[1989] [Video] Rebellion in Ceauşescu's rally

[RedWorker]

In the last days of Ceauşescu's regime, a rally of 100,000 people was held with desperation. Workers was forced to attend, threatened with being fired otherwise. But only the front line was reacting positively. In a little while, there started to be negative reactions from within really. Some days later, Ceauşescu was no more.

wWIbCtz_Xwk

2nd part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv7-LVFgd8U

Here's a transcript of Ceauşescu's trial: http://www.securitate.org/trial.htm

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Ugh. This prick deserved every fucking bullet that went into his murdering carcass. The firing squad was too good for him.

[RedWorker]

Ugh. This prick deserved every fucking bullet that went into his murdering carcass. The firing squad was too good for him.

Why so? He was already deposed, what's the point of ending his life? The trial was a mere show.

[Sasha]

User Devrim was there at the time if I remember correctly so if your looking for a first hand account of the day...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ugh. This prick deserved every fucking bullet that went into his murdering carcass. The firing squad was too good for him.

Yes, it's a good thing Ceausescu was overthrown by a junta of generals, who proceeded to privatise the entire economy. I'm sure the average Romanian is overjoyed at this.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That must have been an abrupt change from all the workers control they had been used to up until that point.

I always enjoy that clip, it's very ominous.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That must have been an abrupt change from all the workers control they had been used to up until that point.

That's not the point. I ran out of cereal this morning, so let's not discuss the deformed workers' state analysis. It doesn't matter. Assume that Romania was capitalist under Ceausescu. Then what you have is one bourgeois faction overthrowing another, with significant loss of life, and the material conditions of the workers deteriorating significantly (yes, even from the low levels in Ceausescu-era Romania). In fact it would be the same as Pinochet's coup, and while I have seen quite a few people here with an unhealthy attachment to Allende, I have to admit I haven't seen one of them, not even the most hardcore "whatever Mao did we support" Maoists, support Pinochet. But Iliescu and his colleagues? Well, then it's all for FREEDOME! and DEMOCRACY!

[Lord Testicles]

Nobody in this thread has expressed support for Ion Iliescu...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The material conditions of workers changed as a result of the neoliberal era as well. Should I pine for the 'good old days' of the new deal? Aren't you the one constantly calling everyone else social democrats and mensheviks? One armed gang replaced another. You are of course free to pretend otherwise.

[Sharia Lawn]

The Spart line at the time and now is that Ceauşescu and his securitate forces deserved military defense and support from revolutionaries. The line is so ludicrous that even the SL, which is not shy about taking controversial stands, refrained from publicly pronouncing it in their press. It is nice to see that 870 is finally owning the issue now, however late it may be.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

User Devrim was there at the time if I remember correctly so if your looking for a first hand account of the day...

Do you know if he ever posted anything about it? I would be interested in reading about it. I had never read the transcript until just now. Delusional right until the end, bad way to go yikes.

[Sasha]

Do you know if he ever posted anything about it? I would be interested in reading about it. I had never read the transcript until just now. Delusional right until the end, bad way to go yikes.


he did but he missed most of it, he just kind of wandered in on it and by the time the shit was hitting the fan he was in a bar getting drunk; http://www.revleft.com/vb/rip-nicolae-ceau-t177288/index.html
if the chitchat awards had a category "user most suitable to have a tragicomic art house movie made of their life" he should win hands down, think he met Che too.

[Tim Cornelis]

Nobody in this thread has expressed support for Ion Iliescu...

I can't help but comment that this is part of 870s tendency toward intellectual dishonesty.

If you like tyrannicide it obviously in no way means anything other than that you like seeing tyrants perish. In no way does it in and of itself mean you support the political consequences. In the same way that I would enjoy seeing Assad hung or executed, without support for Islamist rebels. Similarly, if someone posts a picture of a lynched Mussolini it in no way means they support the Christian democratic regime that followed. But now that 870 has political ('military') affinity with the cruel Romanian regime, such dishonest comments serve his position.

(and of course, the comparison with Pinochet is a false equivalence since it moved from a democracy to a dictatorship, whereas in this instance it was the opposite).

Incidentally, the economy was already 'privatised' in that it was dominated by ownership by the state, which labourers confronted as alien property.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The Spart line at the time and now is that Ceauşescu and his securitate forces deserved military defense and support from revolutionaries. The line is so ludicrous that even the SL, which is not shy about taking controversial stands, refrained from publicly pronouncing it in their press. It is nice to see that 870 is finally owning the issue now, however late it may be.

That would have depended on the actual disposition of forces on the ground - e.g. the ICL did not back the August coup as it was obvious at that point that not even the coup leaders believed in it. But in any case, this isn't about the military defence of deformed workers' states. As I said, let us suppose that SR Romania had been capitalist. We are still left with a significant difference in how people treat the overthrow of Ceausescu and co. and how people treat the overthrow of Allende or Sankara.

Now, Skinz claims that:


Nobody in this thread has expressed support for Ion Iliescu...

And while no one has done so by name, Brandon's post was effectively an endorsement of the overthrow. (Of course, I imagine Ceausescu wouldn't have fared better in front of a revolutionary tribunal. But neither would Allende or Sankara.) I could also find quite a few posts where people describe the events of 1989-92 as "revolutions", with all that entails.

So to sum up, I wasn't even talking about the deformed workers' state, the planned economy and so on; rather, I was talking about the unhealthy attachment to liberal democracy that many RL members have (many, but not all: Ethics Gradient, for example, the old bastard, is consistent in his view of Sankara and Ceausescu, and I would imagine Allende as well).


The material conditions of workers changed as a result of the neoliberal era as well. Should I pine for the 'good old days' of the new deal? Aren't you the one constantly calling everyone else social democrats and mensheviks? One armed gang replaced another. You are of course free to pretend otherwise.

No, I said, let us assume that one armed gang did replace another. Why show such enthusiasm toward the gang that upheld liberal democracy, then? (Just as an exercise, imagine if someone had said that a bullet was too good for Allende? Although he would technically be right, but given the context it would have been obvious mealy-mouthed support for Pinochet.) As for the "neoliberal era" (which I don't think is a well-defined term at all), keep in mind the transition from more to less regulated capitalism did not mean an economic collapse, like what happened in the former Eastern Bloc. Of course, Trotskyists don't say states like Romania were DWS because the workers were better off. (I was just pointing out the material cost of the glorious transition to democracy for the workers, which would remain even if it was a case of capitalism in one form replacing capitalism in another form.)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What "enthusiasm" have I shown towards anyone? The first person to bring up the liberals that replaced this shithead was you, surprise surprise. You can't even hold out for an entire thread page before you start making shit up. Where is your sock puppet account that was trying to debate me about this yesterday lol

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What "enthusiasm" have I shown towards anyone? The first person to bring up the liberals that replaced this shithead was you, suprise suprise. You can't even hold out for an entire thread page before you start making shit up. Where is your sock puppet account that was trying to debate me yesterday lol

Whereas what I actually said was:

"I was talking about the unhealthy attachment to liberal democracy that many RL members have (many, but not all: Ethics Gradient, for example, the old bastard, is consistent in his view of Sankara and Ceausescu, and I would imagine Allende as well)."

As for the last statement, I think you're seeing things.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No, I said, let us assume that one armed gang did replace another. Why show such enthusiasm toward the gang that upheld liberal democracy, then?

This is you suggesting that I was showing enthusiasm for something and then using that as a jumping point for an argument, in spite of none of it, you know, happening.
This is you being disingenuous, for future reference.

