Reducation camps

[Reds]

Should there be communal camp communites after the revolution to reducate former members of the bourgious (like paris Hilton) and drains on a socialist system.

[Correa]

It would be easier just to get rid of them. :angry:

[which doctor]

These sound too much like gulags. Instead, we strip them of their wealth and we throw them into normal society. After a few years they will have learned to fit in with normal society. I say "no" to both re-education camps and just getting rid of them.

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:23 AM
It would be easier just to get rid of them. :angry:
It would be easier and is tempting but not ethical.

[Reds]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 13 2005, 04:25 AM
These sound too much like gulags. Instead, we strip them of their wealth and we throw them into normal society. After a few years they will have learned to fit in with normal society. I say "no" to both re-education camps and just getting rid of them.
I was not suggesting work camps as in china or the ussr but simple places were these elements would be taught socialist values.

[Correa]

I can just imagine "ex celebrities" walking down the street amongst the workers. :lol:

[farleft]

Originally posted by Reds+Dec 13 2005, 04:30 AM--> (Reds @ Dec 13 2005, 04:30 AM)
Fist of [email protected] 13 2005, 04:25 AM
These sound too much like gulags. Instead, we strip them of their wealth and we throw them into normal society. After a few years they will have learned to fit in with normal society. I say "no" to both re-education camps and just getting rid of them.
I was not suggesting work camps as in China or the USSR but simple places were these elements would be taught socialist values. [/b]
Like a college?

Make them do a course in "Communist Values" ?

Sounds like a pretty good idea.

Also like what has been said before they will also be thrown in with normal society so they will have theory and practical with the good combination of college and normal communist life.

[Spark]

I don't think camps of any kind are the answer. People will learn to live in the society and they will adapt.

[farleft]

I think the trouble here is the term "camp".

This does not have to be a bad place where things are forced upon the individuals who are there.

As I said in my previous post, if this was like a college where they go for a few hours a day and the rest of the time are normal members of society then that would sort it out.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 13 2005, 08:25 AM
These sound too much like gulags. Instead, we strip them of their wealth and we throw them into normal society. After a few years they will have learned to fit in with normal society. I say "no" to both re-education camps and just getting rid of them.
Extremely well put.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:09 PM

Like a college?

Make them do a course in "Communist Values" ?

Sounds like a pretty good idea.


What if they start cutting classes?!? :P .
Couldn't we just give them two options, stay and be absorbed into society or we'll let you leave, you can come back when every you want not that you'll want to, they would probly get a lot of symithy somewhere else but who cares. Simple.

[Amusing Scrotum]

What makes you think the "dethroned" bourgeois would stay around? ....they will more than likely flee to another country.

[YKTMX]

Paris Hilton? :lol:


Doesn't 're-education' imply the person's had some prior education?

[WUOrevolt]

When a revolutionary socialist government comes to power, their first and foremeost job is to assure liberation of the working class (by ethical means). Re education camps sound a little fascist to me, as well as unneeded.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I'm for re-education camp :lol:

Celebrities will camp out in boyscout barracks an be forcedto widdle little hammer and sickles from oak wood.

These wooden hammer and sickles get sold on E-bay to people of forgien countries. The money goes "to the greater good".

People in Japan will be thrilled to own a hammer and sickle carved by Tom Cruise.

;)

[barista.marxista]

This also depends on the cases. For example, if an ex-millionaire excepts the changes of society, and while he may not at the time agree with it, he goes on with his life to be productive, then he has assimilated and will adapt, as all humans do. If another ex-bourgie, however, refuses to accept the reorganization of society by social needs, and then begins to resist violently and become harmful, attempting to selfishly regain his upper position and re-create capitalism, then re-education might be useful. For a case even more extreme than that, well, why should a society providing prosperity equally for all its people waste money for education on this one selfish man's case, when a bullet is so much cheaper? Why accomodate the egoists, when we have children to feed, sick to care for, houses to build, and a new world to create?

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:37 AM
When a revolutionary socialist government comes to power, their first and foremeost job is to assure liberation of the working class (by ethical means). Re education camps sound a little fascist to me, as well as unneeded.
It would also be used to de-alienate much of the masses.

[Correa]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 13 2005, 04:20 PM
What makes you think the "dethroned" bourgeois would stay around? ....they will more than likely flee to another country.
If they could they would. This is the typical move.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by Correa+Dec 14 2005, 05:04 PM--> (Correa @ Dec 14 2005, 05:04 PM)
Armchair [email protected] 13 2005, 04:20 PM
What makes you think the "dethroned" bourgeois would stay around? ....they will more than likely flee to another country.
If they could they would. This is the typical move. [/b]
And why not let them, if they're not going to condribute to society, who needs'em.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:26 AM
It would be easier and is tempting but not ethical.
It offends your "Christian values"?

I fully support a "Red Terror" to weed out the most active and dangerous counterrevolutionaries and those who refuse to accept their new lives. Liquidating an entire class is not feasible.


And why not let them, if they're not going to condribute to society, who needs'em.
Because they will aid capitalist resistance in other nations. That will no doubt come back to bite us. Cuba being a case in point.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 12:00 AM
Paris Hilton? :lol:


Doesn't 're-education' imply the person's had some prior education?
:lol: lol.

I think we should let them try and adapt into the new society but if they refuse, what else can we do? I dont think that someone who held so much power and money will just give up. Chances are they will be killed trying to stop the revolution anyway.

[Hiero]

It depends who we are talking about.

I think the ultra rich are to far gone for re-education and would be imprisioned and used in a forced labor, so their skills are not lost. The proletariat will still have some use for the bourgeois.

Re-education is mostly used for thoose of proletariat class or middle class who have counter revolutionary veiws. The aim of re-education is to correct ideas in the proletariat class.

Thoose who say it is fascist do not understand the meaning of the term fascist and have no class knowledge. The re-education is down by the proletariat, and it is proletariat ideology that is taught and bourgeois ideology that is destroyed. This is not fascist, it is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Thoose who say it is not necessary are fasle as well. We are fighting a class battle, each class has it's ideology, however the proletariat does not learn proletariat ideology naturualy. So it is only natural that there would be thoose who do not know and support the this ideology that are in fact in the proletariat class. These people need re-education.

