as well as the high level of relish with which you go refer to administering brutal behaviour, tells me that you aren't interested in revolution for the sake of liberation, but instead you're in it as a politically acceptable cover for the satisfaction of your own sadistic and bloodthirsty lusts.

Liberal-cryptopacifist-humanist-pseudomarxists had written long philosophical tracts on "ethics and morality", but a true revolutionary disperses with these tracts. For a true revolutionary, the above two simple rules is where it's at. To a true revolutionary, the only use for these pseudo-marxist tracts is to light a fire under a bourgeios counter-revolutionary's home.

You are in no position to talk of "true revolutionaries". In fact, that you so frequently use such language further tells me that your blood-lust wouldn't be satisfied with bourgeois targets - no indeed, if there's a proletarian who you want gone for whatever reason, I suspect you would be the kind of "revolutionary" who would be just as happy to find the flimsiest of pretences to condemn them as a traitor.

And you all presume that mass terror, and revolutionary violence is in itself an act of justice, of morals, or revenge? This is why we call you bourgeois liberalists. You cannot concieve a simple truth: These are measures that are necessary to sustain the young dictatorship, they are necessary for the proletariat to purge the remnants of the old superstructure.

Bullshit. That is achieved by dismantling bourgeois institutions, abolishing wage-slavery, and re-orienting production to the communist mode.

All drastic social power shifts are horrific in nature to watch, because for us westerners, liberal capitalism has mystified the very violent and terrible mechanisms which sustain the state. The revolution is thus an act of brutal honesty which reveals the true nature of state dictatorship and power, blood and terror.

I already know state dictatorship is a horrifying thing to behold. If things get to the point of a revolution, then the large numbers of communists and politically conscious proletarians will also know it for themselves - indeed, many of them would have likely experienced it directly from the bourgeois state!

They won't need authoritarian sadists on their own side to make it clear for them.

Hit The North

28th March 2013, 12:27

As others have pointed out, Marxist-humanism seeks to preserve the insights of Marx's earlier work and integrate them into his later scientific work. It in no way commits Marxist-humanists to pacifism on the basis that all human life is sacred (that is Liberal-humanism), not does it mean they would shy away from the necessity of revolutionary violence - especially, as Marx and Engels point out, that the emancipation of the proletariat is the necessary condition for the emancipation of all humanity. I think it's important to note the transformative nature of Marxism, the manner in which it develops new understandings of older paradigms. This is as true of bourgeois humanism as it is of bourgeois political economy.

So, as someone who might occasionally refer to himself as a Marxist-humanist for tactical reasons, I have no problem with Rafiq's argument above about the role of violence in the class struggle, because I understand that the conditions for a secure and humane development of humanity depends upon the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist mode of production.

My own intellectual journey began with humanism as a rejection of religious dogma, and out of that I became a socialist viewing it as the only rational way of increasing human potential and happiness. Later, I became a Marxist seeing it as a scientific understanding of socialism, emphasising revolutionary class struggle. But embracing Marxism deepened my earlier humanism, it didn't negate it.

EDIT: In fact, Marxism is the most realistic and, therefore, most practical humanism because it shows how a truly human society can be won through transforming the mode of production and it does not depend on any bourgeois morality or ideological mystifications to make its case.

Rurkel

28th March 2013, 14:47

Both, fool! You yourself have admitted the possibility of class treason. That individuals can turn against their own class of origin blows your naive determinism right out of the water.
No; "presumption of guilt" means that we welcome a member of the bourgeoisie if he can prove his class treason to us. But he needs to prove it with his actions, just exclaiming "I'm for revolution" doesn't count. You're a bourgeois class traitor? Participate in the revolution with us. Engage in brutal terror against your former class. You refuse to? Then the only thing we have for you is a bullet.

*Strokes his fluffy purry cat, named Terror*. The revolution will destroy the bourgeoisie as a class, just like Terror destroys sparrows and mice! Who's the cutest Terror in the world? Oh yes, yes, you are!

