Intellectuals

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

There are always intellectuals in a revolution. Are they a different class? There are few outstanding individuals that are skilled workers and intellectuals. On the whole intellectuals just write, talk, and intellectualize. Are these people anti-revolutionaries? It is not like they are producing anything except more talk.

[apathy maybe]

Depends on how you define class doesn't it.

But they are no more anti-revolutionary then any other person. They do often talk a lot; often they have no real world experience with what they are talking about either.

This is like asking are shop assistances a separate class. They do not do anything productive, they simple wander around shops helping and hindering people trying to buy stuff.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 21 2005, 04:56 AM
Depends on how you define class doesn't it.

But they are no more anti-revolutionary then any other person. They do often talk a lot; often they have no real world experience with what they are talking about either.

This is like asking are shop assistances a separate class. They do not do anything productive, they simple wander around shops helping and hindering people trying to buy stuff.
If you see the last post in "Organ donation", it sounds like these intellecutals are prime candidates for people who should go live in the woods and not take part in any benefits from the collective, since they are pretty much useless.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:54 PM
There are always intellectuals in a revolution. Are they a different class? There are few outstanding individuals that are skilled workers and intellectuals. On the whole intellectuals just write, talk, and intellectualize. Are these people anti-revolutionaries? It is not like they are producing anything except more talk.
they only become a different class after a bolshevik revolution...
then we call them bureaucrats ;)

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

interlectuals are by no means anti-revolutionaries. Think about it, Marx was an interlectual, Lenin was one as was Trotsky.

interlectuals simply play different roles within a revolution i.e. taking a greater role in planning etc.

Knowledge remains the most powerful weapon, never make an enemy of it.

[SpeCtrE]

They could belong to a sub class. But I don't think they would make up a whole big class because of their small size, diverse and different ideas and social status.

[Zingu]

Social class is where you stand in relation of the means of production; not your intellectual rank. Intellectuals could be either from the proletariat or the burgeoisie then.

[synthesis]

Under traditional Marxist theory, they do form a class, called the "intelligentsia."

Marxists.org is generally the best place to go to find information on Marxist terminology. However, there is regrettably no information on this particular term on that site, but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia) has a pretty good description.

[Zingu]

Hmm interesting, what works has Marx wrote about this in? I would like to read it.

[Hiero]

While most intellectuals come from the middle class, they can come form a vary of classess. For instance many of the leaders of the USSR came from pesant families, like Stalin.

[RedStarOverChina]

umm... Intelligentsia is the Russian term for intellectuals. I dont think Marx wrote anything about this. But Lenin's vanguardism is closely associated with the idea of intellegentsia.

Lenin believed that workers themselves lacked the knowledge required to organize and start a revolution. So in order to launch a successful revolution, the intelligentsias, usually from the bourgeoisie class, need to help workers to develop the revolutionary conscience and organize the revolution, so on and so forth.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Interesting responses. If intellecutals are a different class, then what happened to a classless society?

[RedStarOverChina]

Hiero no offense but i'm not sure if u can call a guy who thought Holland and Netherlands are different countries a intellectual...

[RedStarOverChina]

hey im not a vanguardist. But realisticly speaking, in the past most intellectuals came from the Bourgeoisie class.

[NovelGentry]

If intellecutals are a different class, then what happened to a classless society?

Obviously we'll all be intellectuals.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:58 AM

If intellecutals are a different class, then what happened to a classless society?

Obviously we'll all be intellectuals.


Do you really believe that? How about stupid people? Are you saying they simply will not exist? Common, you and I both know intelligence is wide and varried. Some people simply don't 'get it' or are just barely smarter than a chimp.

Oh yea, your conclusion is sooooo obvious. It is just so obvious that stupid people should get it too.

Is everyone really going to be an intellectual? Then who is going to do the manual labor?

[RedStarOverChina]

Stupid people such as myself can become intellectuals with some assistance from resourceful publications. I dont see the problem with everyone becoming less of a brute.

My English teacher mixed cement for seven years, yet he is one of the most intelligent guy I've ever seen.

Under socialism, workers do not need to slave away their whole life just to feed their children. Consequently they will have the time to educate themselves. Also as machinaries become more developed manual labor would become less labor-intensive.

However in a capitalist society the machinary does not liberate the workforce from factories.

People would still work overtime everyday to keep up with competition.

