Various Rebuttals to Redstar

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Here I will draw from a lot of information picked up from Redstar2000's many debates, so just ask me if you doubt the validity of anything I say about Redstar's views.

One of Redstar's most prominent and controversial views is that he accepts and condones a dictatorship of the proletariat, yet he does not advocate centralism of power at all.

So I assume that he would most likely support de-centralized committees, districts, or other local governing bodies that actively act in opposition to bourgeois establishments in defense of the people of a given community. But more importantly, in order to withhold power from a corruptible central government.

He takes this stance in opposition to the Marxist-Leninist idea that power must be centralized, but with the purpose of withholding power from the bourgeoisie who would still have intentions of concentrating power in their own hands through religious subjugation, the appropriation of others' labour, or through the acquisition of bourgeois private property.

He fails to see that the local committees of workers will certainly and undoubtedly fail to accomplish the goal of suppressing bourgeois acquisitions of power. Once the revolution takes place, the bourgeoisie will be able to subdue these local government bodies if they are limited in power, as Redstar suggests. Because the very nature of the bourgeoisie is to concentrate power in their own selfish hands.

And he also fails to see that the central government will be the most efficient way in which to represent the people politically in opposition to the capitalists, as we know is necessary. (no anarchist crap here, please, unless you‘re Redstar)
The central governing body will be necessarily and undoubtedly subject to the working class. It will be a political arm of the proletariat. Much like governments today are simply political arms of the capitalist class to aid in its subjugation of the working class. The power of a central socialist government will be entirely dependant on the proletariat. Anarchists fail to understand how that can be possible because they hold the reactionary notion that the working class is not united in its political interests. And that would be true if the revolution is not an effort of the united proletariat, as it must be. And because the government will be central it will be largely more efficient than local organizations, not only in protection from aspiring capitalists, but also in the ways of production and carrying out policies.

Local, inefficient, and power-less government organizations also run the risk of failing to adhere to socialist policies. How can it be guaranteed that a local committee will not be subdued by the interests of capitalists and clerics and possibly stray away from the path towards communism if a central government is not present to secure that policies towards communism will be followed?

Now, I’m not saying that the people cannot be trusted to achieve communism without a socialist government if undisturbed by social chauvinists, but the problem is that without a socialist government, it is certain that they will be disturbed by social chauvinists, indeed.

Redstar, I would really appreciate a reply from you here, as I suspect you realize. :)

[redstar2000]

Redstar, I would really appreciate a reply from you here, as I suspect you realize.

Always happy to oblige. :D


He fails to see that the local committees of workers will certainly and undoubtedly fail to accomplish the goal of suppressing bourgeois acquisitions of power.

Your crystal ball is still working, I see. Mine has been in the shop for repairs for several decades.

So I have to fall back on "secondary" supports like evidence and argument. Forgive me.

Let's begin by asking ourselves what position the bourgeoisie will be in during the first few weeks of proletarian revolution?

Well, their state apparatus has been smashed. Their police forces may still be putting up some kind of sporadic resistance...but nothing that can't be suppressed. Their imperial armies, scattered around the world, are "stuck"...no supplies or reinforcements forthcoming from the imperial homeland. Probably they will turn to banditry...until they are defeated by insurgent forces in the countries they occupy.

With the means of production in the hands of the workers themselves and the distribution of basic needs on a communist basis already beginning, whatever liquid wealth the capitalists may still have declines in usefulness. You can't bribe people to serve your interests unless you have something of value to bribe them with.

The ones that haven't fled the revolutionary country already will, I suspect, try to "make a deal". Specifically, they will try to get themselves into some kind of position of local authority--based on their "expertise"--and agree to co-operate with the revolution in return for being allowed to preserve some semblance of their old position.

By and large, I think that's a "bad deal" that the workers should reject. But that's their decision, not mine (or yours! Or Lenin's!).

So what's the source of this "great fear" of counter-revolution that Leninists insist "requires" a powerful centralized state apparatus?

Do they--and you--really think that "millions" of people would flock to the standards of "Bring Back Capitalism!"? Can you see your present landlord shouldering a rifle to serve the counter-revolution? Or some kid with a degree in "business administration" deciding to protect his "investment" in his "education" by "picking up the gun"?

Actually, the only immediately serious threat of counter-revolution that I can foresee might come from religious fundamentalists and such overtly-fascist allies that they could find. Things could get "hairy".

But, in my opinion, the workers could "handle" the difficulty. Leninists, with their traditional distrust of the masses, think that a secret police backed by a regular army is "always required".

I would argue that the 21st century working class will be much more capable of dealing with class struggle after the revolution than was the case in 1917.

After all, back in 1917, much of the Russian working class was still illiterate.


The central governing body will be necessarily and undoubtedly subject to the working class. It will be a political arm of the proletariat.

This has the same strength and foundation of evidence as the statement made by Christians every Easter--"He is risen!".

Leninists repeat this mantra over and over again--as if repetition confers truth.

It doesn't.

All of the Leninist parties of the 20th century that managed to get into power in one way or another never allowed themselves to be "subject to" the working class in any substantive way. As likely as not, their beloved centralized state with its police and army were turned against the working class almost immediately after the "revolution".

This is pretty well documented!


Local, inefficient, and power-less government organizations also run the risk of failing to adhere to socialist policies.

So do centralized "workers' states". A local regime that succumbs to counter-revolutionary politics can be pressured or even forced by near-by local groups to reverse their bad decisions. Once a centralized state yields to counter-revolutionary ideas, the ballgame is over. You lost.

And, by the way, the word "local" is independent of the words "inefficient" and "powerless". How efficient decision-making may be and how much power will be exercised by local and regional groups remains speculative.

You can't pass off the automatic linkage of local with "inefficient" and "powerless" as some kind of political "analysis".

Further, the goal of proletarian revolution is not ***EFFICIENCY***...it is emancipation from wage-slavery.

Just thought I'd remind some folks of that.

:redstar2000:

PS: I do not understand the phrase in the title of this thread "and his minions". Unless you can justify that, I will edit the thread title to remove the phrase.

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

IMO Redstar is something of a paradox. On one hand he is very anarchist on some issues, and on others, he is right up there with the most hardline of Stalinists. I just think he isn't very consistant. Redstar is whatever happens to be when it is convienient for the particular arguement.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I can't give you a reply on your rebuttal now, but I'll justify the thread tittle.
Minions because you have a large following on this forum, as you probably know.

I'll reply tomorow as early as possible.

[Guest1]

lol, redstar can be very confusing at times, but that's ok.
he doesn't subscribe to a particular ideological stream, he is an individual. nothing wrong with that.

As for powerless local governments. I would say that the only way for it to work is for them to be very powerful. They would wield alot of power of anything within their small jurisdiction, but anyone residing there can come in and vote on issues at any time. They can be heard whenever they want.

Wouldn't that make it much harder for the right to infiltrate? If they did infiltrate, they could make a few bad decisions, then the neighbours could come out and vote them out the next day, or week.

Try doing that with an infiltrated central government 1000 km away, with an army and police force to back it up.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 09:48 PM
IMO Redstar is something of a paradox. On one hand he is very anarchist on some issues, and on others, he is right up there with the most hardline of Stalinists. I just think he isn't very consistent. Redstar is whatever happens to be when it is convenient for the particular argument.
Here is the resolution of the paradox:

Towards my class, I am "anarchist".

Towards the class enemy--and its boutique of ideologies--I am "Stalinist".

Of course, people often disagree with me--even my so-called "minions"--about exactly who is part of the class enemy or which ideology fits into that category, etc.

Thus I often find myself in threads where people exclaim, in outraged tones, "how can you say blah, blah, blah?". And I have to actually demonstrate (as best I can) why I think this group or that idea falls into the category of class enemy.