Um, yeah, so where was I?

I understand that the conditions for a secure and humane development of humanity depends upon the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist mode of production.Will you support brutal, violent, excessive (how can it be a proper terror if it's not excessive? even if you disagree with me here, a proper revolutionary never condemns excesses, though he very well may not approve of them) and arbitrary actions against the bourgeoisie, mass shootings of bourgeoisie in order to terrify the class enemies, mass graves full of rotting bourgeois bodies? Will you stay steadfast, when the bourgeoisie cries "right to trial" and "human rights abuses"? Or will you condemn any violation of bourgeiois-humanist legalistic norms, placing you on the side of the counter-revolution?

And terror needs to be arbitrary. The Damocles' sword should hang over every bourgeios' head. "We will repress your bourgeiois ass only if you do such-and-such action" is not revolutionary, but liberal-humanist. "We may repress you at any moment for whatever reason" - now, that will really terrify the bourgeoisie!..

Oops, I need to clean up after Terror, so see you later, guys.

Hit The North

28th March 2013, 18:18

Will you support brutal, violent, excessive (how can it be a proper terror if it's not excessive? even if you disagree with me here, a proper revolutionary never condemns excesses, though he very well may not approve of them) and arbitrary actions against the bourgeoisie, mass shootings of bourgeoisie in order to terrify the class enemies, mass graves full of rotting bourgeois bodies? Will you stay steadfast, when the bourgeoisie cries "right to trial" and "human rights abuses"? Or will you condemn any violation of bourgeiois-humanist legalistic norms, placing you on the side of the counter-revolution?

And terror needs to be arbitrary. The Damocles' sword should hang over every bourgeios' head. "We will repress your bourgeiois ass only if you do such-and-such action" is not revolutionary, but liberal-humanist. "We may repress you at any moment for whatever reason" - now, that will really terrify the bourgeoisie!..

If the terror is arbitrary, what is the point of it? And no, I don't subscribe to your adolescent vision of revolutionary terror.

conmharÃ¡in

28th March 2013, 18:26

The question of humanism is not one of who lives and who dies. In declawing revolution, humanism becomes a question of who decides who lives and dies, and the answer ends up being the bourgeoisie.

Rurkel

28th March 2013, 18:39

If the terror is arbitrary, what is the point of it? Damocles' sword over the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois heads. Arbitrary in its calculatedness and pragmatism, pragmatic and calculated in its arbitrariness. Killing all bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie would just waste time and, per se, is useless in emancipating the working class (that's why Pol Pot was wrong, not because "he killed many people"), but randomly killing some members of said classes really drives home the break with bourgeois humanism, striking terror and fear in the remaining bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie 's hearts, just like Terror attacking sparrows on the pavement drives fear into these sparrows' hearts, even if only one arbitrarily random sparrow ends up in Terror's claws. Only a humanist, only someone who assigns an inherent value to bourgeois and petty-bourgeois lives, would object to it.

If some member of the bourgeoisie wishes to betray his class and serve the revolution, he's welcome to join the killing.

Orange Juche

28th March 2013, 18:52

It's not vengeance, it's revolutionary pragmatism and revolutionary justice.

Vengeance and justice are two entirely different things.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th March 2013, 19:56

No; "presumption of guilt" means that we welcome a member of the bourgeoisie if he can prove his class treason to us. But he needs to prove it with his actions, just exclaiming "I'm for revolution" doesn't count. You're a bourgeois class traitor? Participate in the revolution with us. Engage in brutal terror against your former class. You refuse to? Then the only thing we have for you is a bullet.

When you've quite finished, perhaps you could explain why this fetishisation of violence is actually necessary. The bourgeoisie will for the most part actively resist any transition to a communist mode of production, but that is to be expected and it is entirely reasonable for communists to utilise violence dispassionately as a tool in order to defeat counter-revolutionaries and seize the necessary resources to achieve our goals.