[Sharia Lawn]

That would have depended on the actual disposition of forces on the ground - e.g. the ICL did not back the August coup as it was obvious at that point that not even the coup leaders believed in it. But in any case, this isn't about the military defence of deformed workers' states. As I said, let us suppose that SR Romania had been capitalist. We are still left with a significant difference in how people treat the overthrow of Ceausescu and co. and how people treat the overthrow of Allende or Sankara. The issue really is the military defence of what you call the deformed workers' states. The movement in Romania was similar in its politics to those that developed in Poland in the 1980s. The SL derided it as an attempt by the Polish workers to extract from the bureaucracy the world's largest free lunch. They also called it bourgeois in essence. That is the reason they supported the crackdown on Solidarnosc, why they support a crackdown on the Umbrella movement in Hong Kong. If they had been consistent, they would have advocated the same against the Romanian masses. They were just too afraid to show up their terrible political line by jumping onto the side of what was clearly one of the most anti-worker states in Eastern Europe, and that's saying quite a lot.

[DOOM]

Yes, it's a good thing Ceausescu was overthrown by a junta of generals, who proceeded to privatise the entire economy. I'm sure the average Romanian is overjoyed at this.

Ah labour idolatry. I guess labour and economic security are the only relevant factors for measuring quality of life.
At least they had healthcare, right?

[Lord Testicles]

And while no one has done so by name, Brandon's post was effectively an endorsement of the overthrow.

As Tim points out in the above post, you can support an overthrow without necessarily supporting what replaces it.


I could also find quite a few posts where people describe the events of 1989-92 as "revolutions", with all that entails.

What do you mean? When some people use the term "revolution" they often simply mean "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order." I've heard the Norman invasion of Britain referred to as a revolution before.


I was talking about the unhealthy attachment to liberal democracy that many RL members have

That might be the case but nobody in this thread has expressed any support for Ion Iliescu, and I'd hazard a guess that there as just as many people with an unhealthy attachment to the failed "socialist" states.

[Creative Destruction]

where's MEGAMANTROTSKY? this is a good piece of evidence for 870's political idiocy.

[consuming negativity]

i am somewhat nauseous from hearing them calling the workers in the crowd "comrades"

wish i was exaggerating but no, seriously, how disgusting and transparent.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

i am somewhat nauseous from hearing them calling the workers in the crowd "comrades"

wish i was exaggerating but no, seriously, how disgusting and transparent.

What's even worse is how him and his wife shout down at them like they're yelling at a bunch of unruly children, instead of intelligent adults. Paternalism is a rather common trait amongst tyrants like this bastard.

[Illegalitarian]

where's MEGAMANTROTSKY? this is a good piece of evidence for 870's political idiocy.

As if he's one capable of deciding what is and isn't idiocy in the first place.



I find it interesting how effective Ostalgie is. Apparently, in a recent poll most Romanians said they would elect Ceausescu today if he were alive and ran for leader of the country.


I think it's pretty telling what a piece of shit he was by the fact that unlike any other leader during the political uprisings in the eastern bloc, he got put up against the wall

[RedWorker]

I find it interesting how effective Ostalgie is. Apparently, in a recent poll most Romanians said they would elect Ceausescu today if he were alive and ran for leader of the country.

Just shows how bad capitalism is, that people become desperate for a tyrannical dictatorship where they believe things may be better.


I think it's pretty telling what a piece of shit he was by the fact that unlike any other leader during the political uprisings in the eastern bloc, he got put up against the wall

There is not necessarily any correlation between this and him being executed, though. The show trial was a complete joke, and most if not all of the charges were fake.

[Illegalitarian]

Yet not a voice piped up when it happened.

It's pretty clear there is a correlation there.. Todor, Gorby, etc etc never faced any sort of threat like this by anyone.. then again they stepped down when they saw the odds were against them, while Ceausescu did not.

[RedWorker]

What is it with RevLeft and executions, and believing they are somehow correlated with righteousness? Nearly all executions are for the worst reasons by the worst kind of people against the best kind of, and sometimes - especially in the darkest ages of humanity, I imagine - with the approval of the majority at that. Leftism is against arbitrary violence, not the opposite.

[Sasha]

Says the guy shillings for North Korea all over the forum... Oh the irony.

[Tim Cornelis]

I have to be that guy to point out that 'ostalgie' is reserved for the DDR ('Ost' being German for east).
I don't get the fetishism for 'revolutionary terror' which seemed to be a bit more popular some time ago on this forum, but what's wrong with tyrannicide? To Godwin it up, should people have let Hitler go free when he was disposed and had not killed himself?

[RedWorker]

Justice should be used for prevention of further damage, not a childish want of 'revenge'. Execution is not needed. This includes Hitler. If he was already out of power, then there's no need to execute him.


Says the guy shillings for North Korea all over the forum... Oh the irony.

Damn, you really got me now. :laugh:

[The Intransigent Faction]

Yet not a voice piped up when it happened.

It's pretty clear there is a correlation there.. Todor, Gorby, etc etc never faced any sort of threat like this by anyone.. then again they stepped down when they saw the odds were against them, while Ceausescu did not.

Wasn't there an assassination attempt against Gorbachev?

[Illegalitarian]

What is it with RevLeft and executions, and believing they are somehow correlated with righteousness? Nearly all executions are for the worst reasons by the worst kind of people against the best kind of, and sometimes - especially in the darkest ages of humanity, I imagine - with the approval of the majority at that. Leftism is against arbitrary violence, not the opposite.

Yeah, while violence is an absolute necessity in times of revolutionary struggle, I don't think there's really any reason to kill the remnants of the old system once the gains of the revolution are secured. That would just be useless and unless there were some sort of threat still posed by them such was the case of the Romanov's or Bourbon's, It seems kind of cruel.

[The Intransigent Faction]

"Capital punishment cannot be justified in any society calling itself civilized". I've seen that quote attributed to a letter written by Marx, but I'm not sure if it's genuine. Not that it's a holy decree, I'm just curious if there's a reliable source for it, and it's an agreeable sentiment regardless. Not to mention it would speak volumes about some self-described "Marxists", if genuine. That's not to say I don't support self-defense.

[RedWorker]

"Capital punishment cannot be justified in any society calling itself civilized". I've seen that quote attributed to a letter written by Marx, but I'm not sure if it's genuine. Not that it's a holy decree, I'm just curious if there's a reliable source for it, and it's an agreeable sentiment regardless. Not to mention it would speak volumes about some self-described "Marxists", if genuine. That's not to say I don't support self-defense.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/18.htm

"It would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization" - Karl Marx.

[Tim Cornelis]

"Capital punishment cannot be justified in any society calling itself civilized". I've seen that quote attributed to a letter written by Marx, but I'm not sure if it's genuine. Not that it's a holy decree, I'm just curious if there's a reliable source for it, and it's an agreeable sentiment regardless. Not to mention it would speak volumes about some self-described "Marxists", if genuine. That's not to say I don't support self-defense.

Ah, it's not a Holy Decree, yet disagreeing with it gets you booted from the Church of Marxism. Apparently Marxism is not a method or analytical approach to social sciences, but whatever Marx wrote and said.

[RedWorker]

Ah, it's not a Holy Decree, yet disagreeing with it gets you booted from the Church of Marxism. Apparently Marxism is not a method or analytical approach to social sciences, but whatever Marx wrote and said.

Well I think he was talking more about Stalin (and Lenin?) than you or anyone else who justifies executions on here.

[consuming negativity]

Ah, it's not a Holy Decree, yet disagreeing with it gets you booted from the Church of Marxism. Apparently Marxism is not a method or analytical approach to social sciences, but whatever Marx wrote and said.

tbh i think the term "marxist" itself... the entire trotskyist/stalinist/maoist/[dead guy's name]ist stuff is a bit puerile. but what do i know? after all i agree with marx's statement completely which in the eyes of revleft makes me worse than a reactionary

[RedWorker]

tbh i think the term "marxist" itself... the entire trotskyist/stalinist/maoist/[dead guy's name]ist stuff is a bit puerile.


No, it's not. These terms are meaningful. Karl Marx is different from Marxism.