But if you remember that I'm always either talking about the working class (in libertarian terms) or I'm talking about the capitalist class (in Stalinist terms), then I think you will see the consistency of my views.

For example, why do I react with distaste at the suggestion that I have "minions" or "a following"?

Because I think that's a ruling class idea--that there "have" to be "leaders" and "followers".

I expect working people to learn how to figure things out...and not just wait for some "Moses" to "lead them out of bondage".

There's no such guy.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

First of all, thank you for your prompt reply and for not removing the thread title. :)


With the means of production in the hands of the workers themselves and the distribution of basic needs on a communist basis already beginning, whatever liquid wealth the capitalists may still have declines in usefulness. You can't bribe people to serve your interests unless you have something of value to bribe them with.


How do you know they won't try to trade their goods or their property?

Note that these local governments may not be powerless, but too accessible to individuals who may try to subdue them with goods or money acquired from bourgeois trade, which will also be harder to prevent with only local governing bodies as opposed to a central governing body.


Do they--and you--really think that "millions" of people would flock to the standards of "Bring Back Capitalism!

If individuals who manage to reap the product of peoples' labour, they will eventually be totally subjugated by these individuals.

Use logic here, Redstar, if there is no central government to steer society away from reactionary ideas, then your local committees (whose power is limited, unlike that of a central government) will be succumbed by the overpowering bourgeoisie.

Without a centrally planed economy, the wealth of local government organizations will be at risk of being capitulated by individuals who will be able to appropriate the labour of others to subdue these local committees and their people.

Sorry if I'm being redundant, but at least I hope you get my point.


All of the Leninist parties of the 20th century that managed to get into power in one way or another never allowed themselves to be "subject to" the working class in any substantive way. As likely as not, their beloved centralized state with its police and army were turned against the working class almost immediately after the "revolution".


Again, as I said previously, the notion that the working class can be subdued by their government is an idea that entirely negates the fact that the working class is united in its political interests. The government will only be a public institution to the point that it serves the people, but the people united as a group, as a class with no conflicting interests. I say that to compare it with bourgeoisies and their relationship to their government. Ultimately, the government will be a tool of the many local workers' committees. To assert that the government will be more powerful than the people as a class with united interests, is to assert that the people as a whole do not have collaborating political interests at all!


So do centralized "workers' states". A local regime that succumbs to counter-revolutionary politics can be pressured or even forced by near-by local groups to reverse their bad decisions.

Unless the nearby local regimes also succumb to counter-revolutionary politics. Or perhaps the neighboring regimes don't care, since they are not united, after all.


You can't pass off the automatic linkage of local with "inefficient" and "powerless" as some kind of political "analysis".

Inefficient because it won't be able to successfully follow the peoples' will.
Powerless because they will not have the leverage to overcome the bourgeoisie.

[STI]

Towards the class enemy--and its boutique of ideologies--I am "Stalinist".

Forgive me, but I don't know what you mean by this. Would you mind explaining it to me?

[SonofRage]

Since when does RS2000 have minions?

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:42 PM

Towards the class enemy--and its boutique of ideologies--I am "Stalinist".

Forgive me, but I don't know what you mean by this. Would you mind explaining it to me?
I think he means that to the 'enemy', e.g. the bourgeoisie etc etc. he has no problem with taking a 'hardline' stance. This reflects Redstars attitudes towards the abolition of all buildings promoting the Christian church etc.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 04:42 PM

Towards the class enemy--and its boutique of ideologies--I am "Stalinist".

Forgive me, but I don't know what you mean by this. Would you mind explaining it to me?
What I mean is that I'm quite willing to be "intolerant" and "repressive" towards the capitalist class and its collection of ideologies--racism, patriotism, religion, etc.

I don't believe in any kind of class-neutral "free speech".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Pete]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 04:51 PM
Since when does RS2000 have minions?
Since RedZepplin (sub)consiously supports solely the diffusion theory everyone must fit into a preestablished mould. Now that may not be the case, but the term 'minion' in itself excludes the thought that anyone could independantly come to their ideology, especially if it is similar to RedStar's.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Jesus fucking Christ, folks!
I used the term "minion" to express my feeling that more and more of the "undecided" members of Che-lives seem to be driven towards Redstar's ideology.
Whether it's a bad thing or not, I don't care.
I used "minion" because I thought it might be funny and some folks who share my feelings on this might catch on.

[redstar2000]

How do you know they [the old capitalists] won't try to trade their goods or their property?

Well, how much do they have left? And what is it "worth"?

Perhaps they can purchase some influence with a cellar full of exotic wines...what happens when the wine runs out?

And what is to keep the local collective from simply confiscating such potential bribes from the very beginning? Maybe everyone in the region would like a bottle of good wine or a piece of really nice furniture or a nice original painting or...whatever. Why shouldn't they have it? Why should the old capitalist be allowed to keep it?


Note that these local governments may not be powerless, but too accessible to individuals who may try to subdue them with goods or money acquired from bourgeois trade, which will also be harder to prevent with only local governing bodies as opposed to a central governing body.

Well, they won't have "much" to trade with and soon will have nothing. And their money is "officially worthless"...so who will bother to produce anything that they can "buy"?

I have no doubt, as I've said on many occasions, that things will be rather chaotic (in some ways) during the early years after the revolution.

I dispute the contention that there are any "unsolvable" problems.


If individuals who manage to reap the product of peoples' labour, they will eventually be totally subjugated by these individuals.

Why do you think that anyone is going to be allowed to "reap the product of people's labor"?

This is a communist revolution we're talking about here. Do you imagine that everyone is "going to sleep" after the revolution except the surviving capitalists?

There may indeed be a multitude of small businesses that manage to scrape by for a few years--it's impossible to predict how things will work out in detail--but the exploitation of the labor of others or the attempt to do so is a good way to get your ass shot.

The end of wage slavery is the purpose of all this revolution stuff.


Use logic here, Redstar, if there is no central government to steer society away from reactionary ideas, then your local committees (whose power is limited, unlike that of a central government) will be succumbed by the overpowering bourgeoisie.

Overpowering bourgeoisie? How can they be "overpowering"?

They no longer have any wealth.

They no longer have a police force or an army.

They no longer have access to the media.

There is still a residue of bourgeois ideology in society as a whole...but the bourgeoisie have no way to build on that. Any attempt on their part to organize a secret counter-revolution will be crushed as soon as it comes to public attention.

They can and will "hide out" in the churches...using religion to cloak their ambitions. But, as you know, I don't intend to let them get away with that one either.

What "overpowering"?

By the way, the image of post-revolutionary society as a "vessel"(?) that needs to be "guided" away from reactionary ideas is not a very good one. Proletarian revolution, by definition, is the spontaneous mass rejection of reactionary ideas.

It's really superfluous for you to run out in front of a moving crowd and yell "follow me" when they're already moving in the right direction.


Without a centrally planed economy, the wealth of local government organizations will be at risk of being capitulated by individuals who will be able to appropriate the labour of others to subdue these local committees and their people.

It's quite possible, actually, that there may be forms of "central economic planning" that will be compatible with local autonomy--it would just mean that all the details of the plans would be optional.

As to the risk of "emerging ruling classes" at the local level...of course, that is always possible. But we already know that it happens in centralized "workers' states". Consistently!

Thus, the logic of the situation suggests that we try a way that might work over a way that has already repeatedly failed.


Again, as I said previously, the notion that the working class can be subdued by their government is an idea that entirely negates the fact that the working class is united in its political interests.

I beg your pardon! What exactly are you trying to say here?

Regardless of whether or not the working class is "united in its political interests", the facts have shown that political elites operating under the rubric of Leninism have emerged that don't give a shit about the "political interests" of the working class.

Do you imagine that you can bury history with words?


To assert that the government will be more powerful than the people as a class with united interests, is to assert that the people as a whole do not have collaborating political interests at all!

This sounds downright mystical...have you been secretly nipping at the "dialectics" bottle again?