But beyond that?

conmharÃ¡in

28th March 2013, 20:06

When you've quite finished, perhaps you could explain why this fetishisation of violence is actually necessary. The bourgeoisie will for the most part actively resist any transition to a communist mode of production, but that is to be expected and it is entirely reasonable for communists to utilise violence dispassionately as a tool in order to defeat counter-revolutionaries and seize the necessary resources to achieve our goals.

But beyond that?

The bourgeoisie and its sympathizers will likely class any and all actions against private property and counter-revolution as terroristic. As such, I find some of my comrades are a bit blood-thirsty in their conception of revolution. I've no doubt there will be blood, but what will execution accomplish that disfranchisement and expropriation won't? Beyond that, a good socialist will consider things like health care, education, employment, food, shelter, clothing, media, socialist democracy, women, the queer community, etc.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

28th March 2013, 21:02

So fucking what? If we're really interested in establishing communism, then "revolutionary terror" won't be necessary - for the bourgeoisie and their supporters, the prospect of losing all their wealth and power will be terrifying enough!

And that prospect drives the remnants of the exploiting classes and groups to oppose the revolution through overt rebellion or through sabotage. It drives them to decisive action. Revolutionary terror, on the other hand, aims to break their will to resist, to instil a paralysing fear of the proletarian authorities in them.

Can this terror remain in the bounds of some notion of justice? It seems to me that it can not, since justice usually entails some notion of proportionality, whereas revolutionary terror needs to be swift, brutal, and most importantly overpowering.

You talk as if it's impossible to transport detainees. Hint: it isn't!

In some situations it might not be; for example, in Ekaterinburg surrounded by the Czech legions; in other situations it might be detrimental to the protection of the revolution.

Rurkel

28th March 2013, 21:22

Even if you think that it wasn't necessary for your proletarian comrade Killthemallov to kill 1000 random members of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes in Zamukhransk, you should never condemn comrade Killthemallov for "killing people". You just stay neutral on his actions and refuse to join the counter-revolution, in denouncing him for the "Zamukhransk atrocity". This is not fetishization of violence, since a fetishizer would always approve of violence, but a true revolutionary always has the option to disapprove of wasted time and bullets and thus, stay neutral. In fact, I'm sure that most revolutionary leaders will understand that and refuse to either praise or punish comrade Killthemallov, telling him that he might consider killing only half of that number next time. See? See how I refuse to fetishize anything? See how reasonable, how scientific, how gloriously analytic I am being? See how my pronouncements on the matter reflect the most scientific strands of Marxism?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th March 2013, 21:47

And that prospect drives the remnants of the exploiting classes and groups to oppose the revolution through overt rebellion or through sabotage. It drives them to decisive action.

Rebellion and sabotage are inherently and openly aggressive acts which when directed against revolutionaries serve to unmistakeably impede their goals. I think that's more than enough of a basis to act swiftly against the bourgeoisie in such circumstances, meeting force with force. But there will be lulls in the fighting, or at the very least an end to it at some point, and if there are any bourgeoisie left in such circumstances then something will need to be done, and I propose a measured response which will further cement the legitimacy of the revolution by fully and properly exposing the crimes of the old order.

Revolutionary terror, on the other hand, aims to break their will to resist, to instil a paralysing fear of the proletarian authorities in them.

Can this terror remain in the bounds of some notion of justice? It seems to me that it can not, since justice usually entails some notion of proportionality, whereas revolutionary terror needs to be swift, brutal, and most importantly overpowering.

Problem is, the bourgeoisie use terror themselves, and yet you don't seem to think that such attempts to break the will of the proletariat will present an insurmountable obstacle to the completion of the revolution. What makes you think the bourgeoisie and their supporters will react any differently?

In some situations it might not be; for example, in Ekaterinburg surrounded by the Czech legions; in other situations it might be detrimental to the protection of the revolution.