The people who think it is not necessary, do so based on some humanist belief, human nature belief or focus to much on the economic base. They just assume that people will naturally come over and start to love the new society at sight, or view how great it is. This is quite foolish to believe and disregard the class system.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:45 PM

And why not let them, if they're not going to condribute to society, who needs'em.
Because they will aid capitalist resistance in other nations. That will no doubt come back to bite us. Cuba being a case in point.
Yeah but it's not exile just give them a free flight out. Take a video of all the prcedurees they went thrugh, showing none of them were treated in violation of international law.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:25 PM
Yeah but it's not exile just give them a free flight out. Take a video of all the prcedurees they went thrugh, showing none of them were treated in violation of international law.
And that will stop them coming back? Cuba kicked most of the capitalists out and they now form one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington. Just sending them away will allow them to rgroup and aid the other capitalist regimes.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Dec 15 2005, 08:31 AM--> (ComradeOm @ Dec 15 2005, 08:31 AM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 08:25 PM
Yeah but it's not exile just give them a free flight out. Take a video of all the prcedurees they went thrugh, showing none of them were treated in violation of international law.
And that will stop them coming back? Cuba kicked most of the capitalists out and they now form one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington. Just sending them away will allow them to rgroup and aid the other capitalist regimes. [/b]
Ok yeah it does sound a bit (quite) far fetched. Yeah a red terror sounds like the most viable way. When you say "weed out" the most active counter revolutionarys, do you mean by ways of capital punisment or another way? I know some might be killed during raids or what ever but what about when there capture, sorry I know its a bit off topic.

[ComradeOm]

Kill the most visible and dangerous ones. Its not possible or beneficial to liquidate an entire class but by making examples of the most prominant capitalists resistance to the proletariat's rule should be greatly weakened. After that all we need do is wait a generation for them to die out.

[kingbee]

i think it's interesting regarding the role of celebrity. are they a class in themselves? if so, where do they fit in to the social model?

the influence they have on modern society is incredible. its almost deity-like.

[Seeker]

The wealthy should be kept apart from eachother.

Everyday life is enough of an educational experience.

We will need structures/systems that will keep the ex-rich from forming their own communes and maintaining the old, devient system of "values".

The problem is very simmilar to the question of what is to be done with religious zealots. I have a sucpiscion that the zealots will desire war, forcing our hands in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, but I doubt the Paris Hiltons have the willpower and determination to be anything more than leeches.

[Rockfan]

Ok yeah fair enough. I guess celebrity are like a second class of capitalists because they don't own the means to make movies, music etc but they profit highly from the sales of the producte, I don't know just making stuff up, makes sense to me though.

[Correa]

What is wrong with killing capitalist? If you let them live they will run to another capitalist state as previously mentioned. They should be charged with crimes against the people and imprisoned if not eliminated all together. Enough pitty for the scum who make our lives hell!

[Reds]

I agree the elemination of capitalist that are threats to the revolution. The reason I used paris Hilton as my example is that she is still part of the soon to be former ruling class but alone is not a threat to the revolution.

[Rockfan]

Who are you two talking to??

[Entrails Konfetti]

After the Revolution we must always prepare for an armed striuggle with bourgoeisie.

Labour camps are out of the question, and historically have been used to even suppress or oppress working Communists who dare to dissent.

Fuck your strict party lines, the working-class doesn't know of any bourgoeis organization such as a "party"-- we are leagues, we are councils, we are unions, we are soviets.

Even after the counter-strike by the bourgoeisie, if members of that class choose to reside in our nation; they will have a hard time trying to influence anyone in the prolitariat. If the masses really want Communism, the attitudes of their Conservative peers will surely change.

All this talk about re-education, yet it has to be the masses themselves who want
Communism. If we are to raise awareness to Communism, we can't threaten anyone like religious propaghanda. The masses want facts, they want proof. People, we must develop our arguments, and now we have the challenge of trying to explain why Communism doesn't have to degenerate into what happened in the USSR.

You talk about killing religious icons, why? All that really needs to be done is to make church charities useless. Because Communism is progressive, and shouldn't leap from and can't leap to advanced forms sponteniously; for awhile there will be taxes. So when church charities are useless, they will have to pay taxes: Thereby dissolving churches.

[MogenDovid]

I've read through this thread and frankly, you all need to realise eaxactly what you are proposing here. Let me lay it out in laymans terms for you but mostly for me.

1. A successful "Revolution" that adequately provides the best for everyone.


2. (This only applies to some of you) Gathering together the wealthy, whether they be celebrites or "bourgeosie", and shooting them. That's right, putting a bullet through their skulls causing their brain tissue to leave their craniums...?


3. (This again, applies to some of you) installing a fascist like doctorine of re-education. The last time these places were used, they were used against us. By us, I mean anyone left of Hitler. People were gathered together and "educated" in the error of their ways. If re-education failed, they were sent back. No family, no friends, no loved ones, no status. Nothing. They were as George Orwell so adequately put it "Non-persons". They remained in these places until their own personal politcal, social, moral and religious beliefs matched identically those of the state. Are you really proposing that system. Please tell me I'm wring because the next step, and this WAS taken, is the systematic distruction of those not of your way of life.

4. The morality of changing someone's views against their will through the use of "education" (as Hitler put it). Surely this is not moral? Let me ask you this. If you were seized in the middle of the night, when you felt the safest, by men or women, representing the newly imposed government, bundled into the back of a van or truck and driven to G-d knows where and MADE through the use of coersive means to change everything you are so that it fits the states idea of equality, would you be truly happy? Or would pick up the nearest weapon and take to the streets. I know I would.

Now tell me this. Anyone. Is this the equal society that we are all dreaming of? Is it truly the best for the working classes? Is it the best for society? For humanity? What would be the end result? A blood bath? Larger graves? A nation of zombies living to the whims of the few? I have only one thing to say to that - 1984. That was a Communist state. But was it the best for those living in it? I think not. After all there was an attempted plot to overthrow Big Brother.

Don't waste my time with rants, curses or threats. I ignore all of those. And if you can't at least source your theories, just don't respond to me.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:19 PM
G-d
My english teacher does that exact same thing and it annoys the hell out of me. I hope you lose your religion soon and start spelling god like god and not G-d.

[Amusing Scrotum]

It looks like the liberals have come to play. :lol:


Originally posted by MogenDovid+--> (MogenDovid)Gathering together the wealthy, whether they be celebrites or "bourgeosie", and shooting them. That's right, putting a bullet through their skulls causing their brain tissue to leave their craniums...?[/b]

I have browsed over this thread, and the option of execution has only been proposed for those wishing to overthrow or sabotage the post revolutionary society.

Do you have a particular objection to killing people who wish to kill you?


Originally posted by [email protected]
installing a fascist like doctorine of re-education.

Indeed it is a rather daft idea. As I mentioned I doubt many rich people would want to "stick around" and live with the "rabble." The rich will likely flee, something I have no particular objection too.


MogenDovid
The last time these places were used, they were used against us. By us, I mean anyone left of Hitler.

Well I suppose what you define as "education camps." Post Batista Cuba for instance, set up educational teams that went to the villages and taught the peasants to read and write.

This was "re-education" or in some cases first time education.


Are you really proposing that system.

Well I'm not proposing that system. If people don't like a workers society they can fuck off in my opinion and if they decide to stick around and sabotage it, I would suspect the "rabble" would be quite annoyed and the "saboteurs" could expect stern punishment.


What would be the end result? A blood bath? Larger graves?

I suspect the revolution would be a bloody process, that will likely lead to many deaths. However a revolution is how society changes and only a revolution will bring about proletarian democracy.


I have only one thing to say to that - 1984. That was a Communist state.