In any event, the interests of the class "as a whole" is an abstraction--and not a terribly useful one. It was hardly in the interests of the Russian working class "as a whole" for the Bolsheviks to start accumulating privileges before the ink was dry on the resolution of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets to give them power.


Unless the nearby local regimes also succumb to counter-revolutionary politics. Or perhaps the neighboring regimes don't care, since they are not united, after all.

Or perhaps nothing of the sort will happen at all. The future is full of "ifs".


Inefficient because it won't be able to successfully follow the peoples' will.
Powerless because they will not have the leverage to overcome the bourgeoisie.

I see no reason why not...the people are right there on the spot to make them do it.

As to your fears of the bourgeoisie, I think you have succumbed to the "all-powerful" image that the bourgeoisie likes to present to its opponents.

They are not remotely as "omnipotent" as they would have you believe...or that you would have us believe.

Like all defeated ruling classes, they will feel "unlucky" and "ill-treated"...and there won't be much they can do about it in the end.

Their times are over.

:redstar2000:

PS: And I see nothing "funny" about your use of the word "minions". I think it is at least faintly insulting to me and to others who might agree with me about some things.

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If you resent the thread title, I don't mind if you remove it.
It was certainly not intended to be a personal insult to you.
In fact, I highly respect you.
It was perhaps mocking the huge popularity of your ideas as jokingly resulting from authoritarian control tactics.
No offense intended.
:)


And what is to keep the local collective from simply confiscating such potential bribes from the very beginning? Maybe everyone in the region would like a bottle of good wine or a piece of really nice furniture or a nice original painting or...whatever. Why shouldn't they have it? Why should the old capitalist be allowed to keep it?

I was referring to the highly probable outcome that the remaining bourgeoisie or those with bourgeois interests will try to accumulate new wealth by secretly employing others to work for them. And this is likely to happen whether or not there is a central government, this I will admit. But these individuals who accumulate power will be able to easily subdue local governments which are small, relatively weak in power, and possibly not totally devoted to communism. If this occurs and there is no central government to "take these reactionaries out", then you may just have lost your revolution.

This is just one example of what may happen. It can also be done with property or religion.


By the way, the image of post-revolutionary society as a "vessel"(?) that needs to be "guided" away from reactionary ideas is not a very good one. Proletarian revolution, by definition, is the spontaneous mass rejection of reactionary ideas.

It's really superfluous for you to run out in front of a moving crowd and yell "follow me" when they're already moving in the right direction.

The revolution cannot be set in motion to begin with if there are no leaders, Redstar.
If they are leading themselves, then obviously a dictatorship of the proletariat is not necessary.
The government exists only to assist the working class in ridding itself of political opposition to communism.


It's quite possible, actually, that there may be forms of "central economic planning" that will be compatible with local autonomy--it would just mean that all the details of the plans would be optional.


How do you suggest that the economy is centralized, yet local governments who have no control of money are somehow autonomous?


Thus, the logic of the situation suggests that we try a way that might work over a way that has already repeatedly failed.


Well, your idea has never even been tried because it's rather obvious to most of us that when a group comes together in opposition to another, they collaborate to confront the enemy.


I beg your pardon! What exactly are you trying to say here?

I'm saying that if the working class is truly opposed to the bourgeoisie, it will institute a government that will suppress them. They will construct a system that will work in their interests, or their comrades with the same interests will. Yes, it will be these peoples' interests to give themselves as much power as possible, because they will be working in the interests of the working class in opposition to the bourgeoisie. The success of all depends of the suppression of the bourgeoisie. To say that the government will hold more power than the working people as a whole, is to disregard the fact that the government will merely be a union of the workers, which the workers will need!


I see no reason why not...the people are right there on the spot to make them do it.

Exactly! The people cooperatively organized into a government will be right there.

[Urban Rubble]

IMO Redstar is something of a paradox. On one hand he is very anarchist on some issues, and on others, he is right up there with the most hardline of Stalinists. I just think he isn't very consistant. Redstar is whatever happens to be when it is convienient for the particular arguement.

Well Gee Golly Cleetus, look at that non dogmatic feller over there, he can actually think for himself !

This is you Leninsts main problem, you think you must adhere to a certain set of old, worn out rules. Try thinking for yourself and see what happens (not all Leninists, talking to MM here).

Thank you Victor and Redstar for this debate, I am enjoying it. Have I told you how much I love you today RedStar ? :wub:

I won't jump in at this point, but Victor, I think you need to have a bit more faith in the masses.

[redstar2000]

I was referring to the highly probable outcome that the remaining bourgeoisie or those with bourgeois interests will try to accumulate new wealth by secretly employing others to work for them.

Yes, I understood that...I just don't see how it will be a practical thing for them to do.

They need something to "pay" their secret workers. They need a market for what those workers produce. And the people that enter that market need something of value to "pay" for what they "purchase".

And those are activities that cannot really be "kept secret" very easily. In the old USSR, everyone knew where to go in Moscow or Leningrad to shop in the "black market"...it was an "open secret". The Russian authorities could have shut it down had they wished to do so...but they did not (probably because some of them had been bribed and others simply didn't care).

Are people likely to "not care" about this kind of thing after a communist revolution?

Will no one get up on their hind legs at the next assembly and yell "what the fuck's going on here?!".

I think we can both agree that the younger and more energetic remnants of the old ruling class will certainly try to start up "all the old shit" again.

Where we disagree is on the question of whether a centralized state with an army and police is "required" to stop that from happening.

I don't think it is.


The revolution cannot be set in motion to begin with if there are no leaders, Redstar.

If they are leading themselves, then obviously a dictatorship of the proletariat is not necessary.

Yes, there will certainly be leaders...but they won't be anything like the mental picture you have.

Did you ever read how the great February 1917 revolution in Petrograd actually began?

It started with a group of women in a bread-line, outside a large bakery. Furious at the slow-moving line and the crappy bread that was available, the women spontaneously decided to go to the factories where their husbands worked and demand that their husbands go out on strike.

Five days or so later, three centuries of Czarist autocracy had crumbled into dust...never to return.

Lenin was in Switzerland; Trotsky was in Brooklyn; Stalin was in Siberia. So much for the "necessity" of "leaders".

If the workers can lead themselves, then the new order they establish will be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the real meaning of the phrase.

The reason you don't think it will be "necessary" is because you have unconsciously absorbed the Leninist "meaning" of "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- the autocratic rule by an "enlightened elite" over the proletariat.

But that's really not what Marx and Engels had in mind, you know.


How do you suggest that the economy is centralized, yet local governments who have no control of money are somehow autonomous?

Well, first of all, forget money. It doesn't exist any more.

I can conceive of a "central data collection agency" which would record production and distribution throughout the economy. The people that work there, based on the information they've gathered, could suggest to different local or regional collectives that it would be especially useful if they would produce X instead of Y...and offer their reasons for that suggestion.

The local or regional collective would then decide if that was "a good idea" or not. They might offer a counter-suggestion to the "central planners" -- we'll produce Z instead of X or Y.

People would freely "work these matters out" as they went along.


Well, your idea has never even been tried because it's rather obvious to most of us that when a group comes together in opposition to another, they collaborate to confront the enemy.

I don't have any idea of what you are trying to say here.

But it's a fact that Barcelona and other areas under the control of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists did put many of the ideas I've advocated here into practice (to one degree or another) and they "worked".

I concede that is extremely slender evidence; my case would be far stronger if there was a large functioning communist society in the world today.

I suppose until that happens, these arguments will continue to take place.

You are, after all, suggesting that the "next generation" of Leninists will "get it right".

And I'm saying that we've already seen enough of the Leninist paradigm and where it leads...we don't need to replicate an experiment that has repeatedly failed.