I can appreciate that on occasion there may be circumstances in which the choice is execution or the unacceptable risk of high-value detainees being recovered by enemy forces, but in the case of Ekaterinburg in particular, what was the utility in executing the cook? The valet?

Also, the execution itself looks like it was horribly botched and we should try to avoid that sort of thing, for our own sakes if nothing else.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

28th March 2013, 22:02

Rebellion and sabotage are inherently and openly aggressive acts which when directed against revolutionaries serve to unmistakeably impede their goals. I think that's more than enough of a basis to act swiftly against the bourgeoisie in such circumstances, meeting force with force. But there will be lulls in the fighting, or at the very least an end to it at some point, and if there are any bourgeoisie left in such circumstances then something will need to be done, and I propose a measured response which will further cement the legitimacy of the revolution by fully and properly exposing the crimes of the old order.

It seems rather unlikely that there would be lulls in the struggle until the remnants of the bourgeoisie and their lackeys are destroyed. Even if such a lull were to occur, however, our primary task would be to use it to prepare ourselves for the next period of intense struggle; to strengthen the fighting detachments of the proletariat, to intensify expropriation, to designate hostages and so on. What would trials accomplish in such a situation?

Problem is, the bourgeoisie use terror themselves, and yet you don't seem to think that such attempts to break the will of the proletariat will present an insurmountable obstacle to the completion of the revolution. What makes you think the bourgeoisie and their supporters will react any differently?

Because they are the broken remnants of the former ruling class; they have lost state power and the material conditions of production no longer favour their retention. They are an atavism; whereas the proletariat has seized state power and is consciously struggling to destroy its outnumbered enemies.

I can appreciate that on occasion there may be circumstances in which the choice is execution or the unacceptable risk of high-value detainees being recovered by enemy forces, but in the case of Ekaterinburg in particular, what was the utility in executing the cook? The valet?

You'd have to ask comrade Beloborodov and the Ural Extraordinary Commission, but my impression was always that the shootings were organised in a hurry and without any attention to detail. Anyway, what sense does it make for us to condemn the shooting of the cook or the valet?

Also, the execution itself looks like it was horribly botched and we should try to avoid that sort of thing, for our own sakes if nothing else.

I'm afraid I don't follow.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th March 2013, 22:38

It seems rather unlikely that there would be lulls in the struggle until the remnants of the bourgeoisie and their lackeys are destroyed. Even if such a lull were to occur, however, our primary task would be to use it to prepare ourselves for the next period of intense struggle; to strengthen the fighting detachments of the proletariat, to intensify expropriation, to designate hostages and so on. What would trials accomplish in such a situation?

The achievement of some small measure of revolutionary justice, with the prospect of more to come. Should revolutionary forces come to take custody of an especially infamous member of the bourgeoisie, gathering the evidence necessary for a guilty verdict should not be at all challenging.

This should at the very least be done upon the cessation of open hostilies, when resources and opportunities will be greater.

Because they are the broken remnants of the former ruling class; they have lost state power and the material conditions of production no longer favour their retention. They are an atavism; whereas the proletariat has seized state power and is consciously struggling to destroy its outnumbered enemies.

If the enemy really is "broken" and "outnumbered", then terror will not be necessary since in such circumstances we will be able to use main force to achieve our goals. Such an adversary will not be able to prevent the seizure and re-organisation of production that is (or at least should be) one of our primary goals.

You'd have to ask comrade Beloborodov and the Ural Extraordinary Commission, but my impression was always that the shootings were organised in a hurry and without any attention to detail. Anyway, what sense does it make for us to condemn the shooting of the cook or the valet?

In the grand scheme of things the lives of individuals are usually trivial. The Romanovs were an exception due to their being potential rallying figures for monarchists, but who's going to rally around a servant? It would certainly be out of character for the bourgeoisie.

I'm afraid I don't follow.