[consuming negativity]

No, it's not. These terms are meaningful. Karl Marx is different from Marxism.

or maybe I agree with that and just think it is stupid to name yourself after one guy

[Tim Cornelis]

tbh i think the term "marxist" itself... the entire trotskyist/stalinist/maoist/[dead guy's name]ist stuff is a bit puerile. but what do i know? after all i agree with marx's statement completely which in the eyes of revleft makes me worse than a reactionary

What if the word anarchism wouldn't have existed? You would have to refer to yourself as Bakuninist or Kropotkinist. It's not really optional. And I don't think it's particularly relevant.


or maybe I agree with that and just think it is stupid to name yourself after one guy

What about three guys? Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

[consuming negativity]

What if the word anarchism wouldn't have existed? You would have to refer to yourself as Bakuninist or Kropotkinist. It's not really optional. And I don't think it's particularly relevant.

What about three guys? Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

what's wrong with just being a communist? why does it have to be a "marxist"? i mean yeah if the term "anarchism" didn't exist then clearly there would be a need to create such a term, which they did. anarchist, libertarian, etc. were created out of need for words to describe them, like all words that are created. i don't think anarchists would ever call each other "kropotkinists" or "bakuninists" because we pay attention to aesthetics... which is why we all wear black clothes, black beanies, black bandanas, and black shoes

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is you suggesting that I was showing enthusiasm for something and then using that as a jumping point for an argument, in spite of none of it, you know, happening.
This is you being disingenuous, for future reference.

No, I'm sorry, that was you misinterpreting what I wanted to say. Perhaps it's my fault and I should have expressed myself more clearly: when I said that people are showing enthusiasm for the gang around Iliescu, I meant Brandon's Impotent Rage in this particular thread, and the others who had praised the "revolutions" that overthrew the Stalinist governments of the former Eastern Bloc.

I actually went on to praise your position concerning Sankara. I would disagree that the SR Romania was a capitalist state, but that's not the point, as I said. If you think it was, then your position makes sense. But the position of people who praise the brave democratic revolutionary generals does not, particularly when you see how these same people appraise the overthrow of Sankara, or Allende etc.


As Tim points out in the above post, you can support an overthrow without necessarily supporting what replaces it.

That doesn't make any sense. The PCR wasn't overthrown immaculately by the Holy Spirit, it was overthrown by the same generals that supposedly no one supports. To support overthrowing a government in abstract, no matter who is behind the overthrow, and no matter what their relations to the main class antagonisms are, is so unbelievably stupid no one actually does it. You don't see people supporting the Arrow Cross overthrow of the Horthy government, for example. That doesn't mean his excellency the regent shouldn't have been overthrown by the workers. It does mean that the workers had no side, political or military, with Szalasi. Just as they had no side with Iliescu.


What do you mean? When some people use the term "revolution" they often simply mean "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order." I've heard the Norman invasion of Britain referred to as a revolution before.

The usual contention, I think, is that the Norman invasion brought feudalism to the British Isles. It's a questionable concept, but many people swear by it. Hence, probably, the claims of "revolution". But I don't think anyone uses "revolution" to mean simply a "forcible overthrow of a government". I would wager that no one could talk of the fascist revolution here, for example, without being banned. (Not that RevLeft is particularly consistent on this account: after all, you can talk about the Iranian Islamic "revolution" just fine. But that's a discussion for another time.)

[Illegalitarian]

Revolution as the term has evolved in academia means the violent replacement of one socioeconomic system with the other. Some people make the distinction between revolutions and "political revolutions", but ultimately "political revolution" = coup and referring to a coup as a revolution is overkill, and incorrect.

We wouldn't call the overthrow of the Allende government a revolution, for example.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Ah, it's not a Holy Decree, yet disagreeing with it gets you booted from the Church of Marxism. Apparently Marxism is not a method or analytical approach to social sciences, but whatever Marx wrote and said.

Not sure where the hell you got the "Church of Marxism" stuff, but you missed the point completely. It's not a matter of "disagreeing". Marx's comments on the death penalty are relevant, not merely because they are his comments (that would be circular reasoning), but because they are not merely an aside to his critique of capitalist structures. If you want to treat them as such, go ahead, but then I'm not the one misrepresenting Marxism.

If anything, the most enthusiastic about the need for state-sanctioned murder in the path to communism tend to be those with the fatalistic misinterpretation of Marx, not those who understand him scientifically.

[Tim Cornelis]

what's wrong with just being a communist? why does it have to be a "marxist"? i mean yeah if the term "anarchism" didn't exist then clearly there would be a need to create such a term, which they did. anarchist, libertarian, etc. were created out of need for words to describe them, like all words that are created. i don't think anarchists would ever call each other "kropotkinists" or "bakuninists" because we pay attention to aesthetics... which is why we all wear black clothes, black beanies, black bandanas, and black shoes

Because Marxism is distinct from communism. "why not just be a communist?" why not just call ourselves leftists? Because we are distinct from other leftists, like social-liberals and social-democrats.

My point was, if the word 'anarchism' had not existed, and instead Kropotkonism was used you'd be calling yourself a Kropotkonist. You, as an individual, lack the influence to change how these ideas are referred to. It's an established definition in political theory, we can't really change that.


Revolution as the term has evolved in academia means the violent replacement of one socioeconomic system with the other. Some people make the distinction between revolutions and "political revolutions", but ultimately "political revolution" = coup and referring to a coup as a revolution is overkill, and incorrect.

I disagree something. Revolution does not mean that the socioeconomic system is replaced. The standard definition goes "a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc.". Technological revolution, industrial revolution, etc. Political revolution would be the forceful overthrow of government -- and not a coup per se. A social revolution would be replacement of social and economic institutions, or in Marxism, a social revolution would be the transformation of the social relationships of production.


Not sure where the hell you got the "Church of Marxism" stuff, but you missed the point completely. It's not a matter of "disagreeing". Marx's comments on the death penalty are relevant, not merely because they are his comments (that would be circular reasoning), but because they are not merely an aside to his critique of capitalist structures. If you want to treat them as such, go ahead, but then I'm not the one misrepresenting Marxism.

If anything, the most enthusiastic about the need for state-sanctioned murder in the path to communism tend to be those with the fatalistic misinterpretation of Marx, not those who understand him scientifically.

This just further reinforces that you think Marx's words are Gospel and Marxism a Church. Marxism, again, is a method. Not whatever Marx has said or written. Simply saying "Marx said it" is not methodical analysis, it's an appeal to authority. So you can't say "Marx was against capital punishment, so anyone who is in favour of executions is not a Marxist" as you did. You have to demonstrate that opposition to capital punishment is necessarily tied to Marxism as method -- and I really doubt that can be done.

[The Intransigent Faction]

This just further reinforces that you think Marx's words are Gospel and Marxism a Church. Marxism, again, is a method. Not whatever Marx has said or written. Simply saying "Marx said it" is not methodical analysis, it's an appeal to authority. So you can't say "Marx was against capital punishment, so anyone who is in favour of executions is not a Marxist" as you did. You have to demonstrate that opposition to capital punishment is necessarily tied to Marxism as method -- and I really doubt that can be done.

That's exactly what I was fucking saying in my last post. You don't need to lecture me when that's exactly what I fucking said. Saying that I didn't prove his position on the death penalty is tied to his method is completely different from disingenuously misrepresenting my position, and you know full well I wasn't treating him as Gospel. I'm not going to waste my time "demonstrating" anything to you if you're going to misrepresent me and be condescending about it.

[consuming negativity]

Because Marxism is distinct from communism. "why not just be a communist?" why not just call ourselves leftists? Because we are distinct from other leftists, like social-liberals and social-democrats.

My point was, if the word 'anarchism' had not existed, and instead Kropotkonism was used you'd be calling yourself a Kropotkonist. You, as an individual, lack the influence to change how these ideas are referred to. It's an established definition in political theory, we can't really change that.