The success of all depends on the suppression of the bourgeoisie. To say that the government will hold more power than the working people as a whole, is to disregard the fact that the government will merely be a union of the workers, which the workers will need!

I think you misunderstand Leninism here. The government is not merely a "union of the workers" -- it is a self-selected elite of "conscious Leninists" who are convinced of their "special fitness to rule".

They sincerely believe that "they know best" and that it is in the "ultimate interests" of the working class to be ruled by Leninists.

There is not the slightest suggestion of any accountability to or even much interest in the will or desires of the working class itself--Leninists already "know what is to be done" and do not need the advice of ordinary workers.

Now and then, they openly admit that...you've seen the quotes but I can drag them out again if necessary.

I do not deny that a centralized state apparatus (with an army and a police force) under the command of a Leninist party can completely smash the old bourgeois ruling class...at least when they want to.

But as history has shown us, they have promptly turned around and created a new bourgeoisie from their own ranks to restore capitalism on an even firmer basis. Russian capitalism today is enormously stronger than it was in the time of the Czars. Chinese capitalism today is enormously stronger than it was in the time of Chiang.

A Leninist "revolution" that simply re-creates capitalism is not worth bothering about.

One might just as well buy a lottery ticket...if you win, that's your personal escape from wage-slavery.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think we can both agree that the younger and more energetic remnants of the old ruling class will certainly try to start up "all the old shit" again.

Where we disagree is on the question of whether a centralized state with an army and police is "required" to stop that from happening.


Power accumulated in the hands of capitalists will more easily overpower that of local governments. It can never over power that of a central government, however.


If the workers can lead themselves, then the new order they establish will be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the real meaning of the phrase.

The reason you don't think it will be "necessary" is because you have unconsciously absorbed the Leninist "meaning" of "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- the autocratic rule by an "enlightened elite" over the proletariat.

But that's really not what Marx and Engels had in mind, you know.


If the workers lead themselves, they will know that the most effective way of carrying out their needs will be through a central government.


Well, first of all, forget money. It doesn't exist any more.

I can conceive of a "central data collection agency" which would record production and distribution throughout the economy. The people that work there, based on the information they've gathered, could suggest to different local or regional collectives that it would be especially useful if they would produce X instead of Y...and offer their reasons for that suggestion.

The local or regional collective would then decide if that was "a good idea" or not. They might offer a counter-suggestion to the "central planners" -- we'll produce Z instead of X or Y.

People would freely "work these matters out" as they went along.


What is the purpose of central economic planing if they have no actual control of the goods?


I don't have any idea of what you are trying to say here.


If the interests of the people are to destroy the bourgeoisie, they will not create independent, weak organizations, they will create one that will be more potent against the bourgeoisie.


They sincerely believe that "they know best" and that it is in the "ultimate interests" of the working class to be ruled by Leninists.

There is not the slightest suggestion of any accountability to or even much interest in the will or desires of the working class itself--Leninists already "know what is to be done" and do not need the advice of ordinary workers.


The only thing that will be done "for" the workers will be the suppression of bourgeois elements in society.

[Saint-Just]

why do I react with distaste at the suggestion that I have "minions" or "a following"?

Because I think that's a ruling class idea--that there "have" to be "leaders" and "followers".

I expect working people to learn how to figure things out...and not just wait for some "Moses" to "lead them out of bondage".

Marx advocated poltical parties and pamphlets and education, yes? - that people could learn political ideas from others. The people who pick up your ideas are doing the same thing. Without you, would they have the opinions they have?

[redstar2000]

Marx advocated political parties and pamphlets and education, yes? - that people could learn political ideas from others. The people who pick up your ideas are doing the same thing. Without you, would they have the opinions they have?

Yes, I think they would...though the timing might be different and the words might be different.

Indeed, if Marx had never lived, there would still be "Marxists"...though they might call themselves something completely different, use different terminology, etc.

If Che-Lives didn't exist, something "like" it would.

What I'm saying is that it is material conditions that determines the range of possbilities...but which person happens to pop up in which role is pretty much a matter of chance.

The conception of "leader & followers" in class society is odious to me for several reasons. It implies that the "leader" does the thinking, and the "minions" do the work. It also implies that the "leader" can, in the long run, please himself...and the followers will accept that as "only right".

But worst of all is the implication that next to the "leader" stands his "muscle"...the goons who are willing to be ordered to beat the crap out of anyone who disobeys the "leader". Or kill them.

Both German and Italian fascists used the word for "leader" in their languages as the highest honor they could pay. I think you would find that concept and quite often the word itself at the heart of every despotism, political, corporate, religious, etc.

To have it applied to me, even indirectly, makes my guts twist.

I think of the role of conscious communists as primarily advocacy...though, of course, if the working class is ready to rise up, we would want to take part in the festivities.

So, when I was young and energetic, I went from town to town, making speeches, trying to "stir up trouble" for the ruling class, etc.

But I was never--and never wanted to be--an order-giver. I offered some ideas and the people locally decided what they wanted to do with them (sometimes nothing!). Sometimes I would stay around a bit and help out; sometimes I would just move on.

I never bothered to return phone calls from bourgeois reporters. I had no wish to become a "movement star"...indeed, I held such people in contempt.

Now that I'm a "lazy old bastard", I go online and throw out some ideas and still try to stir up trouble for the ruling class...even if the trouble will actually happen (if it does) long after I'm wormshit.

I always had a "big mouth" and the willingness to use it...and I still do.

But I'm proud to say that I was never a "leader".

By age 22 or so, I gave up "following" too.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

There's a difference between a "leader" and an organizer. We don't need leaders. They are deadweight.

What we need are people who will go out and organize to smash capitalism. The best part about that, is almost every single one of us is one of those. We can all be organizers, and it's not a position of privilige in any way. It shouldn't be. It's just about spreading the word, talking to people about what is to be done.

However, if you happen to get your face in a few local newspapers on the way, nothing wrong with it. I'm not talking being in the new york times or anything. I'm talking small, city papers in the process of organizing activism. I really don't see the problem with that. They'll usually print the details of your upcoming event, protests, strikes, marches, too. So I don't see how it could hurt. All it does is give the movement a little bit of exposure.

Besides, sometimes the media's a very useful tool. It's a very difficult one to tame, but very beneficial if you learn how to play. I have two brothers involved in activism in Montreal, one of whom was a big organizer, big name at the University. Without playing the media, he would have had no chance at getting out of certain situations. Drudged-up charges, lawsuits, the works.

If you're curious, type in Laith Marouf in google. That's his life story. I kinda feel sorry for the guy now.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Organizers organize a movement so that people join the movement and therefore are able to voice their opinion. Leaders lead the process of carrying out the needs of the people. What's the difference?

[redstar2000]

*Shameless Plug*

For the last month, I've been in a "death match" with the "Revolutionary Communist Party" (Avakianite) on the question of Leninism here (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=theory&action=display&num=1067470817).

If you want to read some very long & complicated posts on this subject, this is the place.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

Indeed, if Marx had never lived, there would still be "Marxists"...though they might call themselves something completely different, use different terminology, etc.

Marx was fairly intelligent. I think it was important that he existed. He wasn't a leader, that wasn't the importance of his role. If Marx had never lived I think there would have been as individual like him who would have developed similar ideas.

I think without you there would be fewer people on this site with your opinions. It seems to me that you are a hard determinist, that you think Communism is inevitable and no specific individuals, ones with leadership qualities, are needed to create a revolution.

[Guest1]

Well, that's what Marx said.

Communism is inevitable, barring the world exploding. Every one of us helps, but none of us are essential.

[redstar2000]

I think without you there would be fewer people on this site with your opinions. It seems to me that you are a hard determinist, that you think Communism is inevitable and no specific individuals, ones with leadership qualities, are needed to create a revolution.

Well, there might be fewer people on this site with my opinions; but there might be another site (in French or German or Spanish or Italian) where there'd be somebody "like" me and there would then be more people who shared some of "my" views there.