There is no such thing as a Communist state. If you want to understand what Communism would "look like," read this -- What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) -- it's a description of what Communism would be like.


But was it the best for those living in it? I think not. After all there was an attempted plot to overthrow Big Brother.

You're using a fictional work (by an anti-Semite and a sexist) as a guide to what Communism would be like. :lol:

On a side note: I think I am starting to agree with redstar2000 on the issue of Orwell, he was a reactionary turd.

[MogenDovid]

Do you have a particular objection to killing people who wish to kill you?



Yes, in short, I do have a problem with killing someone. I'd be worried about anyone that actually wanted to kill someone. Could you kill someone with your own two hands?

I don't actually believe the bourgeousie give two hoots about us at the moment. They're honest to pre-occupied with their expensive perfumes and their fast cars to actually care. Likewise, I don't care about them. A lot of them are probably really good people who happen to be rich. I don't envy them, nor do I pity them. I am merely not bothered what they do - after all the "landed rich" haven't been responsible for the making of laws and taxes in this country for centuries. It's the politicians we should be watching, converting and educating on the benefits of Socialism and Communism. Perhaps through using their own political system, one that has existed for longer than we have, we can finally bring about a fair and truly free society. I don't think spilling blood in truly needed.




Well I suppose what you define as "education camps." Post Batista Cuba for instance, set up educational teams that went to the villages and taught the peasants to read and write.

This was "re-education" or in some cases first time education.



You must have mis-read what I was saying. I'm not criticising the use of education to change these peoples minds but the direction this thread seems to be going in is what I'd describe as a mine field. You start saying that you're going to throw people into "educational facilities" to teach them the error of their ways then you have to define who goes in. Rich? Politicians? Businessmen? Do you have any idea how much trouble there would be if the country suddenly started doing that? For one thing the UN would through a fit and throw up a million and one economic sanctions until we released those people. Besides, where do we draw the line and those who do not need to go in? And who gets to draw it?

You used the term "saboteurs". Aren't we saboteurs? Trying to bring about the demise of an existing system through what ever means needed? Shouldn't we expect stern punishment for this? What is the difference, then, between a saboteurs and a freedom fighter (I use that term very lossely as that too is another mine field I'll cross later).





You're using a fictional work (by an anti-Semite and a sexist) as a guide to what Communism would be like.



Not really. I was merely suggesting that if we were to employ "re-education camps" wouldn't they be compared to something like Room 101? Is that really necessary? Do we want to be compare with that much suffering? Aren't Communists supposed to be good for everyone, regardless of their upbringing?

As for that document you refered me to. I read some of it and after a while I realised that such a system would require a national re-education. Abandoning currency? Make the stereotypical lazy bum an object of scorn or pity? Sure those ideas would require generations to perfect. They wouldn't disappear over night would they? And so they would require hard work and commitment. Good. But they would also require anguish, suffering and hardship as people transfered from one ancient system to a new modern system. Tell me, Logistically - is it possible to re-educate a nation so that it all goes smoothly whilst the rest of the world turns against you?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Yes, in short, I do have a problem with killing someone. I'd be worried about anyone that actually wanted to kill someone.

Even if they were perfectly willing to kill you? ....back in thirties Germany, would you object to anyone killing a few Nazi's? ....I sure wouldn't.


Could you kill someone with your own two hands?

Most definitely. Strangulation, is not an incredibly physically demanding task and I suspect most people would be able to do it.

Of course, I do have little hands and therefore I probably wouldn't be able to strangle someone with a fat neck.


I don't actually believe the bourgeousie give two hoots about us at the moment.

Why should they care about the "rabble?"


It's the politicians we should be watching, converting and educating on the benefits of Socialism and Communism.

Politicians are part of the bourgeois and therefore "educating" them on the "benefits" of Communism would be completely useless. Communism is not in their self interest.


Perhaps through using their own political system, one that has existed for longer than we have, we can finally bring about a fair and truly free society.

If you really think that you could change society radically through bourgeois democracy, then you are sorely mistaken.

One only has to point to the Wilson government of the 70's and their destruction by the IMF, to see that even moderately left governments are prohibited from exercising any real power.


You start saying that you're going to throw people into "educational facilities" to teach them the error of their ways then you have to define who goes in. Rich? Politicians? Businessmen?

As I said, re-education camps are a daft idea. Quite frankly if people don't want to live in the post revolutionary society, they can fuck off. There is no point in re-educating them. It would be a complete waste of time.


For one thing the UN would through a fit and throw up a million and one economic sanctions until we released those people.

What makes you think a money-less economy would be bothered by economic sanctions?

Plus, a Communist society would likely withdraw from the UN.


You used the term "saboteurs". Aren't we saboteurs?

No.


Saboteurs.

One who commits sabotage.

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=saboteurs)


Sabotage.

1. Destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians or enemy agents in time of war.
2. Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion.

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sabotage)

Now I don't know about you, but I'm sitting on my arse, smoking a cigarette and typing out a message. I don't think those in power are "quaking in their boots." :lol:


Shouldn't we expect stern punishment for this?

When "we" have posed a threat, we have received "stern punishment." McCarthy witchunts etc.


What is the difference, then, between a saboteurs and a freedom fighter

There is essentially no real difference. It's a matter of what you consider "freedom."


Is that really necessary?

No it's not, it's a shit idea.


Aren't Communists supposed to be good for everyone, regardless of their upbringing?

Communists "are good for" the working class. We wish to end wage slavery and to do this we must destroy Capitalism.

We are distinctly bad for the ruling class, that's why they don't like us.


As for that document you refered me to. I read some of it and after a while I realised that such a system would require a national re-education.

No it would require no "re-education." If Marx was right, then the working class will rise up and overthrow Capitalism and replace it with a communal society.

Why would people who just overthrew one system to replace it with another, need to be re-educated about the system they had just conducted a revolution to create?


Abandoning currency? Make the stereotypical lazy bum an object of scorn or pity? Sure those ideas would require generations to perfect.

Again if Marx was right, then these ideas would arise quite naturally out of the revolutionary situation.


But they would also require anguish, suffering and hardship as people transfered from one ancient system to a new modern system.

The "suffering and hardship" being a revolution.


Tell me, Logistically - is it possible to re-educate a nation so that it all goes smoothly whilst the rest of the world turns against you?

Probably not. Which means it is a good thing that no re-education will be required.

[MogenDovid]

QUOTE
Yes, in short, I do have a problem with killing someone. I'd be worried about anyone that actually wanted to kill someone.


Even if they were perfectly willing to kill you? ....back in thirties Germany, would you object to anyone killing a few Nazi's? ....I sure wouldn't.



Back in the 30's in Germany Nazi's weren't advocating the mass execution of Jews. In fact not a single life had been taken by the government. Fact.

The whole principal of killing anyone based on an idea of their ethic inferiority didn't come into play until the very late 30's, so no - I wouldn't have killed any Nazi's in the early 30's. I would have stood for the Communist Party, united them with the SPD and formed a stronger front against the NSDAP and stopped Nazism in its baby footsteps.