If a worker does not work extra hard, his living standard would not increase because of his "laziness". On the other hand, if he does indeed extra hard, he has no private time to enjoy life and thus his living standard would still be considered low.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:39 PM
umm... Intelligentsia is the Russian term for intellectuals. I dont think Marx wrote anything about this. But Lenin's vanguardism is closely associated with the idea of intellegentsia.
Yeah, that's why I said "Marxist theory." The term "intelligentsia" has been in use by historical materialists ever since it was coined in the 19th century by that Polish fellow.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:43 AM
Stupid people such as myself can become intellectuals with some assistance from resourceful publications. I dont see the problem with everyone becoming less of a brute.

My English teacher mixed cement for seven years, yet he is one of the most intelligent guy I've ever seen.

Under socialism, workers do not need to slave away their whole life just to feed their children. Consequently they will have the time to educate themselves. Also as machinaries become more developed manual labor would become less labor-intensive.

However in a capitalist society the machinary does not liberate the workforce from factories.

People would still work overtime everyday to keep up with competition.

If a worker does not work extra hard, his living standard would not increase because of his "laziness". On the other hand, if he does indeed extra hard, he has no private time to enjoy life and thus his living standard would still be considered low.
I don't understand.

Have you done any studies regarding labor efficiency and tooling in the USA or free markets?

Overtime is 1.5X regular wage. Why would a capitalist want to pay overtime? Why not hire more workers and pay them 1X the wage?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+May 25 2005, 03:38 AM--> (DyerMaker @ May 25 2005, 03:38 AM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 04:39 PM
umm... Intelligentsia is the Russian term for intellectuals. I dont think Marx wrote anything about this. But Lenin's vanguardism is closely associated with the idea of intellegentsia.
Yeah, that's why I said "Marxist theory." The term "intelligentsia" has been in use by historical materialists ever since it was coined in the 19th century by that Polish fellow. [/b]
That is still not a classless society. Is that trouble?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What is an intellectual anyway? Serious question.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 25 2005, 01:28 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 25 2005, 01:28 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:38 AM

[email protected] 24 2005, 04:39 PM
umm... Intelligentsia is the Russian term for intellectuals. I dont think Marx wrote anything about this. But Lenin's vanguardism is closely associated with the idea of intellegentsia.
Yeah, that's why I said "Marxist theory." The term "intelligentsia" has been in use by historical materialists ever since it was coined in the 19th century by that Polish fellow.
That is still not a classless society. Is that trouble? [/b]
In the Marxist analysis, class is not defined by wealth or social status. It is defined by relationship to society's means of production.

The function of communism is to level that relationship on a global scale. Thus, intellectuals cannot form a different class under communism unless they have more or less access to the means of production than the rest of society. In this case, it is not a classless society and is not communism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:17 AM
What is an intellectual anyway? Serious question.
Someone who never worked a real day in their life.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ah, just the sort of answer I've come to expect from knuckle-dragging troglodytes like you. Anyone care to give me a real answer?

[OleMarxco]

An intellectual is simple a person who devotes their time to brain-storming tasks - pondering over subjects (discussing, thinking, talking, etc.) and finding solutions to philosophical problems, and perhaps indulges in sparetime "mind/spirit-work" such as psychology, playing chess, academic pursuits/ - teaching, writing essays, lecturing, educating...etc..etc... But I'm hardly an authority on this, this is just what I can think of at the top of my head :D

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:27 AM


Overtime is 1.5X regular wage. Why would a capitalist want to pay overtime? Why not hire more workers and pay them 1X the wage?
Maths for the insane!!

1man @1.5X wage or [email protected] 1X wage!
And you're an intellectual? You can't add up or spell!
Why hire more men anyway? More in insurance costs, more lost hours on lunch breaks etc etc I could go on!

[NovelGentry]

The general trend in this argument, and many other arguments of this nature is to equate something so completely unrelated to socio-economic classes to socio-economic classes. It is little different than the idea, if religion were maintained, than saying "wouldn't Christians and Jews be different classes?"

You attempt to pin various aspects of individuality to establish a class. Then you establish that under your system they maintain equality... the only kind of equality your system even attempts to represent, political equality. In return you attack our system for what you perceive as political inequality. For example, you no doubt assume that the intellectuals, "as a class," would rule over the non-intellectuals.

This is a type of thinking reserved for bourgeois politics where political emancipation, i.e. no matter how stupid you are you still have a right to vote, is designed to equal civil/social emancipation, even if it really cannot. We seek for something more.

Despite what you believe to be freedom under capitalism for those with less fortunate mental capabilities, the system you serve attempts to ensure that reality -- particularly for those who don't have the resources to even try and overcome inherent disabilities.

