What makes you think you are correct?

[Gnosis]

Whether you think you are a conservative or a liberal or something else, I am wondering why.

So what makes you think you should be either way?
Do you think your way is more correct than any other way?

What do you think about the current political administration running the united states of america?

What, in your opinion, could be done to improve the state of the human consciousness?
What could be done to improve the state of the Earth environment?

What do you think the world should or will look like during and after the next ten years or so?

Do religion or philosophy ever play a part in your decisions concerning elections and other political activities such as demonstrations and debates?

If religion or philosophy do not play a part, can you tell me what does?

I am wondering these things because I am sincerely interested in your points of view.
I thank you if you take the time to help me learn.

[Led Zeppelin]

I haven't read most of Marx, Engels and Lenin myself, but I believe they are correct because I have "faith" in the correctness of their writings.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

I feel my "way" is better than most other ways, as my way doesn't include excluding a social/cultural group in any way.

[Ownthink]

Because I realize what is going on in material reality, and base all of my decisions off of that.

[kingbee]

because i believe in the dialectic.

[FleasTheLemur]

I've lived both in poverty and later on in life as a memeber of the petite bougiouse. I grew up without indoor plumbing in nation that proclaimed to be a shining beacon of democracy. Why? Because septic tanks was expensive, renting backhoes was expensive and our house was too far removed from any towns to be attached to sewage lines. I didn't have the WORST and there was obviously people in the world that has even worse, but when you Dad works hard his whole life working as a CNA and you compare that to my stepdad the professor who (a) doesn't work that hard (b) affords the shit load of cars, including a few collector's cars, one of them which is a rare 1978 Dodge Aspen and.. get this. © me, my stepbrothers and pretty much everyone in close proximity to my stepdad gets a FREE education from the college he works at.

...and to think that the situation only gets more fucked up from there. There's people on the top that don't work at all and gets all the cash and there is people under my biological dad on the socio-economic ladder that has it worse than him. There's children in Africa eating bugs and dying of AIDS because it's not a viable economic investment to get involved in those countries. There is people who are going to work hard, everyday of their life just so that their children may have a chance, only to contribute to the great injustice around us. Every other major problem just short of Judo-Christian/Islamic fundimentalism as it's roots in economic injustice.

[Columbia]

What makes you think you are correct?

Because I am. I am more correct than everyone else. I wish it weren't the case, but there it is.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It boils down to history. I don't find that liberal or conservative explainations of the world really hold up. They say the system works fine, but we just need to tweek it in this way or that way to solve our problems. But most of the time these liberal and conservative politicians don't even want to adress real problems unless there is a massive revolt of some kind.

They say that racism dosn't exist until something like the Paris riots happen. THey say poverty isn't a problem in the US until something like Katrina happens. They say that Iraqis are welcoming the invasion with open arms until Falluja happens and it prooves them wrong. Even when liberals or conservatives actually aknowledge a problem, their attempts to do something about it are superficial at best. Look at crime... 30 years of a "war on crime" and no crime prevention, just 3-strikes laws to loke people up.

So, marxism, in my view, is a step-up from these other politics because it isn't in denyal of the daily inequalities and hardships of life for people who have to work for a living. More importantly, it points out a strategy of how to do something about the root of these problems.

[poetofrageX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 04:31 AM
Because I am. I am more correct than everyone else. I wish it weren't the case, but there it is.
Thats retarded, seriously.

oops, wrong thread

[Columbia]

but i didn't know that there was anything to be done about it until i read Animal Farm in 9th grade

Now THAT'S retarded. Animal Farm is an anti-communist novel (which was also part of my 9th grade class) that Orwell wrote to discuss how marxist revolutions are always betrayed.

Work for socialism through democracy, like Sweden, if you like. But fight to leaders who would eventually kill their own revolution for power, and you end up like Snowball.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:31 AM

but i didn't know that there was anything to be done about it until i read Animal Farm in 9th grade

Now THAT'S retarded. Animal Farm is an anti-communist novel (which was also part of my 9th grade class) that Orwell wrote to discuss how marxist revolutions are always betrayed.

Work for socialism through democracy, like Sweden, if you like. But fight to leaders who would eventually kill their own revolution for power, and you end up like Snowball.
Orwell was a socailist and the book was an allegory for the Russian Revolution. How is it a discussion of how marxist revolutions are "always betrayed". The fact that the stalin character was called Napoleon is intresting because it reacalls a non-marxist revolution which was also betrayed.