QUOTE
Could you kill someone with your own two hands?


Most definitely. Strangulation, is not an incredibly physically demanding task and I suspect most people would be able to do it.

Of course, I do have little hands and therefore I probably wouldn't be able to strangle someone with a fat neck.



Haha. Not much to say about that really :lol:




QUOTE
I don't actually believe the bourgeousie give two hoots about us at the moment.


Why should they care about the "rabble?"



Why should we actually care about them when, let's face it, in the majority of the Western World the bourgeousie actually have little politcal power. Economic power yes, but that's were working in their system, within their confines, to set up a better system would make more sense. Imagine this if you will. A Communist Company, blatantly supporting revolution, selling goods to the people for the lowest possible price at the highest possible quality. Within a few years these companies would either capitulate or collapse. It's up to them.




QUOTE
It's the politicians we should be watching, converting and educating on the benefits of Socialism and Communism.


Politicians are part of the bourgeois and therefore "educating" them on the "benefits" of Communism would be completely useless. Communism is not in their self interest.



That's actually incorrect. The majority of politicians in power or in any liberal to left wing party are in it to make the country they are part of better. Where's the shame in attempting convince them that the political ideologies they have are wrong? What harm can it do? And what better effect than to stand toe-to-toe with a Tory or Right-wing politician and beat his arguments away with a political expert on your side? How powerful do you think that would make you and your views? If Communists could have done that in 1930's Germany Hitler wouldn't have been able to get into power.





QUOTE
Perhaps through using their own political system, one that has existed for longer than we have, we can finally bring about a fair and truly free society.


If you really think that you could change society radically through bourgeois democracy, then you are sorely mistaken.

One only has to point to the Wilson government of the 70's and their destruction by the IMF, to see that even moderately left governments are prohibited from exercising any real power.



Sure, but can't you understand why these restrictions are put in place? Listen to what you're suggesting.

a) violent uprising where deaths are not unlike
b) over-throwing of democracy for a "better" (by Communist definitions alone) society
c) mass eviction of non-conformists - that happens right now and look at what happens all over the world, illegal immigration is a sore point for most Western Countries.

I don't agree with these restrictions but I try to work within their confines to bring about a better society for everyone, not just the working class. Is that so difficult to attempt?




QUOTE
For one thing the UN would through a fit and throw up a million and one economic sanctions until we released those people.


What makes you think a money-less economy would be bothered by economic sanctions?

Plus, a Communist society would likely withdraw from the UN.



Economic Sanctions that include restricted trade rights. Can one country really provide all it needs in terms of food, clothing, water, medicine? Do you realise the possible rammifications of a limited supply of consumable goods? If that were to happen then the desperately sought after society were everyone is equal would starve itself out within a few years. Then what would happen? The rich would return and wave it in the faces of the working classes. This risk is too great. Any revolution has to be carefully planned, carried out and then stuck to. Mob mentality can not be allowed to overwhelm the greater good being attempted.

Besides, any examples that you or I can think of where economic sanctions have been applied and the society has survived has only done so because of a totalitarian leadership where no-one was free. Is that what you want?





QUOTE
You used the term "saboteurs". Aren't we saboteurs?


No.

QUOTE
Saboteurs.

One who commits sabotage.


dictionary.com

QUOTE
Sabotage.

1. Destruction of property or obstruction of normal operations, as by civilians or enemy agents in time of war.
2. Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion.


dictionary.com

Now I don't know about you, but I'm sitting on my arse, smoking a cigarette and typing out a message. I don't think those in power are "quaking in their boots."



By those definitions then, a man that downs tools and walks out is sabotaging the work place. What if that man then finds out that a machine is doing his job for him? What if he decides to destroy said machine? Is he a saboteur? By your definition - yes he is.

But men like that have been linked with Communist ideologies for a long time now. Surely Stalin was a Saboteur. I mean, he destroyed an entire economy and rebuilt it. He rebuilt it for his benefit.

That links with my earlier point of understanding the inherent mistrust of Communism. Capitalism believes that Communism = destruction of everything that has taken of 3000 years to achieve = destruction of democracy = totalitarian government.

I can't disagree with their logic. They do have the evidence on their side. I call my understanding and commitment to Communism an act of faith but even that doesn't make it right.




QUOTE
As for that document you refered me to. I read some of it and after a while I realised that such a system would require a national re-education.


No it would require no "re-education." If Marx was right, then the working class will rise up and overthrow Capitalism and replace it with a communal society.

Why would people who just overthrew one system to replace it with another, need to be re-educated about the system they had just conducted a revolution to create?



That's a pretty big if. I'm sure Marx was right, but there has been no evidence to the fact that he was. That truly is a shame. I wish there was. (By evidence I mean a period of 20-30 years since Marx where society in the Communist areas functioned better than a Capitalist society)

Marx also said that the first Communist Revolution would be in England. Well, I'm still waiting. I doubt it will come in my life time but that doesn't mean I'm going to grab the nearest AK-47 and start herding the bourgeousie together and demanding they give all their money up now am I? For one thing I'd be arrested for possession of an illegal firearm.

I've read some of Marx' work. He's now become slightly outdated. Perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten me on the Neo-Marxist perspective of "Revolution"?




QUOTE
But they would also require anguish, suffering and hardship as people transfered from one ancient system to a new modern system.


The "suffering and hardship" being a revolution.



So you think that after this revolution then all suffering will end? Just like that? That the bourgeousie are the source of all the worlds problems? That if we get rid of them then we get rid of the problem? Problems don't just disappear over night. That's like sweeping the dirt under the rug (hmm, no pun intended but glad I used that one lol!). It's still there and it will accumulate. Cleaning the whole house takes ages.

And what happens when that revolution loses momentum? Don't you think that Trotsky has more to offer with the idea of a state of permanent Revolution? Then it won't lose momentum.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Back in the 30's in Germany Nazi's weren't advocating the mass execution of Jews. In fact not a single life had been taken by the government. Fact.

The Freikorps had been actively murdering Communists from the twenties onwards, Rosa Luxemburg being the most famous example.


The whole principal of killing anyone based on an idea of their ethic inferiority didn't come into play until the very late 30's, so no - I wouldn't have killed any Nazi's in the early 30's. I would have stood for the Communist Party, united them with the SPD and formed a stronger front against the NSDAP and stopped Nazism in its baby footsteps.

Do you know what the "motto" of the German Communist party in the early thirties was? ......"see a Nazi, smash him in the face."

As for joining with the SDP and "stopping Nazism in its baby footsteps." Well that is very idealist, not only were the SDP a bunch of corrupt idiots, it would have been pretty hard to thwart National Socialism when nearly every major Capitalist was funding them.


Why should we actually care about them when, let's face it, in the majority of the Western World the bourgeousie actually have little politcal power. Economic power yes,

We live in a capital based society, economic power is political power. Or do you honestly believe the donations to politicians are for the good of democracy. :lol:


but that's were working in their system, within their confines, to set up a better system would make more sense.