Capitalist political emancipation: You have the right to be stupid, and we will ensure that right is protected, even if it means ensuring there are always stupid people!

By establishing universal neutrality from the political standpoint, your system ensures that civil enequality, that lack of social emancipation for these individuals, is just as protected as it's counterpoint.

So politicaly you can scream equality from the rooftops, hell, the US president has to have some sort of mental handicap.

Socially you do nothing. There, you offer no such protection, but instead you bow to the almighty buck. Those who can afford a quality education are given the best chance, certainly more chance than even the brightest of those who cannot. You require division of those with limitation (natural or otherwise) from those without into two groups -- Afterall, there always has to be someone to flip the burgers.

We reject this, and the idea that there are those fit for mental and physical labor necessarily separate from one another. More, we reject the separation and the division of these aspects of labor. Instead we seek both political and social emancipation for all people. We seek to make education available, on all levels, to all people. We seek to destroy the nature of work as it is seen under capitalism, and turn it into something which blurs the line of mental and physical. We seek to ensure all people can be passionate about what they do, and thus become "intellectuals" of their field, no matter what it is. And where realistic differentiations must be made, we seek to provide those mentally handicapped individuals with the specific attention and education needed.

This type of freedom is something which capitalism could only dream about, and no matter how hard it tried to, could never succeed at doing.

Remember folks, No child left behind!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by T_SP+May 25 2005, 06:47 PM--> (T_SP @ May 25 2005, 06:47 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 09:27 AM


Overtime is 1.5X regular wage. Why would a capitalist want to pay overtime? Why not hire more workers and pay them 1X the wage?
Maths for the insane!!

1man @1.5X wage or [email protected] 1X wage!
And you're an intellectual? You can't add up or spell!
Why hire more men anyway? More in insurance costs, more lost hours on lunch breaks etc etc I could go on! [/b]
Or...

You get 2X work for 2X wage vs 1X the work for 1.5X the wage.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:16 PM
An intellectual is simple a person who devotes their time to brain-storming tasks - pondering over subjects (discussing, thinking, talking, etc.) and finding solutions to philosophical problems, and perhaps indulges in sparetime "mind/spirit-work" such as psychology, playing chess, academic pursuits/ - teaching, writing essays, lecturing, educating...etc..etc... But I'm hardly an authority on this, this is just what I can think of at the top of my head :D
Mannnnnn.

That is what I want to be in a commuist system and of course some make some porn part time and race cars part time too.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:26 PM


Remember folks, No child left behind!
Don't forget. No matter what has happened in capitalism, it does not prove communism right. Right?

The best you have by this line of reasoning is that both communism and capitalism are both wrong.

[NovelGentry]

Don't forget. No matter what has happened in capitalism, it does not prove communism right. Right?

Who's talking about what's right? We're talking about equality. Whether or not you think equality or right or not is irrelevent to deciding whether or not it has been achieved. Capitalism masquerades political emancipation for social emancipation, they aren't the same, and you'd be an idiot to pretend they were. We aim for social emancipation, and therefore achieve political emancipation as politics remains a subset of those free and equal people.


The best you have by this line of reasoning is that both communism and capitalism are both wrong.

I rarely speak in terms of right or wrong, seek others for moral arguments.

[STI]

That is what I want to be in a commuist system and of course some make some porn part time and race cars part time too.


You would certainly be the worst intellectual ever.

Why do I notice a pattern in your arguments? "Make ridiculous claim. Say I want to do porn. After what would happen is explained, simply restate."

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:52 PM

Don't forget. No matter what has happened in capitalism, it does not prove communism right. Right?

Who's talking about what's right? We're talking about equality. Whether or not you think equality or right or not is irrelevent to deciding whether or not it has been achieved. Capitalism masquerades political emancipation for social emancipation, they aren't the same, and you'd be an idiot to pretend they were. We aim for social emancipation, and therefore achieve political emancipation as politics remains a subset of those free and equal people.


The best you have by this line of reasoning is that both communism and capitalism are both wrong.

I rarely speak in terms of right or wrong, seek others for moral arguments.
Ok.

Justice and emancipation, has a commie achieved these yet?

How many revolutions have there been?

1 in Russia
1 in China
1 in Cambodia
1 in Cuba
1 in North Korea
a few in Latin America
a few in Africa

Anyone them get emancipation?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 12:48 AM

That is what I want to be in a commuist system and of course some make some porn part time and race cars part time too.