(This is a good place to mention how much I regret that I didn't learn to read at least one European language -- don't make the same mistake I did, kids! Learn French or German or Italian well enough to read and write in it fluently! It will expand your "revolutionary horizons" enormously.)

Yes, I think Marxism is profoundly "deterministic". As I told the Avakianites, leaders don't make history; history makes leaders.

When the time for proletarian revolution arrives, it makes them out of workers.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:06 PM

I think without you there would be fewer people on this site with your opinions. It seems to me that you are a hard determinist, that you think Communism is inevitable and no specific individuals, ones with leadership qualities, are needed to create a revolution.

Well, there might be fewer people on this site with my opinions; but there might be another site (in French or German or Spanish or Italian) where there'd be somebody "like" me and there would then be more people who shared some of "my" views there.

(This is a good place to mention how much I regret that I didn't learn to read at least one European language -- don't make the same mistake I did, kids! Learn French or German or Italian well enough to read and write in it fluently! It will expand your "revolutionary horizons" enormously.)

Yes, I think Marxism is profoundly "deterministic". As I told the Avakianites, leaders don't make history; history makes leaders.

When the time for proletarian revolution arrives, it makes them out of workers.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
........Why not learn Swahili? Or Cambodian? Aabic? Or Some language spoken in countries that dsperately need a revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

Organizers organize a movement so that people join the movement and therefore are able to voice their opinion.

But the movement is broken down into areas, districts etc. Each district has active members. Some more than others. These areas do not need leaders, they need people to build the movement in those areas. Some maybe more active than others, it does not mean that those people should become leaders, it simply means they are more active. Take the SWP, they have district organizers in an area who are full time members, ie, they get a wage (I did it for two months and realised I was wasting my time) and have to report back to the Central Office about everything. You have to follow their lead etc. Where as the Anarchist group in Sheffield are independent from any central committee and organize among themselves in co-operation with each other, rather than having a central office dictating to them what to do.

There is no need to have national leaders, just active members to take on certain responsabilities. Of course there maybe need for national co-operation, but I do not think that you need leaders or central committees to do that.


Leaders lead the process of carrying out the needs of the people. What's the difference?

The difference is that leaders are or attempt to be personalities ,where as organizers are just active members. Leaders have authority over people, organizers have responsability to people.

[redstar2000]

Why not learn Swahili? Or Cambodian? Arabic? Or some language spoken in countries that desperately need a revolution.

Well, material conditions in those countries can only result in bourgeois revolutions -- though there may be much waving of the red flag and a torrent of pseudo-Marxist terminology.

The "best shot" for a proletarian revolution, in my opinion, is in countries like France, Germany, Italy, etc. If you know that language well enough to read and write in it fluently, then you'll be able to follow events accurately and tell the rest of us mono-linguistic cripples what the hell is going on there.

Which is something we will desperately need to know...so we can do it too.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 10:30 PM

Why not learn Swahili? Or Cambodian? Arabic? Or some language spoken in countries that desperately need a revolution.

Well, material conditions in those countries can only result in bourgeois revolutions -- though there may be much waving of the red flag and a torrent of pseudo-Marxist terminology.

The "best shot" for a proletarian revolution, in my opinion, is in countries like France, Germany, Italy, etc. If you know that language well enough to read and write in it fluently, then you'll be able to follow events accurately and tell the rest of us mono-linguistic cripples what the hell is going on there.

Which is something we will desperately need to know...so we can do it too.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
...I think I'll stick with trying to help teh third world thank you. Germany, France, and Italy haven't been fucked over by America enough yet to warrant me using my efforts to help them...yet....

[The Feral Underclass]

...I think I'll stick with trying to help teh third world thank you. Germany, France, and Italy haven't been fucked over by America enough yet to warrant me using my efforts to help them...yet....

Maybe I missed something, but are you saying the only countries which deserve to have capitalism removed are those countries directly effected by US foregin policy?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 15 2004, 07:05 PM
Well, that's what Marx said.

Communism is inevitable, barring the world exploding. Every one of us helps, but none of us are essential.
Yes, but even redstar2000 does not accept Marx verbatum.

[redstar2000]

Yes, but even redstar2000 does not accept Marx verbatim.

Indeed I don't...nor should anyone.

With a guy like Marx, the questions are always "what's the good stuff that we should keep?" and "what's the crap we can safely discard?".

Leninists frequently quote with admiration the "10 points" in the Communist Manifesto regarding the transition from capitalism to communism...that Marx and Engels wrote in 1847 for revolutions (4 of them!) that they anticipated would take place in the immediate future.

In other words, they emphasize the part of the Manifesto that is hopelessly obsolete...at least in the advanced capitalist countries.

Likewise, the Leninists cling grimly to "dialectics"...which was fashionable in the 1840s but is now largely relegated to footnotes in history of philosophy texts -- or would be if Marx had not taken up the idea himself.

That's the same thing as if the scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA) not only used Isaac Newton's equations for planning space voyages but also took careful account of his calculations on the end of the world based on the "Book of Revelations".

On the other side of the coin, the Leninists have always been uncomfortable with Marx's conception of the decisive role of the masses in history.

They can't deny it all together -- and preserve any pretense of being Marxists at all. But they insist that without the leadership of a party of a Leninist type, the masses cannot make a successful proletarian revolution, period. No exceptions!

In my opinion, Leninists substitute the will of a determined minority for the action of the entire working class -- which, again in my opinion, is an idealist deviation from Marxist materialism.

They "keep the crap" and "throw away the good stuff".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2004, 06:33 AM

...I think I'll stick with trying to help teh third world thank you. Germany, France, and Italy haven't been fucked over by America enough yet to warrant me using my efforts to help them...yet....

Maybe I missed something, but are you saying the only countries which deserve to have capitalism removed are those countries directly effected by US foregin policy?
No I mean for the time being those nations that aren't being fuckedover by the imperalist powers can handle themselves. The Third world has major problems that alot of us are ignoring

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The Anarchist Tension
Once a member of this committee becomes more active and takes more responsibility upon himself, he becomes an organizer, I guess, and he asumes the power that comes with that responsibility. It is his responsibility as an organizer is to oversee the actions of the organization. If the purpose of the organization to distribute and trade the monthly yield of the local farms, then the organizer has the power to oversee that and furthermore, he has power over the actions of the other members of the organization who will collaborate with him in doing so.

To say that organizers have power only to accomplish certain given tasks, yet no power to direct others in assisting him in accomplishing that task would be to say that an organization only functions as far as all members autonomously act cooperatively with no resposibilities or duties, even if those duties are for the benefit of the collective and not of the "leader" or "organizer".

And in fact, this argument I just made against TAT also applies against Redstar2000-ism.
I don't feel like explaining it all, but I think you can get the point.

[redstar2000]

To say that organizers have power only to accomplish certain given tasks, yet no power to direct others in assisting him in accomplishing that task would be to say that an organization only functions as far as all members autonomously act cooperatively with no responsibilities or duties, even if those duties are for the benefit of the collective and not of the "leader" or "organizer".

Well, suppose the "organizer" says "we need three people to take care of this necessary task". Would not others step forward to do that?

Or do you think that the only way "things can work" is if the organizer is really a boss, and says "you, you, and you, go do this!"?

In real life, of course, there would probably be a mixture of such things. If the power is out after a hurricane, then each repair crew has to be assigned a specific break to be repaired -- it wouldn't be very useful to send all the trucks out and have them sort of wander around until they found a broken line.

A good organizer can "focus" people's attention on the most "important" tasks, as s/he perceives them.

But in a climate of real freedom, there must be a pervasive attitude that a "bad" or "stupid" instruction can be and ought to be refused.

The "cultural imperative" of habitual obedience to authority (characteristic of all forms of class society) needs to be replaced with a communist attitude of workers' autonomy.