I never read this book in school, so enlighten me on how it was specifically "anti-communist".

[Columbia]

Orwell was indede a socialist who believe that man was doomed, and that all communist revolutions would end up as power-plays by their elite.


How is it a discussion of how marxist revolutions are "always betrayed".

Because the Marxist pigs eventually take the place of the capitalists. If you recall the last lines of the book, you will remember that as one looked from the pigs to the capitalists, no one could tell the difference.

Why do I say ALL marxist revolutions are betrayed?

Try China, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, the list will always go on. When the rulers of "communist" nations meet their mistresses, it aint in the People's Hotel Number 7, but the Ritz Carlton in Paris.

Get wise.

[JKP]

Orwell fought as a militia man in the Spanish revolution.

The libertarian communist society they created worked rather well.

Until it was betrayed by the leninists.

Read about it here:

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

The article is not very long.



And to answer your other question, the reason all the current revolutions have failed is because they're leninist revolutions, which never did try to empower the working class. Unlike the spanish anarchist revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:46 AM
Because the Marxist pigs eventually take the place of the capitalists. If you recall the last lines of the book, you will remember that as one looked from the pigs to the capitalists, no one could tell the difference.

Why do I say ALL marxist revolutions are betrayed?

Try China, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, the list will always go on. When the rulers of "communist" nations meet their mistresses, it aint in the People's Hotel Number 7, but the Ritz Carlton in Paris.

Get wise.

Orwell was indede a socialist who believe that man was doomed, and that all communist revolutions would end up as power-plays by their elite.

How does he show that this is inherent and not just what happened in the Russian Revolution?


Because the Marxist pigs eventually take the place of the capitalists. If you recall the last lines of the book, you will remember that as one looked from the pigs to the capitalists, no one could tell the difference.Yes, I'm a marxist and I believe that in the Russian Revolution, the burocracy took on many charcteristics of a ruling class and eventually became a new class inside russia with intrests different than thoes of workers. Not all communists here agree with that, but many do and many more would agree that the tyrrany of Stalinism did look a lot like the tyranny that existed in Russia before. But how is this inherent in "marxist revolutions" according to Orwell?


Why do I say ALL marxist revolutions are betrayed?
Actually I was asking why you said this:

Orwell wrote to discuss how marxist revolutions are always betrayed


Try China, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, the list will always go on. When the rulers of "communist" nations meet their mistresses, it aint in the People's Hotel Number 7, but the Ritz Carlton in Paris.

The French Revolution was also betrayed and led to despotism and wars of conquest despite being based on the ideas of "Liberty, Brotherhood, and Equality" and being very similar in politics to the American revolution which did not lead to a "Napoleon". So simply stating that a revolution either failed alltogether or won, but failed to achieve its intend, does not mean that all revolutions inherently lead to the same ends. So why is it that you think that marxism inherentlyleads to this? I would say that the only real communist revolution in the list you made was the Russian revolution, but as you and Orwell and Trotsky and now JKP pointed out (for different reasonings) the revolution was betrayed. So far, you have not stated your reasons for why you believe that failure is inherent.

[Columbia]

You're wrong about French beginning like America. In fact, it's usually the left that likes to point out the following:

France's revolution was about a displacement of one class with another. America's revolution was about replacing one upper class with another. But, where leftists fail to understand is that the American "Revolution" goes beyond the mere war for independence, and continues to live. But because it's based in individual thought, expression and choice, it eventually allows for property distribution in a marketplace. This is contra to your thinking, so you don't have faith in it. I understand that, and accept your POV.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:47 AM
Orwell fought as a militia man in the Spanish revolution.

The libertarian communist society they created worked rather well.

Until it was betrayed by the leninists.

Read about it here:

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

The article is not very long.



And to answer your other question, the reason all the current revolutions have failed is because they're leninist revolutions, which never did try to empower the working class. Unlike the spanish anarchist revolution.
That is debateable, but certaintly, the betrayals of Stalinism had ripple effects in revolutions and national liberation struggles for decades to come. Also, certantly, there have been many other struggles that were able, for a time, to achieve some workers power only to fail because of external rather than internal problems.