If we're going to be doing a lot of executions then it behooves us to consider the psychological and social implications. I think it's safe to say that for most people, watching someone die slowly in agonising pain, even a hated enemy, is inherently brutalising on some level for the observer. Thus I believe that messy and botched executions are to be avoided, and execution methods as swift and as painless as is practical.

Certainly I have no desire to observe or participate in the degradation and destruction of human life beyond what is absolutely necessary.

Rurkel

28th March 2013, 23:45

Certainly I have no desire to observe or participate in the degradation and destruction of human life beyond what is absolutely necessary. Laying off the proletarian terror ramen for a while, I'd say that this is the difference between you and your opponents; you think that human life has an intristic value and only absolute necessity makes the destruction it acceptable, whereas your opponents insist that human life as such has no value, making pointless destruction of it that doesn't harm any wider goals merely unnecessary, rather then "bad".

Turinbaar

31st March 2013, 05:08

I wrote an essay a while ago that addressed the subject of Humanism, and the rivaling definitions of the term, as manifest in the works of philosophers and artists, including Da Vinci and Marx.

http://www.revleft.org/vb/blog.php?b=6580

Broadly speaking, the division is between a religious and a scientific worldview; one holding that humanity's divine origin begets divine value and potential, while the other see's humanity as the product of nature, and measurable in natural terms, and possessing to that degree a universal potential.

In his 1844 Economic and Philosophic manuscripts, Marx defines Communism as follows:

communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.

Jimmie Higgins

31st March 2013, 10:36

It seems rather unlikely that there would be lulls in the struggle until the remnants of the bourgeoisie and their lackeys are destroyed. Even if such a lull were to occur, however, our primary task would be to use it to prepare ourselves for the next period of intense struggle; to strengthen the fighting detachments of the proletariat, to intensify expropriation, to designate hostages and so on. What would trials accomplish in such a situation?

If fascist/white/old ruling class sympathisers are shot on the spot by worker militias like the Bolsheviks or CNT did in times of battle, there's really no delema unless this was carried out to such an extent that it began to cause divisions or mistrust between the fighting and non-fighting (I mean militias, not general fighting) revolutionary forces.

But assuming that it's not a battle field and it's a case of a lone sabotour or whatnot, what would be the role of "justice"? On a basic level it would be to isolate a potentially (and concretely) threatening induvidual or anti-revolutionary cell. Beyond that it would be to help establish the new working class hegeomy and rulership over the recently completed or ongoing liberation. As such in cases where worker's power was established by and large, then "trials" of some sort or some other accountable and democratic method for figuring out these issues would be essential IMO. THEN those democratic mechanisms would have to determine the other considerations our "revolutionary terror" proponents have discussed: do workers feel the need to use ultimate means of capital punishement to establish their new democratic authority and make an unequivocal warning to all other would-be sabatours and anti-revolution terrorists, etc?

Revolutionary terror on principle to me is as wrongheaded as pacifism on principle. The conditions of the revolution by and large will determine how workers deal with threats like this. If their hegemony is strong, little repression will be needed since worker's power is not in dispute and there would be no reason to use a punishment as a show of class force. If the revolution is going badly and worker-controlled cities are surrounded by fascist forces and plagued with sabatage within, then workers are likely going to have to use all means available to supress and intimidate internal counter-revolutionaries.

black magick hustla

31st March 2013, 12:05

the very choice of whether to revolt or not has a very large ethical dimension. i'm really annoyed by people who think human beings are calculating machines that kinda just have a mental algorithm to know exactly what is in their interest or not...

TheEmancipator

31st March 2013, 14:21

why do others vehemently hate them?

Because we are seen as bourgeois idealists/romanticists even though the basis of Marxist philosophy is Left-Hegelian humanism. Just to answer that question. Obviously a lot of people disown Marx's early works as a Hegelian and Hegel himself isn't all too popular as I quickly found out when I joined the forum. But I think this is down to personal interest in proletarian classes, who see their dictatorship as an end rather than a means.