Something I don't think Leninists ever grasped.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Not to detract from your argument here, what is the little arrow supposed to mean?


Well, suppose the "organizer" says "we need three people to take care of this necessary task". Would not others step forward to do that?

Or do you think that the only way "things can work" is if the organizer is really a boss, and says "you, you, and you, go do this!"?

Obviously a combination of the two. What TAT suggested, however, was that organizers have no responsibilities of other individuals, only of tasks.


The "cultural imperative" of habitual obedience to authority (characteristic of all forms of class society) needs to be replaced with a communist attitude of workers' autonomy.

Something I don't think Leninists ever grasped.


The issue here is that, unlike anarchists and the type, we realize that organizations of individuals (as opposed to simply individuals, or organizatiosn following an individual) with independant, yet common interests achieve much more. What you're criticizing, and I agree with you, is where the power of an organization is vested in an individual who has claimed to have the interests of the organization in mind, where in reality, it is his own interests that he would be pursuing.

But in large scale, just as well as in small scale, the power of the leaders must directly reflect those of his comrades. In large scale, just as well as in small scale, individual organizations cannot accomplish as much as a single organization of those organizations. And the interests of those local organizatiosn will be better catered to if that organization is a member of a more powerfull one. Just like individual citizens don't achieve much for themselves without the cooperation of a larger organization.

[The Feral Underclass]

No I mean for the time being those nations that aren't being fuckedover by the imperalist powers can handle themselves. The Third world has major problems that alot of us are ignoring

I'm going to africa in 24 days for six months [Mozambique] to be precise. I actually am taking the time to be fully aware of the problems facing the third world.

Now the problems in the third world are created by those in the first world and when capitalism is destroyed in industrialised nations Africa etc will soon be able to manage themselves.

And I disagree with you. The conditions for the working class and the young and unemployed are actually outragous. a huge percentage of people in the UK live under the EU standard of living. Our streets are full of crime, our hospitals dont work and our schools are falling to pieces, while those in power get more power and the wealth that comes along with it.

For more information about Volunteering

My College (http://www.cicd-volunteerinafrica.org)
The movement I belong too (http://www.drh-movement.org)

[STI]

No I mean for the time being those nations that aren't being fuckedover by the imperalist powers can handle themselves. The Third world has major problems that alot of us are ignoring

Well, if we can get rid of the imperialist governments and replace them with non- imperialist ones (ie communist, socialist, or hell, maybe even get rid of the government and leave it at that), we can stop the problem at its root.

[Guest1]

But in large scale, just as well as in small scale, the power of the leaders must directly reflect those of his comrades. In large scale, just as well as in small scale, individual organizations cannot accomplish as much as a single organization of those organizations. And the interests of those local organizatiosn will be better catered to if that organization is a member of a more powerfull one. Just like individual citizens don't achieve much for themselves without the cooperation of a larger organization.

We're not sayingt hey shouldn't be part of a larger organization, they should cooperate on a large scale. However, the real power for decisions should be at the grassroots, allowing any collective to reject any attempt at reactionism by anyone.

[Saint-Just]

And I disagree with you. The conditions for the working class and the young and unemployed are actually outragous. a huge percentage of people in the UK live under the EU standard of living. Our streets are full of crime, our hospitals dont work and our schools are falling to pieces, while those in power get more power and the wealth that comes along with it.

That is very much true. Hospitals work but often quite poorly, the same with schools particularly as you mentioned the buildings. Crime is totally out of control, most crimes go unpunished and there are so many terrible crimes. Unfortunately people tend to mostly care about the economy, I do too however I think too many people ignore these other areas because they do not think it affects them.

[The Feral Underclass]

RedZepplin


It is his responsibility as an organizer is to oversee the actions of the organization.

But an organization brakes down into regions, which can easily operate independently of each other while maintaining a level of co-operation. These regional organizations need several people working in co-operation to take responsibility.


he has power over the actions of the other members of the organization who will collaborate with him in doing so.

Nobody has the right to demand and order other people. These decisions and actions have to come through co-operation otherwise freedom cannot exist.


To say that organizers have power only to accomplish certain given tasks, yet no power to direct others in assisting him in accomplishing that task would be to say that an organization only functions as far as all members autonomously act cooperatively with no responsibilities or duties, even if those duties are for the benefit of the collective and not of the "leader" or "organizer".

If we are talking about organizing a movement in the context of capitalism then I would say that each region, city etc, take Sheffield for example, were I am from. There is a group of anarchists who meet, discuss issues and work out how to achieve certain things. If there is a pamphlet that needs printing or a job that needs doing a person volunteers to do it and the job is done. If they need help they ask someone if they can help and then explain the tasks that need to be done. No one is being ordered, no one has any power, they work in co-operation to achieve something.

Now if we are talking about organizing a collective then I wrote this in another thread, which explains it well [I don’t know if you saw it].


Let us say we have a city of 497,674 people which broke down into 349 collectives. That's 349 collectives of 1426 people. Now in this area there are 2 electricity stations, 4 water plants, 1 gas station, 65 farms producing different kinds of meats, vegetables, dairy products. We have 2,000 buses and a sewage team which needs 2,000 people to work it. Now each collective has an assembly who elects a representative to attend a meeting for all the city. At this meeting these representatives work in co-operation and discuss what the city needs. This group of people has no legislative power, it can not make decisions which effect the city, nor is there a chairperson. It is simply a logistics meeting. They conclude at the meeting.

2 electricity stations = 3,589 people
4 Water plants = 8,546 people
1 gas station = 567 people
65 farms = 1,450 people
2000 people to drive the buses
2000 people to work the sewage team
5,000 fire men
2,000 doctors
750 ambulance drivers
2,098 house maintenance team.

So this meeting ends and the representatives return back to their collectives to report what is required of each collective.

There are 28,000 people needed altogether to run this city. 80 people are needed from each collective to ensure that everyone has food, shelter, electricity, water, gas, doctors, ambulances, fire brigade, sewage cleaning, and buses. So lets say that these 80 people worked 4 days a week (except emergency jobs - which is different because of the nature of the job) for 5 hours a day. That would mean that you, as an individual, would work for 20 hours in one week every 18 weeks. So for 20 hours work, every four and a half months you get a house, some food, electricity, free buses, gas, a clean sewage, free health care and emergency services.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If we are talking about organizing a movement in the context of capitalism then I would say that each region, city etc, take Sheffield for example, were I am from. There is a group of anarchists who meet, discuss issues and work out how to achieve certain things. If there is a pamphlet that needs printing or a job that needs doing a person volunteers to do it and the job is done. If they need help they ask someone if they can help and then explain the tasks that need to be done. No one is being ordered, no one has any power, they work in co-operation to achieve something.


Most members of such movements are commited enough to make a leader that will appoint and enforce tasks unnecessary. But in a larger movement, a leader will surely be necessary to determine what the best course of action for the movement is. He will have to unify the needs of his comrades and make the best decision.


Let us say we have a city of 497,674 people which broke down into 349 collectives. That's 349 collectives of 1426 people. Now in this area there are 2 electricity stations, 4 water plants, 1 gas station, 65 farms producing different kinds of meats, vegetables, dairy products. We have 2,000 buses and a sewage team which needs 2,000 people to work it. Now each collective has an assembly who elects a representative to attend a meeting for all the city. At this meeting these representatives work in co-operation and discuss what the city needs. This group of people has no legislative power, it can not make decisions which effect the city, nor is there a chairperson. It is simply a logistics meeting. They conclude at the meeting.

2 electricity stations = 3,589 people
4 Water plants = 8,546 people
1 gas station = 567 people
65 farms = 1,450 people
2000 people to drive the buses
2000 people to work the sewage team
5,000 fire men
2,000 doctors
750 ambulance drivers
2,098 house maintenance team.