Saying that a revolution failed (which happens more than revolutions suceedeing anyway) in the past, without giving a reason for this failure other than the fact that it did fail is not very convincing. It's like going fishing and catching a boot on your line and concluding that there are no fish in the lake only boots.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:15 PM
You're wrong about French beginning like America. In fact, it's usually the left that likes to point out the following:

France's revolution was about a displacement of one class with another. America's revolution was about replacing one upper class with another. But, where leftists fail to understand is that the American "Revolution" goes beyond the mere war for independence, and continues to live. But because it's based in individual thought, expression and choice, it eventually allows for property distribution in a marketplace. This is contra to your thinking, so you don't have faith in it. I understand that, and accept your POV.
The same stuff happened in the French revolution. It paved the way for capitalism.

[Columbia]

So far, based on the past 100 years of attempts at marxism/maoism/communism throughout the world:

Boots 55
Fish 0

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:15 AM
You're wrong about French beginning like America. In fact, it's usually the left that likes to point out the following:

France's revolution was about a displacement of one class with another. America's revolution was about replacing one upper class with another. But, where leftists fail to understand is that the American "Revolution" goes beyond the mere war for independence, and continues to live. But because it's based in individual thought, expression and choice, it eventually allows for property distribution in a marketplace. This is contra to your thinking, so you don't have faith in it. I understand that, and accept your POV.
No, I think at that time, the American and French revolutions were progressive steps. But you are correct that there are differences in the conditions of the revolutions. However, the ideologies of the revolutions shared much in common. Additionally, there were jacobians influenced by the french revolution in other countries, would you say that their efforts would only, if they had had revolutions, caused another Napoleon and "terror"?

[Columbia]

First of all, I want a laugh off of my fish boots joke. it was a good one.

OK, the reason why all of it eventually became meaningless was that America began trying to govern itself as a republic, and that brought on new problems that upstaged any interest in expanding democracy, which wouldn't be addressed until the 1830s and the Jacksonian Revolution.

We tried a confederation, but after 11 years of fighting amoungst ourselves as states, we tried to change it.

While we tried to change it, several problems caused us to fear rebellion, and we ended up creating, in 1788, a federation. All of this was a strange bunch of nonsense to the French, who wondered what had happened to our revolutionary spirit.

We answered back with the creation of the Bill of Rights about 3 years later. This institutionalized what the French could never accomplish, state authority with civilian rights. No longer slogans, like Fraternaty, Brotherhood, but genuine codified law.

Then France had a brain fart and messed it all up for about 100 years.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:22 PM
So far, based on the past 100 years of attempts at marxism/maoism/communism throughout the world:

Boots 55
Fish 0
None of the Leninist revolutions tried to implement communism; it was something to come later, like the return of Jesus or something. At best they could be called "socialist" with their state and command economies, but that's not communism.

And did you read that article on the Spanish revolution? It worked unitil it was destroyed
from outside sources.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:22 AM
So far, based on the past 100 years of attempts at marxism/maoism/communism throughout the world:

Boots 55
Fish 0
Things like the Paris commune and the initial Russian revolution, to me show that it is possible. I don't think it's possible to achieve democracy and worker's power through a coup or a gurella force acting on behalf of "the people", but by the people themselves. THe effects of the betrayal of the Russian revolution lead to betrayals down the line as other countries you mentioned tried to follow the example of the USSR rather than actual democracy and worker's power.

To extend the metaphore into aburdity: the Stalinists causght a boot and told everyone that wanted to learn how to fish that boots were fish. So even if they had accidentially caught a fish, they would throw it back as directed by the USSR. Of corse when these fishermen brought the boot back for people to eat, they were inedible and people rightfully rejected it, but it dosn't mean that fish are inedible.

Ok, just ignore the metaphore. I was trying too hard. :)

Failure by itself don't mean that failure is inevitable unless there is something about the original project that is impossible. You have yet to articulate what it is about communism that dooms it to to become the antithesis of what it set out to be.

[Columbia]

I didn't bring up Spain. Pretty country. Yes, certainly true about outsiders. Many historians, myself included, refer to it as Hitler's practice arena.

[Columbia]

Gravedigger, a lot of interesting history you know that i've never studied. Glad to learn so much.

Reminded me of a joke Lincoln used to tell:

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Five? No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

I have to go to bed now. My boyfriend is buggin me about watching a movie with him. (Probably some porn, if I know his pea brain.)

Will read more of your stuff later.

Take care

C.

[JKP]

It wasn't as the capitalist press (and leninist press interestingly enough) reported it, namely that it was a struggle between fascism and the republic.

The reality was a tangled mess.

It was an anarcho-communist revolution vs a Catholic fuedalist coup.