People tried that repeatedly over the last century, look where it got us. "New Labour" and Blair.

There is a centuries worth of evidence showing how this method doesn't work.


Imagine this if you will. A Communist Company, blatantly supporting revolution, selling goods to the people for the lowest possible price at the highest possible quality. Within a few years these companies would either capitulate or collapse. It's up to them.

I will have to "imagine" this one, it is very "far out."

A Communist company would create wage slaves, which would then make it a capitalist company. There is no way that there could be a Communist company. It's a contradiction in terms.


That's actually incorrect. The majority of politicians in power or in any liberal to left wing party are in it to make the country they are part of better.

Better for whom? .....very few politicians actually think about the "rabble" and even less actually try to help the "rabble." Plus I don't want charity, I want an end to wage slavery.


Where's the shame in attempting convince them that the political ideologies they have are wrong? What harm can it do?

Indeed it could do no harm, but you are likely going to waste a tremendous amount of time convincing David Cameron or Charles Kennedy of the benefits of Communism.


And what better effect than to stand toe-to-toe with a Tory or Right-wing politician and beat his arguments away with a political expert on your side?

Why not just direct our arguments at people who would be receptive to them, like the working class.


How powerful do you think that would make you and your views?

I don't know of any places that are giving Communists a large stage on which to express their views. Do you?


If Communists could have done that in 1930's Germany Hitler wouldn't have been able to get into power.

They were doing these things and they were violently opposing fascism. If they had opposed it more violently then Hitler might not have come to power, but I doubt even this.


a) violent uprising where deaths are not unlike

That's what revolutions are. How do you think Capitalism came about?


b) over-throwing of democracy for a "better" (by Communist definitions alone) society

More accurate would be to say the overthrow of bourgeois democracy in favour of proletarian democracy.


c) mass eviction of non-conformists - that happens right now and look at what happens all over the world, illegal immigration is a sore point for most Western Countries.

There will be no "mass eviction." They will have a choice, join in with society or fuck off. That's the same as we have now.


I don't agree with these restrictions but I try to work within their confines to bring about a better society for everyone, not just the working class. Is that so difficult to attempt?

The bourgeois already have a great life. Why would they want to "downgrade." The people who will benefit will be the working class, who are in the overwhelming majority.


Economic Sanctions that include restricted trade rights. Can one country really provide all it needs in terms of food, clothing, water, medicine?

An advanced Capitalist society, like Britain or American, can certainly function effectively with a closed economy.


Mob mentality can not be allowed to overwhelm the greater good being attempted.

"Mob mentality" or workers power is exactly what Communism is about. The "rabble" taking power for themselves.


Besides, any examples that you or I can think of where economic sanctions have been applied and the society has survived has only done so because of a totalitarian leadership where no-one was free. Is that what you want?

Nicaragua under the Sandinistas is one example of a country with sanctions that wasn't a "totalitarian hellhole."


By those definitions then, a man that downs tools and walks out is sabotaging the work place. What if that man then finds out that a machine is doing his job for him? What if he decides to destroy said machine? Is he a saboteur? By your definition - yes he is.

Yes he is a saboteur. However I have no problem with this kind of sabotage.


But men like that have been linked with Communist ideologies for a long time now. Surely Stalin was a Saboteur. I mean, he destroyed an entire economy and rebuilt it. He rebuilt it for his benefit.

Can you elaborate a bit on this please.


I can't disagree with their logic. They do have the evidence on their side. I call my understanding and commitment to Communism an act of faith but even that doesn't make it right.

What evidence? .....there has never been a mass uprising of the worker class that has taken control of society. Therefore one cannot comment yet on the possible downfalls of a Communist revolution.


That's a pretty big if. I'm sure Marx was right, but there has been no evidence to the fact that he was.

Well there is of course the fact that since the end of the Cold War numerous bourgeois economists have commented on how Marx got nearly all of his predictions on capitalist economies right.

One of the few things he "got wrong" was the timescale. Therefore it is fair to say that Marx was likely right about proletarian revolution, he just got the timescale wrong.


I'm going to grab the nearest AK-47 and start herding the bourgeousie together and demanding they give all their money up now am I?

Doing that would be silly, because you are not the masses.


I've read some of Marx' work. He's now become slightly outdated. Perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten me on the Neo-Marxist perspective of "Revolution"?

What parts of Marx do you think need "enlightenment?" ....I'll be more than willing to discuss any improvements if you wish.


That the bourgeousie are the source of all the worlds problems?

Well at least most of them.


That if we get rid of them then we get rid of the problem?

No if we get rid of Capitalism which creates a bourgeois, we will solve many of the worlds problems. Not all, but many.


And what happens when that revolution loses momentum?

Then the revolution gets defeated.


Don't you think that Trotsky has more to offer with the idea of a state of permanent Revolution?

I'm not very fond of Trotsky's idealist bullshit.

What will happen is quite simple. The revolution will overthrow the bourgeois and Capitalism and in its place will come proletarian democracy. After the initial revolution and if needed the suppression of counter revolution. There will be no need of "revolutionary momentum." The revolution will be over.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 04:19 AM
1. A successful "Revolution" that adequately provides the best for everyone.
A successful revolution will provide the best for the proletariat. The only question here is whether the elimination of certain sections of the bourgeoisie is necessary for the proletariat to survive.

Do you want a source for that? I'd advise reading some Marx. From the vantage point of Opposing Ideologies preferably.

[MogenDovid]

(Don't insult my intelligence by highlighting the important words. I can manage to figure them out for myself.)

When you mentioned the name Rosa Luxemburg I have to confess that although it was familiar I did have to look it up, and what I found was most interesting. True, Rosa Luxemburg was murdered in 1919. While being transported to prison she was murdered on the night of 15/16 by German Freikorps soldiers. But doesn't it strike you as unusual that Adolf Hitler didn't rise to political power until 1933 and the NSDAP wasn't a significant force in 1919. It was still a reactionary group that was convinced that violent uprisings were the way forward. In 1919 the Freikorp still fell under the jurisdiction of the Weimar Republic and whilst I admit that they can be described as far-right it is much more plausible that the Weimar saw her as a threat to their superiority and had her murdered. It just so happened that the Freikorp were most suited to the task and she was killed.

She was killed, most probably for offering an intellectual view point on the criticisms of the Weimar Republic, and believe you-me there were plenty. From the age of 16 she participated in revolutionary activities. But these were non-violent.

And you mention about the SPD being a bunch of corrupt idiots. Idiots. Right, the SPD is one of the oldest political parties of Germany still in existence and also one of the oldest and largest in the world, celebrating its 140th anniversary in 2003. Surely an idiotic party would have simply disappeared by 1933? Or perhaps they were lucky? That makes more sense doesn't it?.




We live in a capital based society, economic power is political power. Or do you honestly believe the donations to politicians are for the good of democracy.