What's the difference between a Marxist and a communist? Why not just call yourself a "dialectical materialist" or a "scientific socialist"? There is a reason that anarchists call themselves a term like "anarchist" whereas Marxists call themselves a term like "Marxist". Because the thing is, you're wrong that I don't have any influence on how the language we use is used. It might not be a lot of influence, but these terms were coined by people and adopted by others for their use - it isn't an act of magic where they were just thrust onto us without our choice. I think it says a lot about Marxists and other [guy]-ists on the far left that they chose and continue to use this terminology to describe themselves; especially as it is pretty rare elsewhere in the philosophical/political/scientific/etc. world. It is something that you share in common with the Christians, the Epicureans, and ... well, I can't even think of any others. But for some reason you have on this site Marxists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists (as a pejorative), Trotskyists(ites), Hoxhaists, Castroists, Guevarists, Luxemburgists, and I'm beginning to wonder why the fuck there aren't any communer-ists. But this shit is not a coincidence. It is not by chance that anarchists are not Bakuninists. So what is it about the Marxist strain that causes people to be okay with using this terminology, even when Marx himself seemed at least ambivalent toward the use of Marxist? And yes I'm aware that what he was saying was that the people calling themselves Marxists were in disagreement/didn't understand him. But that's the point - Marx seemingly understood how ridiculous it is to name yourself after someone who you don't even entirely agree with. And in truth, if you don't understand where Marx is coming from in regard to capital punishment, you are a person who studies Marx rather than a person who thinks like Marx. When I said in another thread that anarchists understand Marx better than Marxists, this is partially what I meant. Because Marx was an academic but he was coming from a specific perspective that I feel is - at best - being warped all to shit by people who claim to be doing "science" in his name. No, Marx was not wrong about Marxism - the chucklefucks on this forum are wrong about it, because they are students and not thinkers.

[Tim Cornelis]

What's the difference between a Marxist and a communist? Why not just call yourself a "dialectical materialist" or a "scientific socialist"? There is a reason that anarchists call themselves a term like "anarchist" whereas Marxists call themselves a term like "Marxist". Because the thing is, you're wrong that I don't have any influence on how the language we use is used. It might not be a lot of influence, but these terms were coined by people and adopted by others for their use - it isn't an act of magic where they were just thrust onto us without our choice. I think it says a lot about Marxists and other [guy]-ists on the far left that they chose and continue to use this terminology to describe themselves; especially as it is pretty rare elsewhere in the philosophical/political/scientific/etc. world. It is something that you share in common with the Christians, the Epicureans, and ... well, I can't even think of any others. But for some reason you have on this site Marxists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists (as a pejorative), Trotskyists(ites), Hoxhaists, Castroists, Guevarists, Luxemburgists, and I'm beginning to wonder why the fuck there aren't any communer-ists. But this shit is not a coincidence. It is not by chance that anarchists are not Bakuninists. So what is it about the Marxist strain that causes people to be okay with using this terminology, even when Marx himself seemed at least ambivalent toward the use of Marxist? And yes I'm aware that what he was saying was that the people calling themselves Marxists were in disagreement/didn't understand him. But that's the point - Marx seemingly understood how ridiculous it is to name yourself after someone who you don't even entirely agree with. And in truth, if you don't understand where Marx is coming from in regard to capital punishment, you are a person who studies Marx rather than a person who thinks like Marx. When I said in another thread that anarchists understand Marx better than Marxists, this is partially what I meant. Because Marx was an academic but he was coming from a specific perspective that I feel is - at best - being warped all to shit by people who claim to be doing "science" in his name. No, Marx was not wrong about Marxism - the chucklefucks on this forum are wrong about it, because they are students and not thinkers.

Marxism is a method of analysis, communism is the movement that abolishes the present state of things or an ideology. A scientific socialist would be a socialist using Marxist analysis as opposed to a bourgeois-socialist, but it's still slightly different from Marxism.

Saying you have no influence was shorthand for saying you have negligible influence. We inherit the language we use, and laymen virtually no chance of instigating change. When new words in political theory have risen it's by and large intellectual giants -- subaltern, gramsci; communism displacing social-democracy, Lenin and consorts; mutualism, Proudhon; etc. etc. We, as forum users with next to zero influence in the communist movement, have to be satisfied with the words others have thought up and defined for us.

You think it says a lot about Marxists, I'm guessing, because you're biased against us. You've, in my eyes, indicated before that you have some beef with Marxism on a level that does not appear entirely theoretical, but has a basis in character, alleging character defects in Marxists as a result of their Marxism. "Sub-political arguments" as some may call it.

It's not that rare to use names for doctrines at all. Lysenkoism, Lamarckism, Zapatismo, Kemalism, Taylorism, Fortuynisme, Darwinism, social Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, Peronism, Kantianism, McCarthyism, Keynesianism, Neo-Keynesianism, Post-Keynesianism, military Keynesianism, Randism is sometimes used for Objectivism, Left-Rothbardianism, Bolivarianism, Blanquism, Makhnovism, Bakuninism, Proudhonism, I think I've seen Kropotkinism used (*), Hitlerism is sometimes used, and then Strasserism. And yes, there are self-identified Bakuninists, why do they call themselves that? Because it's very common to call yourself after the person you are inspired by politically.
And what about science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_laws_named_after_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_phenomena_named_after_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_equations_named_after_people

Trotskyism are Luxemburgism also pejorative (originally).

(*) http://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=en&q=kropotkinism&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

[The Intransigent Faction]

Treating a Marxist (/dialectical materialist) critique of the death penalty as somehow cordoned off from a Marxist (/dialectical materialist) critique of capitalism is at least as downright daft and disingenuous as is treating a Marxist (/dialectical materialist) analysis of religion as somehow cordoned off from a Marxist (/dialectical materialist) critique of capitalism.

Communer, actually the best parallel seems to be the term "Darwinism". It's been hijacked by some contemporary so-called "social Darwinist" ideologues as well to derive conclusions which hardly follow from natural selection, but that theory itself remains scientific. Unfortunately, the adding on of other names in conjunction with "Marxism" gave the term "Marxist" ideological connotations than it may not have had otherwise. I do tend to agree with you, though, that the term "communist" can be more useful.

[consuming negativity]

Marxism is a method of analysis, communism is the movement that abolishes the present state of things or an ideology. A scientific socialist would be a socialist using Marxist analysis as opposed to a bourgeois-socialist, but it's still slightly different from Marxism.

Saying you have no influence was shorthand for saying you have negligible influence. We inherit the language we use, and laymen virtually no chance of instigating change. When new words in political theory have risen it's by and large intellectual giants -- subaltern, gramsci; communism displacing social-democracy, Lenin and consorts; mutualism, Proudhon; etc. etc. We, as forum users with next to zero influence in the communist movement, have to be satisfied with the words others have thought up and defined for us.

You think it says a lot about Marxists, I'm guessing, because you're biased against us. You've, in my eyes, indicated before that you have some beef with Marxism on a level that does not appear entirely theoretical, but has a basis in character, alleging character defects in Marxists as a result of their Marxism. "Sub-political arguments" as some may call it.

It's not that rare to use names for doctrines at all. Lysenkoism, Lamarckism, Zapatismo, Kemalism, Taylorism, Fortuynisme, Darwinism, social Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, Peronism, Kantianism, McCarthyism, Keynesianism, Neo-Keynesianism, Post-Keynesianism, military Keynesianism, Randism is sometimes used for Objectivism, Left-Rothbardianism, Bolivarianism, Blanquism, Makhnovism, Bakuninism, Proudhonism, I think I've seen Kropotkinism used, Hitlerism is sometimes used, and then Strasserism. And yes, there are self-identified Bakuninists, why do they call themselves that? Because it's very common to call yourself after the person you are inspired by politically.
And what about science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_laws_named_after_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_phenomena_named_after_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_equations_named_after_people

Trotskyism are Luxemburgism also pejorative (originally).