So this meeting ends and the representatives return back to their collectives to report what is required of each collective.

There are 28,000 people needed altogether to run this city. 80 people are needed from each collective to ensure that everyone has food, shelter, electricity, water, gas, doctors, ambulances, fire brigade, sewage cleaning, and buses. So lets say that these 80 people worked 4 days a week (except emergency jobs - which is different because of the nature of the job) for 5 hours a day. That would mean that you, as an individual, would work for 20 hours in one week every 18 weeks. So for 20 hours work, every four and a half months you get a house, some food, electricity, free buses, gas, a clean sewage, free health care and emergency services.

Who will enforce this rigid policy? Who will determine how many are needed for each task? Who will be in charge of collecting the goods and redistributing them? Who will be in charge of trading goods? Who will be in charge of aquiring goods from another community? I compltely agree with having local collectives like what you described. But when a collective needs something from another collective, how can the representatives provide them with what they needs, if the only "central" gatherings are strictly logistical. What of the city needs federal funding? And how will federal standards be upheld? Standards of education, health, sanitation, food availability, living conditions, etc. How will they be upheld? If one city produces more goods than another city, should the citicens of that city be enitled to better everything?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17 2004, 09:55 PM

No I mean for the time being those nations that aren't being fuckedover by the imperalist powers can handle themselves. The Third world has major problems that alot of us are ignoring

I'm going to africa in 24 days for six months [Mozambique] to be precise. I actually am taking the time to be fully aware of the problems facing the third world.

Now the problems in the third world are created by those in the first world and when capitalism is destroyed in industrialised nations Africa etc will soon be able to manage themselves.

And I disagree with you. The conditions for the working class and the young and unemployed are actually outragous. a huge percentage of people in the UK live under the EU standard of living. Our streets are full of crime, our hospitals dont work and our schools are falling to pieces, while those in power get more power and the wealth that comes along with it.

For more information about Volunteering

My College (http://www.cicd-volunteerinafrica.org)
The movement I belong too (http://www.drh-movement.org)
Thanks for teh links...also it's good to here that you are visitng africa...have fun

[The Feral Underclass]

RedZepplin


But in a larger movement, a leader will surely be necessary to determine what the best course of action for the movement is.

You want to be this leader don’t you...admit it.... you have you eyes set on this...you think that you would make a really good leader....it's called DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR..

How the fuck would some chump in London know what was needed in Sheffield (450 miles away). Only me and my comrades know what is needed in Sheffield and it is our duty to organize and make it work. We do not need or should rely on someone who claims to understand something...


He will have to unify the needs of his comrades and make the best decision.

He being you... :rolleyes: This is a stupid argument. I am unified with my comrades and we work together to make the best decisions...


Who will enforce this rigid policy?

Everyone!


Who will determine how many are needed for each task?

Depends on how big an area is and how many collectives there are. If it were Sheffield then I imagine there would be a few hundred collectives. There would need to be a logistics meeting between each collective to decide it.


Who will be in charge of trading goods?

Calm down sparky...I reckon it should be Steve or maybe Tracy :blink: ...I don’t know Red, someone would do it...


Who will be in charge of acquiring goods from another community?

I'd like that job please!


But when a collective needs something from another collective, how can the representatives provide them with what they needs, if the only "central" gatherings are strictly logistical.

Each collective would have certain responsibility areas. One of them would be food distribution etc. What ever team was responsible for what ever would contact the whatever collective and say we need so much of product X, Y, Z and a little bit of product [special] K ;) It's not rocket science is it...


What of the city needs federal funding?

eeeeeeeeyyyyyyeeeesssss...fed-eral funding... :unsure:


And how will federal standards be upheld?

You’re taking the piss right!!!


Standards of education, health, sanitation, food availability, living conditions,

You telling me we need leaders and a state to work out what standard we want out education, health, sanitation, food availability and living conditions to be....


If one city produces more goods than another city, should the citizens of that city be entitled to better everything?

Good wouldn’t necessarily be produced in cities they would be produced at specific production collectives and distributed according to what ever the collectives needed.

...wow...that felt like a job interview...!!!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How the fuck would some chump in London know what was needed in Sheffield (450 miles away). Only me and my comrades know what is needed in Sheffield and it is our duty to organize and make it work. We do not need or should rely on someone who claims to understand something...

You do know what is best for you!
And we absolutely respect that.
But not all of the needs of your localioty can be satisfied there.
So a central government will provide for your local government, obviously according to what it needs.
And it will also evaluate those decisions on whether or not they're detrimental to the greater good.




Who will enforce this rigid policy?
Everyone!


I supposed that the workers can somehow encourage each other or even rather forcefuly intimidate each other into not straying from the generaly-beneficial plan. But individuals should not be in charge of this sort of thing. What if one individual who is left to be acustomed to the communistic ways by his comrades ends up trying to employ his comrades, sell them goods, aquire capital, aquire land, spread religious ideas, etc...? Say this guy is a nazi. And say he manages to make a small following of counter-revolutionaries? This sort of thing is impossible if there is an active government that can quickly silence reactionary activism so that the people can continue to rule democraticaly without obstruction.


Depends on how big an area is and how many collectives there are. If it were Sheffield then I imagine there would be a few hundred collectives. There would need to be a logistics meeting between each collective to decide it.

Meaning you....?


You telling me we need leaders and a state to work out what standard we want out education, health, sanitation, food availability and living conditions to be....

What if a region is somewhat technologicaly backwards?
A central government can make sure that a particular region iosn't left to it's own means, while a metropolis nearby has electricity, indoor plumbing, proper medicinal care, better education available, etc.


Good[s] wouldn’t necessarily be produced in cities they would be produced at specific production collectives and distributed according to what ever the collectives needed.

And who would determine how much each collective is entittled to?
Lemme guess.
The collectives themselves will independantly decide how many goods it's entittled to.
I guess all of the goods would be freely available for the first collective to decide how much it's entittled to?
And there would be no central tyrant of a government to determine that collective 1 cannot have all of the apples, for example.
And goods would have to be produced in some collective, wouldn't they?
Or are you suggesting that every industrial establishment be independant of any collective? :lol:


...wow...that felt like a job interview...!!!

Sorry, but you don't get the job.
We don't hire people who wouldn't like their bosses. :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

You do know what is best for you!
And we absolutely respect that.

Who is we?


But not all of the needs of your localioty can be satisfied there.

Maybe you have answered this and i'm just not clear. But why?


So a central government will provide for your local government, obviously according to what it needs.

You do not need a central government. These things can be arranged through co-oepration from collectives to the necessary production collective.


And it will also evaluate those decisions on whether or not they're detrimental to the greater good.

It's a fair enough point, but I do not think it justifies the authority of a state. I am sure there are other ways to deal with this that creating forms of domination.


supposed that the workers can somehow encourage each other or even rather forcefuly intimidate each other into not straying from the generaly-beneficial plan. But individuals should not be in charge of this sort of thing.

You presume that the logistics of a collective would have to be enforced in some way. I do not agree. The whole point of a revolution would be to achieve this system. People would want it to work, and would work together to make sure that it did. Individuals would simply have a responsability to the collective as a whole to participate in socially necessary work. Why wouldn't they?


What if one individual who is left to be acustomed to the communistic ways by his comrades ends up trying to employ his comrades, sell them goods, aquire capital, aquire land, spread religious ideas, etc

Understand that there has to be a prerequsite of understanding before we can even get to this point in history. It would be extremly difficult if at all this thing tried to happen.

You also presume that people are stupid and easily blinded. If the workers have just overthrown the working class to create such a society why would they be convinved by some reactioanry twat. People are not stupid and they would be able to identify such behaviour quickly and deal with it.


say he manages to make a small following of counter-revolutionaries? This sort of thing is impossible if there is an active government that can quickly silence reactionary activism

Government is one way but then there is collective responsability also.