Well I suppose that if you live in the United States of America that would be true. I, however, do not. In Britain it is entirely plausible for someone to gain political power through hard work. Take Tony Blair for instance. Granted the guy may make some poor political decisions but you can't confuse those decisions with his background. He is the son of a barrister and a lecturer, both middle class employment. Yet he still showed some ability to lead. By 1994 he was leader of the Labour Party and led it on to win the next General Election, this wasn't due to monetary donations but to due to his ability to motivate people. Granted he's now more right than the Tory party, but he started off so well.

Perhaps you could tell me who this shady individual/comapny is that has its foot in the politcal doorway.




QUOTE
but that's were working in their system, within their confines, to set up a better system would make more sense.

People tried that repeatedly over the last century, look where it got us. "New Labour" and Blair.

There is a centuries worth of evidence showing how this method doesn't work.



Point taken. But when has working outside this system achieved even 50% of what the political system has achieved. Marx set up a political manifesto that was used in the creation of hundreds of Communist-like parties across the world. That single book has achieved more than any group of men with machine-guns ever did - and not one drop of it was bad.




QUOTE
Imagine this if you will. A Communist Company, blatantly supporting revolution, selling goods to the people for the lowest possible price at the highest possible quality. Within a few years these companies would either capitulate or collapse. It's up to them.


I will have to "imagine" this one, it is very "far out."

A Communist company would create wage slaves, which would then make it a capitalist company. There is no way that there could be a Communist company. It's a contradiction in terms.




OK, so business isn't my strong point, but the idea of selling goods at the lowest possible price so that Capitalist organisations collapse is an entirely plausible idea, right? So why not just have a very well paid work-force with no hierarchy of power involved and there we go - a Communist Company. Granted it's a bad idea and Marx wouldn't approve but Capitalism won't collapse - despite what Marx said - so what makes him so right about Business and Communism?

Ah-ha. So you want an end to wage slavery do you? I take it you want the equal division of goods among the populace? You fail to take into account one massive factor. Human Greed. Humanity will always want more but in a truly Communist system they wouldn't be allowed it, would they? Because everyone gets the same. The same food, the same clothing, the same education. Granted not a bad idea from a left wing view, but think of the implications. What if the only way you could guaruntee that everyone got the same was to give up your cigarettes, you computer, your furniture, and trade them all in for worse quality equipment.

I'm not saying that redistribution of wealth is a bad idea, far from it. What I'm saying is that if you really believe it's the right thing to do then think it through. Make sure that every action has the perfect and desired reaction. Make sure that you have every base covered because I don't want to find myself waking up one day in a society crumpling in on itself under the wonderful title of Communist Nation.




I don't know of any places that are giving Communists a large stage on which to express their views. Do you?



Yes, I do. It's called the Houses of Parliament where everyman and woman has the right to state their own political beliefs.




QUOTE
If Communists could have done that in 1930's Germany Hitler wouldn't have been able to get into power.


They were doing these things and they were violently opposing fascism. If they had opposed it more violently then Hitler might not have come to power, but I doubt even this.



No, the reason Hitler came into power was because he played on the divisions within the KPD and SPD. He capitalised on the weaknesses they had whilst divided. If the two had united then their votes alone would have secured a NAZI defeat.




QUOTE
a) violent uprising where deaths are not unlike


That's what revolutions are. How do you think Capitalism came about?




Well, I think it came about through thousands of years of social evolution, with one man, or family, declaring themselves better than those around them. They did this by having more horses, more cows or more wives. I am going back to pre-historic times now. Granted there was fighting, but that was minor scuffles, I'm not going to entertain the idea that these minor scuffles are going to be anything like this coup d'etat your hoping for. This will be absolute blood shed.






QUOTE
Economic Sanctions that include restricted trade rights. Can one country really provide all it needs in terms of food, clothing, water, medicine?


An advanced Capitalist society, like Britain or American, can certainly function effectively with a closed economy.



Perhaps for a shortened period of time - maybe 50 years, but there is only so much internal trade a country can survive on before needing external contact. For instance, during the pre-war period America was isolationist to the extreme. It's economy booming and then collapsing into the Great Depression of the 1920's being picked up only when World War Two demanded huge material production efforts. Now America freely trades with other Capitalist nations and hasn't suffered another Depression since.




QUOTE
Mob mentality can not be allowed to overwhelm the greater good being attempted.


"Mob mentality" or workers power is exactly what Communism is about. The "rabble" taking power for themselves.



You misinterpreted what I said. By mob mentalitly I meant violence. For a little more on this theory, just take a look at the work of Le Bon.




QUOTE
Besides, any examples that you or I can think of where economic sanctions have been applied and the society has survived has only done so because of a totalitarian leadership where no-one was free. Is that what you want?


Nicaragua under the Sandinistas is one example of a country with sanctions that wasn't a "totalitarian hellhole."



So. One rain doesn't make a monsoon. I could name far more examples where economic sanctions were applied to totalitarian dictatorships.




No if we get rid of Capitalism which creates a bourgeois, we will solve many of the worlds problems. Not all, but many.



If we were living in the 19th Century I would agree with you, but we're not. Now the problems we seem to be facing have a lot more to do with shortages, pollution and environmental problems. This pollution was caused by the working class driving cars. Even if we change our lifestyles now then the problem won't go away now will it? Ousting a few rich folks won't make the problems go away - it will just make us feel better.




QUOTE
Don't you think that Trotsky has more to offer with the idea of a state of permanent Revolution?


I'm not very fond of Trotsky's idealist bullshit.

What will happen is quite simple. The revolution will overthrow the bourgeois and Capitalism and in its place will come proletarian democracy. After the initial revolution and if needed the suppression of counter revolution. There will be no need of "revolutionary momentum." The revolution will be over.



Supression of a counter revolution. That's very Stalinistic. How many did he kill again? Historian John Gold reckons around the 50 million mark - and that was in the name of counter revolutionary suppression. So why is Trotsky so bad? Because he wants to avoid unnecessary deaths and have a situation where once the State becomes comfortable and starts forming a hierarchy it's over thrown again.

Oh, and on a final note, I've been kind enough to not swear in my responses, could you grace me with the same respect?

[Amusing Scrotum]

(Don't insult my intelligence by highlighting the important words. I can manage to figure them out for myself.)

It is something I do and personally I think it makes my posts more direct and coherent. Also you must consider that it is not just you and I involved in this debate, plenty of people will be reading the debate and therefore my posts aren't necessarily aimed at you.


In 1919 the Freikorp still fell under the jurisdiction of the Weimar Republic and whilst I admit that they can be described as far-right it is much more plausible that the Weimar saw her as a threat to their superiority and had her murdered.

Most mainstream historians consider the use of the Freikorps to be the "start" of fascism in Germany. The Weimer Republics willingness to use the Freikorps laid the foundations for the future nationalist movement.

What is also interesting is that quite a few members of the Freikorps later went on to be high ranking Nazi's and those that avoided the Nazi's, did so because they thought Hitler was an opportunist. They use to frequently ask "where was Hitler when we put down the Reds?"