You are purposefully leaving out information, though. You didn't define a "communist", you defined communism. You also completely left out the term "dialectical materialist" despite defining a Marxist as someone who engages in analysis... well, what analysis are we looking at? The views are those of materialists and dialecticians.

Which is a great segue into my "beef" with Marxism. I think they have taken what should have been information for the people and turned it into something only reachable to those who have degrees in it and whom study it as a hobby. It is a problem with academia and over-intellectualizing what is human and therefore should not be foreign to us. Moreover, I feel that most Marxists rely on quoting from the book of Marx™ rather than actually thinking about things. I feel they are not analysts but are students who read what others wrote, repeat it to third parties, and then pretend that they are geniuses when in fact not a thought they have is unique or original. They don't know how to think because if they did they would not have to study thought or understand what the fuck "dialectic" means in order to tell people that capitalism is unsustainable or that it is in our best interests to revolt against the bourgeoisie class. Marxism as this forums knows it is intellectual masturbation. It is exactly the kind of vanguard that the capitalist world deserves: one that isn't; one that is fake just like everything and everybody else, that pretends to be on the side of the proletarian when in reality anything proletarian or real is scorned and criticized and looked down the nose at. Marx is dead and Marxism is not worthy of the name it stole from him.

But to get back to the point, most of those "isms" you mentioned are even deader than a dead guy. McCarthyism and Marxism are hardly comparable (and as a Marxist I wouldn't want to make such a comparison), whereas Keynesianism is really the only other example you can give me that falls into the same distinction; and that's because Keynesians are the Marxists of capitalist thought. They, too, are completely divorced from reality and more interested in intellectual masturbation than actually explaining anything or being part of the rest of the world. But, even worse, their hobby and life's work involves explaining some shit that doesn't even matter because it's already on the way out. But the rest of that shit is old as fuck, as I said, or useless, and/or a pejorative. Who calls themselves a Darwinist, and Peronism is literally fascism. Those are such bad examples. And to say that laws that people found are named after them is the same thing as what happened with Marxism is just silly.

[Tim Cornelis]

Treating a Marxist (/dialectical materialist) critique of the death penalty as somehow cordoned off from a Marxist (/dialectical materialist) critique of capitalism is at least as downright daft and disingenuous as is treating a Marxist (/dialectical materialist) analysis of religion as somehow cordoned off from a Marxist (/dialectical materialist) critique of capitalism.

Communer, actually the best parallel seems to be the term "Darwinism". It's been hijacked by some contemporary so-called "social Darwinist" ideologues as well to derive conclusions which hardly follow from natural selection, but that theory itself remains scientific. Unfortunately, the adding on of other names in conjunction with "Marxism" gave the term "Marxist" ideological connotations than it may not have had otherwise. I do tend to agree with you, though, that the term "communist" can be more useful.

You need to first justify how Marx's comments are a Marxist critique of the death penalty before you start throwing around "daft" and "disingenuous". As far as I can tell he merely said, the death penalty is uncivilised. That isn't a Marxist analysis. And neither is it synonymous with dialectical materialism for that matter.


You are purposefully leaving out information, though. You didn't define a "communist", you defined communism. You also completely left out the term "dialectical materialist" despite defining a Marxist as someone who engages in analysis... well, what analysis are we looking at? The views are those of materialists and dialecticians.

Which is a great segue into my "beef" with Marxism. I think they have taken what should have been information for the people and turned it into something only reachable to those who have degrees in it and whom study it as a hobby. It is a problem with academia and over-intellectualizing what is human and therefore should not be foreign to us. Moreover, I feel that most Marxists rely on quoting from the book of Marx™ rather than actually thinking about things. I feel they are not analysts but are students who read what others wrote, repeat it to third parties, and then pretend that they are geniuses when in fact not a thought they have is unique or original. They don't know how to think because if they did they would not have to study thought or understand what the fuck "dialectic" means in order to tell people that capitalism is unsustainable or that it is in our best interests to revolt against the bourgeoisie class. Marxism as this forums knows it is intellectual masturbation. It is exactly the kind of vanguard that the capitalist world deserves: one that isn't; one that is fake just like everything and everybody else, that pretends to be on the side of the proletarian when in reality anything proletarian or real is scorned and criticized and looked down the nose at. Marx is dead and Marxism is not worthy of the name it stole from him.

But to get back to the point, most of those "isms" you mentioned are even deader than a dead guy. McCarthyism and Marxism are hardly comparable (and as a Marxist I wouldn't want to make such a comparison), whereas Keynesianism is really the only other example you can give me that falls into the same distinction; and that's because Keynesians are the Marxists of capitalist thought. They, too, are completely divorced from reality and more interested in intellectual masturbation than actually explaining anything or being part of the rest of the world. But, even worse, their hobby and life's work involves explaining some shit that doesn't even matter because it's already on the way out. But the rest of that shit is old as fuck, as I said, or useless, and/or a pejorative. Who calls themselves a Darwinist, and Peronism is literally fascism. Those are such bad examples. And to say that laws that people found are named after them is the same thing as what happened with Marxism is just silly.

Ah, I'm doing it on purpose. If I define Marxism and communism then it would seem straightforward, at least to me, what a Marxist and a communist is. As for dialectical materialism, that was the official brand of historical materialism of the Soviet Union. If we disassociate the term from Stalinist dogma, then still it is a component of Marxism and not synonymous with Marxism. I'm preoccupied with social systems, not all matter -- I have no opinion on that. Marxist analysis, if I had to fit it into one phrase would be 'materialist class analysis'. I prefer calling myself a Marxist over a 'class materialist' or 'materialist classicist'.

To be frank, none of what you've said here and before gives any indication that you have a full understanding of Marxism, and, to me, it seems you are working from gut feelings. You have some ballpark idea of what Marxism is and you know there's loads of academia involved somewhere, and from this you postulate that Marxism uses unnecessarily obscure and profound rhetoric to, for whatever reason, disassociate from 'the people'. And, now working from the assumption that you have a ballpark, and therefore oversimplified, understanding of Marxism, you think studying it [as a hobby] is unnecessary. In that case, I would challenge you to distil Marxism, if it is so simple, into a revleft post, so concise you don't need to adopt studying it for a hobby -- which is apparently doable.

Of course, this is tied with what you previously said about class instinct trumping Marxism in what Marxism set out to do -- which again, to me, shows you have an incomplete understanding of Marxism. You feel this, and you feel that, but to be perfectly honest, that doesn't mean anything to me -- I'm not interested in gut feelings. If you want to continue this discussion you need to come up with some more tenable and concrete arguments rooted in an understanding of Marxism. The same goes for Keynesianism I'd say. I doubt you have an understanding of it, and be honest with yourself, have you actually studied Keynesianism to reach these conclusions or are they based on impressions? It all seems steeped in intuitive anti-intellectualism -- as if uncovering how social systems work cannot provide us with important insights. You kinda sound like Karl Pilkington on Newton's discovery of the law of gravity.

P.S. Peronism is not literally fascism.

[The Intransigent Faction]

You need to first justify how Marx's comments are a Marxist critique of the death penalty before you start throwing around "daft" and "disingenuous". As far as I can tell he merely said, the death penalty is uncivilised. That isn't a Marxist analysis. And neither is it synonymous with dialectical materialism for that matter.

Fair enough. Thanks for at least being civil/sort of responding to what I actually said.

[consuming negativity]

You need to first justify how Marx's comments are a Marxist critique of the death penalty before you start throwing around "daft" and "disingenuous". As far as I can tell he merely said, the death penalty is uncivilised. That isn't a Marxist analysis. And neither is it synonymous with dialectical materialism for that matter.