Hit The North

31st March 2013, 16:02

Because we are seen as bourgeois idealists/romanticists even though the basis of Marxist philosophy is Left-Hegelian humanism. Just to answer that question. Obviously a lot of people disown Marx's early works as a Hegelian and Hegel himself isn't all too popular as I quickly found out when I joined the forum. But I think this is down to personal interest in proletarian classes, who see their dictatorship as an end rather than a means.

I think it is worth noting that Marx's early works are not Hegelian. The Critique of Hegel's Doctrine of the State (1843) begins with a demolition of Hegel's dialectical logic and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1944) end with a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy in General (http://www.revleft.com/vb/Critique of Hegelâ€™s Philosophy in General) where he argues that Feuerbach had already demolished the Hegelian system. So, more accurately, these manuscripts can best be described as Feuerbachian in influence. By 1945, we have the Theses on Feuerbach where Marx moves beyond Feuerbach.

Turinbaar

31st March 2013, 17:30

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

31st March 2013, 20:26

Apologies for replying late.

The achievement of some small measure of revolutionary justice, with the prospect of more to come. Should revolutionary forces come to take custody of an especially infamous member of the bourgeoisie, gathering the evidence necessary for a guilty verdict should not be at all challenging.

This should at the very least be done upon the cessation of open hostilies, when resources and opportunities will be greater.

Still, the resources might be better spent elsewhere. I am not opposed to "justice", in general, though the term is rather vague and could mean just about anything, but it might be the case that in some periods, we cannot afford justice. In these periods, the preservation of the revolution should be the ultimate concern.

Actually, it might be the case that we can not afford justice, according to certain conceptions, even in peacetime. Do we not aim, for example, to smash patriarchy? I do not think we will be as successful if we limit ourselves to what is just. A resolute effort to extirpate patriarchy might step over a lot of male toes, perhaps even "innocent" ones. Likewise with national oppression and so on.

If the enemy really is "broken" and "outnumbered", then terror will not be necessary since in such circumstances we will be able to use main force to achieve our goals. Such an adversary will not be able to prevent the seizure and re-organisation of production that is (or at least should be) one of our primary goals.

Sometimes, even decrepit buildings have to be nudged in order to fall over. Unless bourgeois terror is met with resolute proletarian terror, the bourgeoisie will regroup and, while they might not destroy the dictatorship of the proletariat, they can inflict significant losses on it, both in terms of the population killed and economic units destroyed. A prolonged campaign by the former bourgeoisie also carries an increased risk of intervention by the imperialist powers.

In the grand scheme of things the lives of individuals are usually trivial. The Romanovs were an exception due to their being potential rallying figures for monarchists, but who's going to rally around a servant? It would certainly be out of character for the bourgeoisie.

I didn't say the death of the valet etc. was necessary. Far from it; it seems pointless to me. But should we really condemn the Ural authorities for acting resolutely in face of imminent danger?

If we're going to be doing a lot of executions then it behooves us to consider the psychological and social implications. I think it's safe to say that for most people, watching someone die slowly in agonising pain, even a hated enemy, is inherently brutalising on some level for the observer. Thus I believe that messy and botched executions are to be avoided, and execution methods as swift and as painless as is practical.

Fair enough; I certainly do not advocate anything protracted or purposefully painful. Even so, it should be noted that the civil war brutalises people, combatants and noncombatants alike, on its own. This is part of the reason why it should be ended as soon as possible, and this is possible, it seems to me, only through swift and concentrated application of overwhelming force, and that includes proletarian terror.

But assuming that it's not a battle field and it's a case of a lone sabotour or whatnot, what would be the role of "justice"? On a basic level it would be to isolate a potentially (and concretely) threatening induvidual or anti-revolutionary cell. Beyond that it would be to help establish the new working class hegeomy and rulership over the recently completed or ongoing liberation. As such in cases where worker's power was established by and large, then "trials" of some sort or some other accountable and democratic method for figuring out these issues would be essential IMO. THEN those democratic mechanisms would have to determine the other considerations our "revolutionary terror" proponents have discussed: do workers feel the need to use ultimate means of capital punishement to establish their new democratic authority and make an unequivocal warning to all other would-be sabatours and anti-revolution terrorists, etc?