From the age of 16 she participated in revolutionary activities. But these were non-violent.

You know that a revolution is a violent process right? .....if I quote Luxmeburg --


Originally posted by Luxemburg+--> (Luxemburg)"The basic error of the Lenin-Trotsky theory is that they too, just like Kautsky separation, oppose dictatorship to democracy. "Dictatorship or democracy" is the way the question is put by Bolsheviks and Kautsky alike. The latter naturally decides in favor of "democracy," that is, of bourgeois democracy, precisely because he opposes it to the alternative of the socialist revolution. Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model.... [The Proletarian Revolution] should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique — dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy."[/b]

(Emphasis added.)

Mrs. Luxemburg was not a naive woman, she knew full well that a proletarian revolution would be a violent and bloody affair and that's what she advocated.


Surely an idiotic party would have simply disappeared by 1933?

"Idiots" was the wrong word to use, I should have said they were a bunch of corrupt bastards.


this wasn't due to monetary donations but to due to his ability to motivate people.

I too live in Britain, Wales to be precise. However I don't share your "romantic" view of Parliamentary democracy. It had its uses, but ceased to be of any relevance for the working class around about 1979.

As for Tony Blair being a "good man" who "pulled himself up by the shoelaces to the realms of political power." Well that kind of ignores most of the documented history of the Labour Party post 1980.

After the IMF brought down the Wilson government and Thatcher then destroying the Miners Union (the most powerful Union in Britain). The Labour Party lost nearly all of its ability and base to perform as a "workers party."

Therefore if the Labour elites ever wanted power they would have to change, which they did. Under Kinnock, Smith and Blair, most of the "radicals" were purged from the party, the Unions were tamed and then "Clause 4" was changed.

The Labour Party had totally abandoned its foundations and therefore "New Labour" was born. The same "New Labour" that cosied up with businessmen. Rupert Murdoch being the most obvious example, what do you think Blair had to offer him to ensure the "Suns" loyal support?


Perhaps you could tell me who this shady individual/comapny is that has its foot in the politcal doorway.

Off hand I can't think of any links to the "money politics" of "New Labour." Maybe someone else can provide a link?

I actually remembered this link -- Bushflash.com (http://www.bushflash.com/animation.html) -- click on the video "God, King, and £aw." It lists some of the companies that have donated money to "New Labour."


But when has working outside this system achieved even 50% of what the political system has achieved.

True working "outside" the system hasn't yet achieved what I or any other Communist wants. However this doesn't mean that this will always be the case, nor does it mean that working within the system will bring about an end to wage slavery.


That single book has achieved more than any group of men with machine-guns ever did - and not one drop of it was bad.

The manifesto, if memory serves me correctly, openly states that there needs to be a revolution. If Marx doesn't state it in the Manifesto (I'm pretty sure he did) he definitely stated it in his other works.


but the idea of selling goods at the lowest possible price so that Capitalist organisations collapse is an entirely plausible idea, right?

This is what every Capitalist company tries to do. Undercut the opposition and put them out of business etc. etc. Needless to say, a company going out of business has happened plenty of times and Capitalism hasn't ended. New Capitalists and companies have just "filled the void."


So why not just have a very well paid work-force with no hierarchy of power involved and there we go - a Communist Company.

It has been tried (Yugoslavia and a few other places), worker control of Capitalist companies and these were miserable failures, which eventually resorted back to normal Capitalism.

Capitalism as a class and economic system creates the conditions for the failure of these "Communist companies."


Capitalism won't collapse - despite what Marx said

Care to elaborate on this?


You fail to take into account one massive factor. Human Greed.

I really can't be bothered to go over the "human greed" argument. Take a look round the forums, there are lots of threads refuting this line of argument.

An interesting thread, though not totally related to this subject, is this thread -- The so-called human obstacle to communism, Does Marxist theory ignore self interest (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42245&hl=) -- look out for redstar2000's posts on the subject.


Yes, I do. It's called the Houses of Parliament where everyman and woman has the right to state their own political beliefs.

....and do you think the Queen (or King) would allow a Communist government (which promoted the abolishment of the Monarchy) to take office?


If the two had united then their votes alone would have secured a NAZI defeat.

Hitler didn't win a majority anyway, the Nazi party was part of a coalition government and the Nazi Party was the smaller member. Hitler conducted a coup with the full backing of the German Capitalists.


Well, I think it came about through thousands of years of social evolution,

Well sort of. Certain advances in the productive techniques brought about the material conditions for Capitalism. However a revolution where the Capitalists seized power was still required.


I'm not going to entertain the idea that these minor scuffles are going to be anything like this coup d'etat your hoping for. This will be absolute blood shed.

What do you think happened in France in 1789? ....do you think everyone sat around and had a peaceful discussion about abolishing feudalism?


Perhaps for a shortened period of time - maybe 50 years

Well 50 years is a lot of time. By then you would expect that there would have been several revolutions and therefore you could rule out the Communism in one country approach.


For a little more on this theory, just take a look at the work of Le Bon.

From Wikipedia --


Emphasis added.
Gustave Le Bon (May 7, 1841 – December 13, 1931) was a French social psychologist and sociologist. He was the author of several works in which he expounded theories of national traits, racial superiority, herd behaviour and crowd psychology.

You really agree with race theorists? :angry:


So. One rain doesn't make a monsoon.

You asked me to provide an example, I did.


This pollution was caused by the working class driving cars.

How dare the working class drive cars. What utter bastards they are. :lol:


Even if we change our lifestyles now then the problem won't go away now will it?

A lot of them would "go away."


Supression of a counter revolution. That's very Stalinistic.

How every revolution has suppressed the counter revolutionaries. The revolutions that didn't, were defeated.


Historian John Gold reckons around the 50 million mark

Well "Historian John Gold" is blowing smoke out his ass. Even with the opening up of the Soviet archives, no one has been able to accurately determine how may people were killed. The figure is thought to be between 4 and 18 million.


So why is Trotsky so bad?

....because his theories, just like Mao's, Stalin's and Lenin's, are bollocks.


Oh, and on a final note, I've been kind enough to not swear in my responses, could you grace me with the same respect?

I only just noticed this. If you wish I will avoid swearing in my next post. I can't be bothered to edit out the foul language in this post.

[MogenDovid]

QUOTE
In 1919 the Freikorp still fell under the jurisdiction of the Weimar Republic and whilst I admit that they can be described as far-right it is much more plausible that the Weimar saw her as a threat to their superiority and had her murdered.


Most mainstream historians consider the use of the Freikorps to be the "start" of fascism in Germany. The Weimer Republics willingness to use the Freikorps laid the foundations for the future nationalist movement.

What is also interesting is that quite a few members of the Freikorps later went on to be high ranking Nazi's and those that avoided the Nazi's, did so because they thought Hitler was an opportunist. They use to frequently ask "where was Hitler when we put down the Reds?"