Ah, I'm doing it on purpose. If I define Marxism and communism then it would seem straightforward, at least to me, what a Marxist and a communist is. As for dialectical materialism, that was the official brand of historical materialism of the Soviet Union. If we disassociate the term from Stalinist dogma, then still it is a component of Marxism and not synonymous with Marxism. I'm preoccupied with social systems, not all matter -- I have no opinion on that. Marxist analysis, if I had to fit it into one phrase would be 'materialist class analysis'. I prefer calling myself a Marxist over a 'class materialist' or 'materialist classicist'.

To be frank, none of what you've said here and before gives any indication that you have a full understanding of Marxism, and, to me, it seems you are working from gut feelings. You have some ballpark idea of what Marxism is and you know there's loads of academia involved somewhere, and from this you postulate that Marxism uses unnecessarily obscure and profound rhetoric to, for whatever reason, disassociate from 'the people'. And, now working from the assumption that you have a ballpark, and therefore oversimplified, understanding of Marxism, you think studying it [as a hobby] is unnecessary. In that case, I would challenge you to distil Marxism, if it is so simple, into a revleft post, so concise you don't need to adopt studying it for a hobby -- which is apparently doable.

Of course, this is tied with what you previously said about class instinct trumping Marxism in what Marxism set out to do -- which again, to me, shows you have an incomplete understanding of Marxism. You feel this, and you feel that, but to be perfectly honest, that doesn't mean anything to me -- I'm not interested in gut feelings. If you want to continue this discussion you need to come up with some more tenable and concrete arguments rooted in an understanding of Marxism. The same goes for Keynesianism I'd say. I doubt you have an understanding of it, and be honest with yourself, have you actually studied Keynesianism to reach these conclusions or are they based on impressions? It all seems steeped in intuitive anti-intellectualism -- as if uncovering how social systems work cannot provide us with important insights. You kinda sound like Karl Pilkington on Newton's discovery of the law of gravity.

P.S. Peronism is not literally fascism.

Analysing society is not necessary to be a participant in that society. A butterfly does not have to understand the concept of metamorphosis in order to undergo it. Similarly, individuals within our society do not need to understand how that society functions in order to be a part of it. In the same way I do not need to know how a machine works to pull the lever and make it function, the people in our society do not need to understand how it works in order to do what they think they should do. In fact, if they did need to understand the machine, nothing would ever get done, because the vast majority of people have no idea what's going on. When people are in the streets marching, they are by and large not doing so because their stringent studies and Marxism has led them to the conclusion that they are engaged in a class-based revolution against the capitalist class. What we are doing as analysts is looking at what is happening and then describing it in detail in a way that people who are also interested in analysis can read and then understand. It is an intellectual endeavor undertaken by and for the intellectuals; regardless of whether or not any of us existed or understood capitalism, capitalism is still what it is and things will still go the same way regardless of what we do. What makes the intellectuals different from the rest of society is that because we understand what is going on, if we are in positions like that of Marx or Engels, we can understand why it is necessary to act against our own seemingly immediate interests in favor of a longer-term goal that is actually in our interests. Because the thing is, while being a bourgeois right now is pretty good for them, it is actually in their longer-term interests to support the proletarian revolution.

With all this in mind, you should be able to see that my position is not anti-intellectual; it is anti-intellectualization. I believe that the analysis we do should be put in terms understandable to laymen and made available for the public use of everyone independent of whether or not they are lucky and interested enough to be able to go to college to understand social science. Articles should not require journal subscriptions and having gone to college in order to be understood, and information that is so restricted like this is so less useful to us and to everyone else that it is a crime against humanity to restrict it. But we do because we are acting in our immediate interests and going with the system rather than our long-term interests of educating everyone. I am in favor of the freedom of information and a part of that includes using language that everyone can understand, which is not an appeal to stupidity, but rather is based on the idea that science should serve a purpose and the reality that not everybody has a college degree - or even that everyone with a degree can understand what we're talking about. To me, Marxism represents this tendency within academia but spread over into our own sphere which makes it even more insidious because it is a tendency that exists among people who understand everything that I've said in this post but whom still fall into the trap of bourgeois over-intellectualization.

Understanding Keynesianism nor Marxism is necessary to recognize this, and so I won't waste my time explaining either to you when you already know what they are, when they could not be sufficiently summed up in a paragraph, and when the entire point of you proposing this is to challenge my knowledge in a thinly-veiled ad hominem.

[Illegalitarian]

I disagree something. Revolution does not mean that the socioeconomic system is replaced. The standard definition goes "a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc.". Technological revolution, industrial revolution, etc. Political revolution would be the forceful overthrow of government -- and not a coup per se. A social revolution would be replacement of social and economic institutions, or in Marxism, a social revolution would be the transformation of the social relationships of production.



A sudden, extreme and complete change in the way people live, work etc is either a socioeconomic revolution or an apocalypse. I think revolution is probably referring to former.

Industrial revolution, technological revolution etc are words using the term "revolution" only to emphasis how important certain periods of time were to the development of industry, or technology, and how they changed the world. You're not going to find many people who would consider these to be actual revolutions as the word is understood by social theorists, or the majority of them anyways, and it certainly isn't how communists should use the term.

A political revolution wouldn't have to be just a coup, it could also apply to, as in the case of America or Vietnam, a war of liberation, that is correct. "Social revolution" as you're using the term and as Marxists ought to is "socioeconomic revolution", or simply "revolution" as most people in the academic world use the word and, again, I think that since this is the context Marx certainly used the word, it suffices.



Ah, I'm doing it on purpose. If I define Marxism and communism then it would seem straightforward, at least to me, what a Marxist and a communist is. As for dialectical materialism, that was the official brand of historical materialism of the Soviet Union. If we disassociate the term from Stalinist dogma, then still it is a component of Marxism and not synonymous with Marxism. I'm preoccupied with social systems, not all matter -- I have no opinion on that. Marxist analysis, if I had to fit it into one phrase would be 'materialist class analysis'. I prefer calling myself a Marxist over a 'class materialist' or 'materialist classicist'.

To be frank, none of what you've said here and before gives any indication that you have a full understanding of Marxism, and, to me, it seems you are working from gut feelings. You have some ballpark idea of what Marxism is and you know there's loads of academia involved somewhere, and from this you postulate that Marxism uses unnecessarily obscure and profound rhetoric to, for whatever reason, disassociate from 'the people'. And, now working from the assumption that you have a ballpark, and therefore oversimplified, understanding of Marxism, you think studying it [as a hobby] is unnecessary. In that case, I would challenge you to distil Marxism, if it is so simple, into a revleft post, so concise you don't need to adopt studying it for a hobby -- which is apparently doable.

Of course, this is tied with what you previously said about class instinct trumping Marxism in what Marxism set out to do -- which again, to me, shows you have an incomplete understanding of Marxism. You feel this, and you feel that, but to be perfectly honest, that doesn't mean anything to me -- I'm not interested in gut feelings. If you want to continue this discussion you need to come up with some more tenable and concrete arguments rooted in an understanding of Marxism. The same goes for Keynesianism I'd say. I doubt you have an understanding of it, and be honest with yourself, have you actually studied Keynesianism to reach these conclusions or are they based on impressions? It all seems steeped in intuitive anti-intellectualism -- as if uncovering how social systems work cannot provide us with important insights. You kinda sound like Karl Pilkington on Newton's discovery of the law of gravity.



This is the kind of undeserved sense of intellectual snobbery he's talking about, I believe. "You don't even know anything about Marxism, your opinion doesn't matter muaheuhuehueh". Why does one need to have some deep intellectual understanding of Marxism to be able to talk about it, or to identify with the central ideas of Marxism? Communism should not be some pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk inaccessible to the working class whose liberation it is concerned with.

[Tim Cornelis]

A sudden, extreme and complete change in the way people live, work etc is either a socioeconomic revolution or an apocalypse. I think revolution is probably referring to former.

That's simply not how revolution is used, period.