Revolutionary terror on principle to me is as wrongheaded as pacifism on principle. The conditions of the revolution by and large will determine how workers deal with threats like this. If their hegemony is strong, little repression will be needed since worker's power is not in dispute and there would be no reason to use a punishment as a show of class force. If the revolution is going badly and worker-controlled cities are surrounded by fascist forces and plagued with sabatage within, then workers are likely going to have to use all means available to supress and intimidate internal counter-revolutionaries.

I don't think anyone has claimed that terror should be forced upon the proletariat (by whom?). But the necessity of terror in the course of the revolution should be insisted on by socialist propaganda; against bourgeois moralising. This, I think, is a fair description of the "pro-terror" faction.

Likewise, bourgeois justice is not something that needs to be accepted uncritically; it should be subjected to extreme scrutiny and those parts that are opposed to all-round hegemony of the proletariat or the uncompromising destruction of patriarchal or racist oppression, need to go.

TheEmancipator

31st March 2013, 20:49

I think it is worth noting that Marx's early works are not Hegelian. The Critique of Hegel's Doctrine of the State (1843) begins with a demolition of Hegel's dialectical logic and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1944) end with a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy in General (http://www.revleft.com/vb/Critique of Hegelâ€™s Philosophy in General) where he argues that Feuerbach had already demolished the Hegelian system. So, more accurately, these manuscripts can best be described as Feuerbachian in influence. By 1945, we have the Theses on Feuerbach where Marx moves beyond Feuerbach.

I presume you mean 1844 and 1845, otherwise those are quite late works of Marx's :grin:.

And yet he is still by and large considered a Left Hegelian and strongly influenced by Hegel. The fact that he analysed and criticised Hegel's works suggests to me he took the man seriously, unlike contempories like Nietzsche who just ignored Hegel. And unlike Kiekergaard he did not radically oppose Hegel's entire notion of dialectical thought. Or the Absolute (which Marx called communism;)1).

Certainly during his pre-Manifesto and pre-Kapital days Marx was a Left Hegelian like many others, and its worth noting the Left Hegelian were major critics of Hegel most of the time compared to the Old Hegelian. I myself, who would call himself a Left Hegelian more than a Marxist-Humanist, am no great fan of some of Hegel's works and thinks he gets it horribly wrong on some occasions. Doesn't mean to say you should not take him seriously, which is what some people on here criminally do.

Hit The North

31st March 2013, 21:07

I presume you mean 1844 and 1845, otherwise those are quite late works of Marx's :grin:.

Just testin' :blushing: :grin:

And yet he is still by and large considered a Left Hegelian and strongly influenced by Hegel.

By whom?

The fact that he analysed and criticised Hegel's works suggests to me he took the man seriously, unlike contempories like Nietzsche who just ignored Hegel. And unlike Kiekergaard he did not radically oppose Hegel's entire notion of dialectical thought. Or the Absolute (which Marx called communism;)1).

Sure, there's no doubt that he took Hegel seriously, but one can do that without being either a left or right Hegelian.

Certainly during his pre-Manifesto and pre-Kapital days Marx was a Left Hegelian like many others, and its worth noting the Left Hegelian were major critics of Hegel most of the time compared to the Old Hegelian.

I disagree. The German Ideology (1845/6) is a critical disavowal of Left Hegelianism and not from within their paradigm but from the point of view of Marx's working out of historical materialism.

TheEmancipator

31st March 2013, 21:26

By whom?

Wikipedia, no less, as well as many admirers and critics of Marx. I thought it was common knowledge that the young Karl Marx was a subversive Left Hegelian which lead him to the path of his own dialectical materialist thought in his latter years.