You would certainly be the worst intellectual ever.

Why do I notice a pattern in your arguments? "Make ridiculous claim. Say I want to do porn. After what would happen is explained, simply restate."
Dude.

I'm simply working within the system. The system is perfectly allowing me to be an intellectual. I'm going to be one.

[NovelGentry]

Ok.

Justice and emancipation, has a commie achieved these yet?

How many revolutions have there been?

1 in Russia
1 in China
1 in Cambodia
1 in Cuba
1 in North Korea
a few in Latin America
a few in Africa

Anyone them get emancipation?

We've explained and critiqued the conditions of these places here and in other threads a billion times. Since you're arguing with me here, it'd do you some good to read my critiques on Russia, China, Cuba, etc. And again, we have discussed in another thread, just days ago about the necessary manifestation of capitalism to advance the means of production. Read the list of places you've shown, look at the time periods, and show me how advanced in capitalism these places were. They weren't.

Social emancipation is not in socialism/communism in name alone, it is not that simple.

Take the time to understand the progression and the actual workings of these places, it'll save you a lot of trouble, and hopefully make you stop looking like an idiot every time you say "Russia was communist!!!"

Did these places achieve complete social emancipation? No. I do not believe you'd have complete social emancipation until you've seen communism, which we've pointed out a billion times does not occur in a single country. It is the social emancipation of everyone, you cannot claim social emancipation, particularly in terms of class struggle when the class is not limited to your country. It is a "working class" -- not "a working class of Russia."

Have they advanced social emancipation? Some have, some haven't that much... others maybe not at all. I'm not 100% familiar with every instance of what has occured, nor is it so simple to find the truth. Judging from what I've read in first hand accounts of Cuba, Cuba has come the furthest in increasing this amongst the people. This does not mean they are there yet, and it certainly doesn't mean the rest of the world is even nearly there yet.

To put it simple for you, there is no place on this earth that I know of, past or present, which has had total equality amongst it's select portion of the population. There are certainly examples where equality has taken on striking advancement, and in little time, usually out of the feverishness of the revolutionary ideas. See Spain 1936.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:35 PM

Ok.

Justice and emancipation, has a commie achieved these yet?

How many revolutions have there been?

1 in Russia
1 in China
1 in Cambodia
1 in Cuba
1 in North Korea
a few in Latin America
a few in Africa

Anyone them get emancipation?

We've explained and critiqued the conditions of these places here and in other threads a billion times. Since you're arguing with me here, it'd do you some good to read my critiques on Russia, China, Cuba, etc. And again, we have discussed in another thread, just days ago about the necessary manifestation of capitalism to advance the means of production. Read the list of places you've shown, look at the time periods, and show me how advanced in capitalism these places were. They weren't.

Social emancipation is not in socialism/communism in name alone, it is not that simple.

Take the time to understand the progression and the actual workings of these places, it'll save you a lot of trouble, and hopefully make you stop looking like an idiot every time you say "Russia was communist!!!"

Did these places achieve complete social emancipation? No. I do not believe you'd have complete social emancipation until you've seen communism, which we've pointed out a billion times does not occur in a single country. It is the social emancipation of everyone, you cannot claim social emancipation, particularly in terms of class struggle when the class is not limited to your country. It is a "working class" -- not "a working class of Russia."

Have they advanced social emancipation? Some have, some haven't that much... others maybe not at all. I'm not 100% familiar with every instance of what has occured, nor is it so simple to find the truth. Judging from what I've read in first hand accounts of Cuba, Cuba has come the furthest in increasing this amongst the people. This does not mean they are there yet, and it certainly doesn't mean the rest of the world is even nearly there yet.

To put it simple for you, there is no place on this earth that I know of, past or present, which has had total equality amongst it's select portion of the population. There are certainly examples where equality has taken on striking advancement, and in little time, usually out of the feverishness of the revolutionary ideas. See Spain 1936.
Well my point is WHY are revolutions taking place in these 'backward' places and not in the places where they are supposed to happen according to the theory?

The revolutions are taking place in the WRONG places according to the theory.

Get it? The theory is incorrect, everthing that follows from there can not be right.

[NovelGentry]

Well my point is WHY are revolutions taking place in these 'backward' places and not in the places where they are supposed to happen according to the theory?

The revolutions are taking place in the WRONG places according to the theory.

Get it? The theory is incorrect, everthing that follows from there can not be right.