Industrial revolution, technological revolution etc are words using the term "revolution" only to emphasis how important certain periods of time were to the development of industry, or technology, and how they changed the world. You're not going to find many people who would consider these to be actual revolutions as the word is understood by social theorists, or the majority of them anyways, and it certainly isn't how communists should use the term.

We are perfectly able to distinguish between different types of revolution, no need to restrict our language.

You make these bold claims ("You're not going to find many people who would consider these to be actual revolutions" and "most people in the academic world use the word") which completely contradict my experience with those words and academia. Most people would consider the Industrial Revolution a revolution in the fullest sense of the word.


A political revolution wouldn't have to be just a coup, it could also apply to, as in the case of America or Vietnam, a war of liberation, that is correct. "Social revolution" as you're using the term and as Marxists ought to is "socioeconomic revolution", or simply "revolution" as most people in the academic world use the word and, again, I think that since this is the context Marx certainly used the word, it suffices.

I have no idea where you're basing it on that academics use the word like that. I short glance at google scholar will reveal that revolution is often used in the barest of ways, 'innovation revolution', 'business [model] revolution', And why "ought we" restrict and limit ourselves, devalue language and unnecessarily obscure things? Of course, we can use shorthands, but I see no reason to limit ourselves. Incidentally, a social revolution is a revolution that is societal, it reshapes the entirety of social institutions, from the economic structure to the state form built thereupon, not just socioeconomic. Social revolution is not synonymous with socioeconomic revolution.


This is the kind of undeserved sense of intellectual snobbery he's talking about, I believe. "You don't even know anything about Marxism, your opinion doesn't matter muaheuhuehueh". Why does one need to have some deep intellectual understanding of Marxism to be able to talk about it, or to identify with the central ideas of Marxism? Communism should not be some pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk inaccessible to the working class whose liberation it is concerned with.

How snobbish of me to suggest that in order to have a meaningful discussion on a topic the participants need to have a meaningful understanding of the topic! This is the kind of anti-intellectualism I was talking about. Yes, you can talk about a topic you don't have a meaningful understanding of, put from the perspective of enquiry, not blazing off and on about gut feelings in relation to the topic. Why do you need to have a more or less complete understanding of Marxism to identify with the central ideas of Marxism? This would seem obvious to me: because how do you know you really agree with something when you don't really know all that much about it? Or even, how do you know that what you're saying is even in agreement with what you're think you're upholding? For instance, I recall you saying things that aren't really compatible with Marxism before. And when I was transitioning from anarchism to Marxism I recall myself saying such similar things.

Communism and Marxism are distinct.

And I'm not even asking of an undergraduate understanding of Marxism, I'm asking for a meaningful understanding. Read a text or two (original source), and don't base yourself on impressions -- the same with Keynesianism or any other doctrine. That isn't a whole lot I'm asking. That you would call this "pseudo-intellectual" is also telling to me. And "circle jerking"? Marxism is anything but circle jerking if we look at the raging debates within it.


Analysing society is not necessary to be a participant in that society. A butterfly does not have to understand the concept of metamorphosis in order to undergo it. Similarly, individuals within our society do not need to understand how that society functions in order to be a part of it. In the same way I do not need to know how a machine works to pull the lever and make it function, the people in our society do not need to understand how it works in order to do what they think they should do. In fact, if they did need to understand the machine, nothing would ever get done, because the vast majority of people have no idea what's going on. When people are in the streets marching, they are by and large not doing so because their stringent studies and Marxism has led them to the conclusion that they are engaged in a class-based revolution against the capitalist class. What we are doing as analysts is looking at what is happening and then describing it in detail in a way that people who are also interested in analysis can read and then understand. It is an intellectual endeavor undertaken by and for the intellectuals; regardless of whether or not any of us existed or understood capitalism, capitalism is still what it is and things will still go the same way regardless of what we do. What makes the intellectuals different from the rest of society is that because we understand what is going on, if we are in positions like that of Marx or Engels, we can understand why it is necessary to act against our own seemingly immediate interests in favor of a longer-term goal that is actually in our interests. Because the thing is, while being a bourgeois right now is pretty good for them, it is actually in their longer-term interests to support the proletarian revolution.

With all this in mind, you should be able to see that my position is not anti-intellectual; it is anti-intellectualization. I believe that the analysis we do should be put in terms understandable to laymen and made available for the public use of everyone independent of whether or not they are lucky and interested enough to be able to go to college to understand social science. Articles should not require journal subscriptions and having gone to college in order to be understood, and information that is so restricted like this is so less useful to us and to everyone else that it is a crime against humanity to restrict it. But we do because we are acting in our immediate interests and going with the system rather than our long-term interests of educating everyone. I am in favor of the freedom of information and a part of that includes using language that everyone can understand, which is not an appeal to stupidity, but rather is based on the idea that science should serve a purpose and the reality that not everybody has a college degree - or even that everyone with a degree can understand what we're talking about. To me, Marxism represents this tendency within academia but spread over into our own sphere which makes it even more insidious because it is a tendency that exists among people who understand everything that I've said in this post but whom still fall into the trap of bourgeois over-intellectualization.

Understanding Keynesianism nor Marxism is necessary to recognize this, and so I won't waste my time explaining either to you when you already know what they are, when they could not be sufficiently summed up in a paragraph, and when the entire point of you proposing this is to challenge my knowledge in a thinly-veiled ad hominem.

I've never argued people need to analyse society to be a part of it, that'd be an absurd thing to say.

And yes, I'm aware of what you're saying. So I challenged you distil Marxism, if it is so simple that you don't need to read it to understand it, into a revleft post, so concise you don't need to adopt studying it for a hobby. But you can't, proving my point. And my point was to challenge your knowledge, that wasn't thinly veiled, that was out in the open. And it isn't an ad hominem. Ad hominems aren't synonymous with insults, and challenging someone's knowledge isn't even an insult.

And if you don't have sufficient knowledge of these to explain them, how then can you make definite statements about their detachment from the real world? How can you boldly state that they are intellectual masturbation when you've not invested time looking into what they are? That is not anti-'intellectualisation' because that would require that you concluded, based on research, that they 'over-intellectualise' things. It's anti-intellectualism, "hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible. Alternatively, self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals although pseudo-intellectualism is a more commonly, and perhaps more accurately, used description for this phenomenon.

In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education." (wikipedia)

That description fits you perfectly. I only wonder why an anti-intellectual would sign up for a discussion forum like this.

Same here: "Anti-intellectualism is an attitude that minimizes the value of intelligence and knowledge. Anti-intellectuals believe that science and "book knowledge" are less valuable than "street smarts" and "common sense."
Believing that academics (even in their fields of expertise) aren't worth listening to because they lack "common sense" or are "out of touch."
Believing academics are "others" and have little care for the common people. (One must wonder why they are in academia, then.)"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

[consuming negativity]

>I've never argued people need to analyse society to be a part of it, that'd be an absurd thing to say.

If you agree with me that being part of society does not require the ability to undertake or understand analysis of that society, and yet we both agree that there will at some point be a collapse of capitalism and proletarian revolution, then it logically follows that we should both agree that Marxist analysis cannot be necessary for a proletarian revolution. Except you don't, because you don't understand what Marx was saying. All that is necessary for a change in the mode of production is for the working class to act on their immediate interests when they recognize that those immediate interests are the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. This does not and never will require high-brow academic analysis. That is not anti-intellectualism, it is just reality. Academia is not necessary, as you have admitted. It is a leech on the working class that takes appropriated labor value and uses it to conduct research that is not available to the vast majority of working persons. I am not a champion of the common folk - I am just some guy. Some guy who understands that an ad hominem is an attack on a person's character rather than their arguments - which is exactly what you are doing by saying that I am not knowledgeable enough to speak on the subject rather than ignoring your incorrect beliefs and engaging me in discussion. But clearly I do know what the fuck I'm talking about, so how about we either have a discussion or we don't?