Meaning you....?

I dont understand...am I sheffield, the collective or the logistics meeting :blink:


What if a region is somewhat technologicaly backwards

I am bored of these questions...


A central government can make sure that a particular region iosn't left to it's own means, while a metropolis nearby has electricity, indoor plumbing, proper medicinal care, better education available, etc.

It's called co-operation. Regions would not allow people to go cold etc just because they arent a part of that region.


The collectives themselves will independantly decide how many goods it's entittled to

No! A collective will collectivly agree on what it needs and make the necessary arrangments.


And goods would have to be produced in some collective, wouldn't they?

Factories would be collectivized and may hold accomodation for people who worked there for there certain amount of work time. Farms would be collectivized with volunteers selected by demarchy or whatever who go and work there.


And goods would have to be produced in some collective, wouldn't they?

I dont understand what you mean?


We don't hire people who wouldn't like their bosses

And that's what it comes down to isnt it...Accept your boss or else!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Who is we?


By that I mean the central government. You referred to the local collective as "we", so I referred to the central government as "we". I don't know why.


Maybe you have answered this and i'm just not clear. But why?


Not everything that the collective needs can be manufatured in that collective. What about defense? And like I previously stated, education, healthcare, sanitary standards, food availability, and other basic needs must be ensured by the federal government, because many collective won't be able to offer these things if left to their own means.


You presume that the logistics of a collective would have to be enforced in some way. I do not agree. The whole point of a revolution would be to achieve this system. People would want it to work, and would work together to make sure that it did. Individuals would simply have a responsability to the collective as a whole to participate in socially necessary work. Why wouldn't they?


Maybe they will.
Maybe they won't.
Maybe they won't assume that responsibility.
Who knows?


You also presume that people are stupid and easily blinded. If the workers have just overthrown the working class to create such a society why would they be convinved by some reactioanry twat. People are not stupid and they would be able to identify such behaviour quickly and deal with it.

I think that people can be very easily blinded by others. Why can't a powerful establishment be left to deal with reactioanry twats?


Government is one way but then there is collective responsability also.

Tell me if understand, but are you implying that a public organization is okay, as long as it is a local "collective"?
I'm afarid I don't understand this last comment of yours very well, so forgive me.


It's called co-operation. Regions would not allow people to go cold etc just because they arent a part of that region.


Why must the burden of enforcing basic standards of living be placed upon foreign localities with no jurisdiction in this backwards area?


No! A collective will collectivly agree on what it needs and make the necessary arrangments.

By "independently" I meant independently from the other collectives. You said that goods would be distributed to a collective depending on the needs of taht collective. You implied that the goods produced are available to all collectives, which I agree with. But with no central public organization to distribute the goods with the needs of all the collectives in mind, one collective could easily keep all of the goods for themselves, couldn't they?


And that's what it comes down to isnt it...Accept your boss or else!

I see you missed my joke.
I said that because we dissapprove of bosses, so it would be funny to make a joke suggesting that I was a boss speaking against leftsist with such opinions.
*sigh*

[The Feral Underclass]

Not everything that the collective needs can be manufatured in that collective. What about defense? And like I previously stated, education, healthcare, sanitary standards, food availability, and other basic needs must be ensured by the federal government, because many collective won't be able to offer these things if left to their own means.

I am not suggesting that every collective have a factory that makes bread or this and that. There maybe four facotries in the country that makes bread and the bread is distributed.

A city for instance would not be able to produce Asprin. It would have to be imported from a factory and distributed to the various shops within that collective by who ever was responsable for food etc.


Maybe they will.
Maybe they won't.
Maybe they won't assume that responsibility.
Who knows?

Why wouldn't they was my question? The whole point of any class action would be to achieve this system of organization. It's like needing a pen to write with then buying one and then not use it or it's like buying a jumper you dont wear. It's an illogical argument.


I think that people can be very easily blinded by others.

Are you easily blinded by nazis or capitalists. No! You have a class perspective and can easily counter these arguments and show them up to be bullshit. The workers are no different to you. They have the ability, just like you, to have a similar class perspective.


Tell me if understand, but are you implying that a public organization is okay, as long as it is a local "collective"?

Of course there can be public organization, how on earth do you expect anything to get done. What is'nt necessary is having a centralized authority with leaders and a bureacracy. It is fundamentally wrong for a start and completely contradicts the whole point of workers revolution and it also creates oppression and class distinctions. We should work togther collectivly, not under the control of someone else.


Why must the burden of enforcing basic standards of living be placed upon foreign localities with no jurisdiction in this backwards area?

Sometimes it's not about what I can get but what I can do for you. Are you telling me if you had just fought along side the workers to overthrow the ruling class and introduce this collective economic and political system and someone in another collective needed your help you would say no...Of course you wouldnt. We are all comrades. They whole point is so we can live in a society where we help people and work together, in a personal, local, regional, national and international level.


But with no central public organization to distribute the goods with the needs of all the collectives in mind, one collective could easily keep all of the goods for themselves, couldn't they?

Yes! But why would they for a start. If they did then the reason would be to try and either intimidate collectives or hold them to ransom for something. If that was the case then the collectives effected would work in co-operation to cease the goods back. Either by arguement or by force.


I see you missed my joke.
I said that because we dissapprove of bosses, so it would be funny to make a joke suggesting that I was a boss speaking against leftsist with such opinions.

The sad thing is you really believe it.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22 2004, 12:05 AM

But with no central public organization to distribute the goods with the needs of all the collectives in mind, one collective could easily keep all of the goods for themselves, couldn't they?

Yes! But why would they for a start. If they did then the reason would be to try and either intimidate collectives or hold them to ransom for something. If that was the case then the collectives effected would work in co-operation to cease the goods back. Either by arguement or by force.
Argument or force could work...but I doubt such a case would happen, considering there should be confederations, federations, etc, etc. to "ensure" co-operation between collectives on a large scale.

Of course, such a structure would be bottom-up.

[The Feral Underclass]

I agree with you, but for some people specific situations for specific problems have to be answered specifically......i call it neurotic politics!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

This discussion is getting quite confusing for several reasons.

We're not on the same page regarding what a collective is.
I am referring to a county, city, parish, shire, district or other local organization, which differs from current local organizations in the way that they do not have representatives, but instead constitute of all of the residents of that district, locality, shire, whatever making decisions in a democratic way.

It seems that you are referring to factory committees and such when you use the word collective.

Secondly, you're getting really aggravated at me. Let's not, mate. You're the one who said to not take things personally on the internet.

And I'm not going to go through and address every line you wrote, because of our misunderstanding. If I was wrong, I apologize. Let's just not get hung up on pedantic issues.

And my point is simply that local organizations of workers are more effective if they themselves are organized into a central organization of all localities. This would make the much-needed co-operation easier.


Sometimes it's not about what I can get but what I can do for you. Are you telling me if you had just fought along side the workers to overthrow the ruling class and introduce this collective economic and political system and someone in another collective needed your help you would say no...Of course you wouldn’t. We are all comrades. They whole point is so we can live in a society where we help people and work together, in a personal, local, regional, national and international level.

You local organization has no responsibility to help mine in advancing technologically. If your only interests in my region is the goods that might be produced here, then why would you care how that is done? Just because we're comrades? But maybe if we both had representatives in the central government, they would ensure that my comrades had their basic needs fulfilled. Social equality is only possible if economic equality exists. And economic equality is only possible if goods are offered evenly according to need. And I strongly doubt that one region which is independent of all others will give a shit about the economic shit-hole another independent region is in.

Redstar2000 at least rejects anarchism's refusal of local economic planning, and advocated central economic planning. He simply does not advocate a central power structure.

That ideology is at least feasible to me, but one region being totally independent of another is just ludicrous!

And let the joke go, man, just let it go.

I don't even know what you mean by me "actualy believing it". What is "it"?