Sure, there's no doubt that he took Hegel seriously, but one can do that without being either a left or right Hegelian.

Never said the contrary. However those who were heavily influenced by Hegel's work, particularly the Germans, are usually labelled as Hegelians. Not my convention.

I disagree. The German Ideology (1845/6) is a critical disavowal of Left Hegelianism and not from within their paradigm but from the point of view of Marx's working out of historical materialism.

It is a criticism of the other Left Hegelians, which is natural. Again, to not criticise a tendency is to not take it seriously. Marx is being ruthlessly critical yet his very early works suggest to me he was a left hegelian. Of course he changed his views, but lest we forget he was a bourgeois romanticist at first. And to go back to topic I think his humanism is more proof of the heavy influence the Left Hegelians had on him.

Hit The North

31st March 2013, 22:39

Wikipedia, no less, as well as many admirers and critics of Marx. I thought it was common knowledge that the young Karl Marx was a subversive Left Hegelian which lead him to the path of his own dialectical materialist thought in his latter years.

Both Marx and Engels were in the orbit of the Young Hegelians for a short time but that is not the point. The point is that any significant early works, especially those from 1843 onward which are counterposed as Hegelian or idealist to the more scientific post CM works by the critics of Marxist-humanism are not, in fact, either idealist or Hegelian, whether left, right, young or old.

You seem to be acquiescing to the anti-humanist Marxist argument that there is an epistemological break. I think this is untenable if you actually read the work (rather than Wikipedia).

Jimmie Higgins

1st April 2013, 10:21

I don't think anyone has claimed that terror should be forced upon the proletariat (by whom?).Hmm, I wasn't arguing about that, but how the worker's movement in a revolution should handle situations of counter-revolutionary cells or induvidual sabatures/terrorists.

But the necessity of terror in the course of the revolution should be insisted on by socialist propaganda; against bourgeois moralising. This, I think, is a fair description of the "pro-terror" faction.My criticism is that this makes an absolute out of something that's conditional. What is the use of class terror for workers, that's what I was trying to outline: to deal with concrete threats in a situation where there is a generalized anti-revolutionary threat to the newly established worker's power. So if there is not an overt conflict and worker's councils or similar bodies have strong support, but there are a few random cases of lone sabatours, I think "terror" has no use - get rid of the immidiate danger with ad-hoc democratic methods: people elect a comitte or a judge through the councils to deal with this one case. If there is a civil war, then it's a matter of battlefield necissity and militias will have to figure out what to do based on however they are organized to settle such questions about what to do with prisoners or whatnot. In this example, more likely than not there will be cases where worker militias just shoot a fascist on the spot because otherwise they go back to shooting workers as soon as they are relseased. In dealing with internal threats in places where workers are otherwise fully in control, then "terror" could only be justified as useful if there is a generalized underground resistance to worker's power - fascist or KKK-type groups trying to bomb cooperative factories, disrupt worker's supply and distribution networks and so on. If there are just random episodes that don't really add up to a sustained threat to worker's power, then I think a democratic method for dealing with "lone-wolf" reactionaries would be better at establishing and reinforcing working class hegemony over society than terror which is not hegemony but "might makes right" i.e. direct repression rather than the "naturalization" of working class rule over the society.

Likewise, bourgeois justice is not something that needs to be accepted uncritically; it should be subjected to extreme scrutiny and those parts that are opposed to all-round hegemony of the proletariat or the uncompromising destruction of patriarchal or racist oppression, need to go.Well the contemporary courts should just be done away with altogether. I think workers will have to devise new methods through whatever democratic bodies they organize their power through.

"Revolutionary terror" just means we have force in society and will use it. At points in revolutions this is necissary to establish - but it's based on conditions of the revolution, not some requirement. If there is no question of if workers are in power, then "revolutionary terror" is redundant and not an effective way to bolster hegemony, I think some sort of "trial" would be because it would be an expression of the new "monopoly on violence" held by the democratic institutions and networks of the working class.