[Tim Cornelis]

At this point you're shading into comedy communer. And if you're going to be an anti-intellectual at least own it.

Being part of society does not require an understanding of that society on an analytical level. Interacting with the laws of nature does not require understanding them, or even knowing of them, yet, I hope, you cannot deny that they can have important practical applications that warrant their analysis. I don't need to understand how my computer works, to work it, yet, hopefully, you don't deny that knowledge of it can contribute to improving computers.

Now, firstly, as for you claim that I don't understand Marx, ironically shows (again) that you don't understand Marx. And this is completely to be expected because you ostensibly base your entire knowledge on the subject on interactions with other forum members, which is no guarantee that the correct interpretation is absorbed by you. Marxism is not economic determinism in that it sets out one possible course for the development of history. Revolutions can succeed or fail as a result of human agency, which, although always constrained by material factors, allow for different possibilities. Effective organising in preparation of the revolution and the construction of a disciplined communist party can enable the communist party to assume a position of leadership in the revolution. It can then direct the revolution on the basis of its revolutionary theory. A proletarian revolution is no guarantee for communist victory. The proletariat can allow moderate socialists to arrive at power, smothering the revolution and saving capitalism. Of course, a new revolution will come at some point, but this may take decades, decades of suffering. We need to end capitalism as fast as possible and this is contingent on the path of the revolution, which we can influence by building a mass party involved in propagating the correct strategy for revolution. If we do nothing, syndicalists with economistic visions may become the leadership, resulting in self-managed capitalism. If we do something, and we base ourselves on Marxist principles, we know that sectional interests need to be made subservient to class interests as a whole by subjecting lower councils to a higher council and generalise the conditions of the revolutionary reconstruction.

Marxist analysis allows us to discover what capitalism is and how to fight it. It allows us to identify its gravediggers, for instance. We then know who to organise, and what the most efficient use of our time will be. Similarly, analysis of the state may allow us to exploit its weaknesses and accelerate class conflict. There are some communists that want nothing to do with liberal democracy, but analysis allows us to see that realist political scientists fear nothing more than an involved political constituency in liberal democracy as the pursuit of interests by various groups breeds instability, which is to our advantage. Sure, we can wait, or we can accelerate.

All that is necessary for the necessary for a change in the mode of production is for the working class to act on their immediate interests when they recognize that those immediate interests are the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and then socialise production, integrate all productive establishments, and not allow independent enterprises to continue to operate under workers' control. It is inevitable that open class conflicts breaks out at some point, but not what the outcome of it is.

We need critical academics to analyse the system and uncover its flaws and weaknesses that we can use to our advantage in political organising. Academic knowledge can be distilled and be made accessible, used, and propagated. We don't need to explain about indirect social labour means commodity production and therefore we need labour that is directly social, but can propagate the need to not allow sectional interests to take primacy as this reproduces competition and profit seeking (much easier to understand), but it produces the same effect (if adopted).

------

You have determined, after analysis (however superficial), that economic determinism is the correct analysis and the operative conclusions is that we can just wait.

In Russia, there were the stagists saying we require capitalist development before we move on to socialism, and there were those that said capitalism was sufficiently developed and in power, making socialist revolution the first priority. These are based on analyses with potential consequences.

---------

Secondly, calling academics leeches is rich. Are garbage collectors and janitors leeches, are retailers leeches? They certainly don't produce any value. And do tell how you know what you say about 'appropriated labour value' [surplus labour, surplus value] is even true when you refuse to engage in analysis?

Third, you still don't understand what an ad hominem is. An observation of your lack of knowledge of the subject matter is not an ad hominem. Ad hominems are, 'you are X, therefore wrong', e.g. 'you are gay, therefore wrong', or 'you are a fascist, therefore wrong'.

"Similarly, tacking an insult onto the end of any argument might be bad form, but it doesn't automatically make it an ad hominem. It's only an ad hominem if you say the other person must be wrong because they are an idiot - not the other way round"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

Now read this:

"To be frank, none of what you've said here and before gives any indication that you have a full understanding of Marxism, and, to me, it seems you are working from gut feelings. You have some ballpark idea of what Marxism is and you know there's loads of academia involved somewhere, and from this you postulate that Marxism uses unnecessarily obscure and profound rhetoric to, for whatever reason, disassociate from 'the people'. And, now working from the assumption that you have a ballpark, and therefore oversimplified, understanding of Marxism, you think studying it [as a hobby] is unnecessary. In that case, I would challenge you to distil Marxism, if it is so simple, into a revleft post, so concise you don't need to adopt studying it for a hobby -- which is apparently doable."

Attacking someone's character instead of their arguments would be a red herring. But since your 'character' (level of knowledge) is tied to the subject we are discussing, this is not even true. Example based on what we discussed (not literal): "I know more about Marxism than you" "No you don't" "Personal attack, insult, he called me stupid!".

You don't know what you're talking about, stop assuming you know what you're talking about, no one knows what they're talking about unless they first investigate, but you more or less openly claim you refuse to investigate because it's "intellectual masturbation". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[consuming negativity]

>At this point you're shading into comedy communer. And if you're going to be an anti-intellectual at least own it.

>Now, firstly, as for you claim that I don't understand Marx, ironically shows (again) that you don't understand Marx. And this is completely to be expected because you ostensibly base your entire knowledge on the subject on interactions with other forum members, which is no guarantee that the correct interpretation is absorbed by you.

>And do tell how you know what you say about 'appropriated labour value' [surplus labour, surplus value] is even true when you refuse to engage in analysis?

>Third, you still don't understand what an ad hominem is. An observation of your lack of knowledge of the subject matter is not an ad hominem.

>You don't know what you're talking about, stop assuming you know what you're talking about, no one knows what they're talking about unless they first investigate, but you more or less openly claim you refuse to investigate because it's "intellectual masturbation".

the rudeness and arrogance in this post is fucking astounding

dismantle your own pyramid of straw men - i'm not wasting my time with this garbage

[Illegalitarian]

It's not a real revleft topic until the attrition posts start.


That's simply not how revolution is used, period.


The standard definition goes "a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc."


lol


You make these bold claims ("You're not going to find many people who would consider these to be actual revolutions" and "most people in the academic world use the word") which completely contradict my experience with those words and academia. Most people would consider the Industrial Revolution a revolution in the fullest sense of the word.


*shrugs*, I've had quite a few Marxist and non-Marxist professors who have only used the word to refer to socioeconomic revolution. There are of course different typologies that exist, but most of the time when I've heard people use the term "revolution" this is what they're referring too.



Incidentally, a social revolution is a revolution that is societal, it reshapes the entirety of social institutions, from the economic structure to the state form built thereupon, not just socioeconomic. Social revolution is not synonymous with socioeconomic revolution.



A social revolution reshapes society entirely, from its institutions, to its economic structure to the state built thereupon... but it's not socioeconomic


wat

[Devrim]

he did but he missed most of it, he just kind of wandered in on it and by the time the shit was hitting the fan he was in a bar getting drunk; http://www.revleft.com/vb/rip-nicolae-ceau-t177288/index.html
if the chitchat awards had a category "user most suitable to have a tragicomic art house movie made of their life" he should win hands down, think he met Che too.

Ha, ha, I don't know where you got the idea that I met Che from. I didn't. Probably the most famous person that I met was Arafat.

I don't quite see why it would be a 'tragicomic' film either.

On the subject of this demo, yes, I was there, completely be chance. I wasn't involved in anyway politically. I was just stuck in Romania at the time.

Devrim

[Atsumari]

I am curious about your political views at the time as well as your thoughts on the uprising.

[Devrim]

I'm a left communist. I was at the time too. I think that the Soviet bloc including Romania was capitalist. At the actual time it seemed like it was a sort of popular uprising. Within days though it started to emerge that it had been very much orchestrated by elements within the security services.

Devrim