The theory does not state that people trying to make a socialist revolution a reality, and possibly succeeding in the revolution part itself is impossible in such nations. It states that acheiving socialism and eventually communism is impossible without first having the advancement of capitalism.

Whether or not you can socialize production, let alone distribution, is completely dependent on the very real advancement of the means of production.

Many of these places ignored this, and this is why they never achieved socialism, and why it never would grow towards communism there, but instead are left with bureacratic state capitalist mechanisms. The revolutions, despite all the socialist rhetoric, are driven back to bourgeois/capitalist revolutions. The end result is a capitalism that develops more rapidly, although granted more painfully, than the previous demi-capitalism or feudalism that existed.

We do not pretend every revolution is socialist just because it's a revolution, or even that it is socialist just because people say it is. We can guage what the actual productions of the revolution establish themselves as, and that hindsight is quite in line with "the theory." Which no doubt you would not be aware of, since it seems you've never bothered to take the time to read it, or for that matter even listen to what we are saying.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:26 PM
And where realistic differentiations must be made, we seek to provide those mentally handicapped individuals with the specific attention and education needed.

This type of freedom is something which capitalism could only dream about, and no matter how hard it tried to, could never succeed at doing.
It's not freedom. A right to an education it isn't anything different from the other positive rights- it demands that someone provide a service regardless of the ability of the recipient to pay for that service (not necessarily with money) and thus someone's lack of something generates a "duty" in others to "do something" about that lack.

It's all hot air. Duty-based ethics are for monarchists and religionists.

[JudeObscure84]

"This conception you have of "freedom" is nice, but inpractical. In a community in which many interact and live together, "coercion" is inevitable and nescessary." Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, 2004

this quote you have right here reminds me of an article on noam chomsky's similar views of the "coercion" US capitalism has on people. check it out professor and let me know what you think.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5843

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:20 PM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5843
Thanks for that link. It sounds just like the nonsense Novel Gentry is churning out in Dreaver13's thread :

Susan Lopez wants to be a singer like her idol, Jennifer Lopez. However, she is not free to be one. She isn’t thrashed when she opens her mouth. It’s just that no one (including Professor Chomsky) will pay her to sing; she is "free" to sing only to the extent that she is "free" to starve. Consequently, she has no choice but to work at the only job for which people will pay her — collecting bedpans at the retirement home. This is not what she wants to do at all, and she would prefer at the very least to work only part-time, but that means the loss of her medical benefits. For Chomsky, Susan Lopez is not free — free to be "able to do as one pleases," which is the "natural goal" of a "decent society," one in which all the Susan Lopezes will have the same freedom as "those fortunate few [e.g., Jennifer Lopez] who can choose their own work generally do today."

He too seems to be suffering from the same syndrome.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 25 2005, 11:19 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 25 2005, 11:19 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 06:47 PM

[email protected] 25 2005, 09:27 AM


Overtime is 1.5X regular wage. Why would a capitalist want to pay overtime? Why not hire more workers and pay them 1X the wage?
Maths for the insane!!

1man @1.5X wage or [email protected] 1X wage!
And you're an intellectual? You can't add up or spell!
Why hire more men anyway? More in insurance costs, more lost hours on lunch breaks etc etc I could go on!
Or...

You get 2X work for 2X wage vs 1X the work for 1.5X the wage. [/b]
Hey Mr. T_SP

Are you still with me?

Or.....

2X the wage for 2X the work. It that about right?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 26 2005, 08:57 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 26 2005, 08:57 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 08:20 PM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5843
Thanks for that link. It sounds just like the nonsense Novel Gentry is churning out in Dreaver13's thread :

Susan Lopez wants to be a singer like her idol, Jennifer Lopez. However, she is not free to be one. She isn’t thrashed when she opens her mouth. It’s just that no one (including Professor Chomsky) will pay her to sing; she is "free" to sing only to the extent that she is "free" to starve. Consequently, she has no choice but to work at the only job for which people will pay her — collecting bedpans at the retirement home. This is not what she wants to do at all, and she would prefer at the very least to work only part-time, but that means the loss of her medical benefits. For Chomsky, Susan Lopez is not free — free to be "able to do as one pleases," which is the "natural goal" of a "decent society," one in which all the Susan Lopezes will have the same freedom as "those fortunate few [e.g., Jennifer Lopez] who can choose their own work generally do today."

He too seems to be suffering from the same syndrome. [/b]
EXACTLY....

That is why I'm a communist. I want to be free to gravitate towards my real work that is suited to me which is porn star, intellectual, and race car driver.