If you're going to quote "Wikipedia (a very poor source that is laughed at in any academic circles), at least quote it correctly.




A frequent conversational topic amongst Freikorps veterans was, "Where was Hitler back in 1919/20, when we fought the Communists?".


You also mention that the Freikorp leaders became prominent NAZI party members. Here are their names

Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler, Hans Kammler, Ernst Rohm, Ernst von Salomon, Hugo Sperrle, and Gregor and Otto Strasser. Now. Of those names I recognise three and the last two ring a bell. Now let me tell you about them.

Martin Bormann - head of the Party Chancellery (a money maker in short)

Heinrich Himmler - commander of the German Schutzstaffel (SS) (Not much to be said, you are right about one of the members so far)

Hans Kammler - engineer and high-ranking officer of the SS. (His abilities as an engineer got him promoted - not his NAZI ideals

Ernst Rohm - leader of the SA - murdered by NAZI's - he wasn't radical enough!

Ernst von Salomon - a German writer and one of the assassins of Walther Rathenau.

Hugo Sperrle - a German Field Marshal of the Luftwaffe during World War II. (He was a soldier. Just like you would be if the revolution ever started)

The Strasser Brothers - One was murdered, the other exiled - for not agreeing with Adolf Hitler.

These are your major Freikorp members. These are the member you will find if you type in Freikorp in your beloved Wikipedia.



QUOTE
From the age of 16 she participated in revolutionary activities. But these were non-violent.


You know that a revolution is a violent process right? .....if I quote Luxmeburg --

QUOTE (Luxemburg)
"The basic error of the Lenin-Trotsky theory is that they too, just like Kautsky separation, oppose dictatorship to democracy. "Dictatorship or democracy" is the way the question is put by Bolsheviks and Kautsky alike. The latter naturally decides in favor of "democracy," that is, of bourgeois democracy, precisely because he opposes it to the alternative of the socialist revolution. Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model.... [The Proletarian Revolution] should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique — dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy."


(Emphasis added.)

Mrs. Luxemburg was not a naive woman, she knew full well that a proletarian revolution would be a violent and bloody affair and that's what she advocated.


Ok then, tell me where exactly Ms Luxemburg actually advocates the use of violence in the bringing about revolution. As far as I can understand, and several other academics as well, Ms Luxemburg advocates an energetic revolution with the aims of unlimited democracy. Not mention of violence. That's merely your interpretation.


QUOTE
this wasn't due to monetary donations but to due to his ability to motivate people.


I too live in Britain, Wales to be precise. However I don't share your "romantic" view of Parliamentary democracy. It had its uses, but ceased to be of any relevance for the working class around about 1979.

As for Tony Blair being a "good man" who "pulled himself up by the shoelaces to the realms of political power." Well that kind of ignores most of the documented history of the Labour Party post 1980.

After the IMF brought down the Wilson government and Thatcher then destroying the Miners Union (the most powerful Union in Britain). The Labour Party lost nearly all of its ability and base to perform as a "workers party."

Therefore if the Labour elites ever wanted power they would have to change, which they did. Under Kinnock, Smith and Blair, most of the "radicals" were purged from the party, the Unions were tamed and then "Clause 4" was changed.

The Labour Party had totally abandoned its foundations and therefore "New Labour" was born. The same "New Labour" that cosied up with businessmen. Rupert Murdoch being the most obvious example, what do you think Blair had to offer him to ensure the "Suns" loyal support?



I never said that Labour was a good thing - I just said that the politcal system we have in place at the moment allows a person to rise from the bottom of the food chain to the top if they can work it to their advantage. Working within the system isn't necessarily a bad thing is it? It requires a mutual understanding and a degree of education for those intending to do the changing.



QUOTE
Perhaps you could tell me who this shady individual/comapny is that has its foot in the politcal doorway.


Off hand I can't think of any links to the "money politics" of "New Labour." Maybe someone else can provide a link?

I actually remembered this link -- Bushflash.com -- click on the video "God, King, and £aw." It lists some of the companies that have donated money to "New Labour."


Please, a flash animation probably created by a bored 15 year school kid in America. That's not academic proof. I'd like to see where these figures were gained from. Perhaps your beloved wikipedia?



QUOTE
But when has working outside this system achieved even 50% of what the political system has achieved.


True working "outside" the system hasn't yet achieved what I or any other Communist wants. However this doesn't mean that this will always be the case, nor does it mean that working within the system will bring about an end to wage slavery.


I believe that's called wishful thinking.



QUOTE
That single book has achieved more than any group of men with machine-guns ever did - and not one drop of it was bad.


The manifesto, if memory serves me correctly, openly states that there needs to be a revolution. If Marx doesn't state it in the Manifesto (I'm pretty sure he did) he definitely stated it in his other works.


Yes, Marx did call for a revolution. Did he once say it was to be a violent one? No. He did say "Workers of the world unite" though. Unity. A strange concept to people here I see, but let me show you what it could offer.

An undivided front against Capitalism.
A true workers economy.
A potential mass revolutionary force.

These three would be able to shatter any political or economic resistance thrown up against them. But Marx says workers of the world. Not workers of one nation take up arms and overthrow your elitist overlords.



QUOTE
Capitalism won't collapse - despite what Marx said


Care to elaborate on this?


Sure, but my source isn't wikipedia (You've probably guessed by now that I hate wikipedia. I'm an academic. Wikipedia is run by a bunch of people with very little understanding of history, economics, politics or indeed anything useful in an educated debate.)




I may be quite wrong, but I do not have the impression that capitalism is likely to collapse of its own accord, in some form of 'endogenous' deterioration; for any collapse to take placer there would have to be some external impact...and a credible alternative would have to be available. The colossal weight of a whole society and the powers of resistence of an alert ruling minority are not likely to be overthrown...

No one will deny that the present crisis, dating form the early 1970s, is a threat to capitalism. It is far more serious than that of 1929 and even large firms will probably be swallowed up in it. But capitalism as a system has every chance of surviving. Economically speaking (I do not say ideologically) it might even emerge strengthened from the trial....



That was taken from Fernand Braudel's book "The Perspectives of the World". It's an academic source. If you wish to criticise it, use an academic source.




An interesting thread, though not totally related to this subject, is this thread -- The so-called human obstacle to communism, Does Marxist theory ignore self interest -- look out for redstar2000's posts on the subject.


Why redstar2000?



QUOTE
Yes, I do. It's called the Houses of Parliament where everyman and woman has the right to state their own political beliefs.


....and do you think the Queen (or King) would allow a Communist government (which promoted the abolishment of the Monarchy) to take office?


No, but would you be able to exist in a society where all the rules of economics, trade, standards of living, it all changed. Nothing from the old system kept. Nothing




QUOTE
If the two had united then their votes alone would have secured a NAZI defeat.


Hitler didn't win a majority anyway, the Nazi party was part of a coalition government and the Nazi Party was the smaller member. Hitler conducted a coup with the full backing of the German Capitalists.



Hitler won an election based on proportional representation. The only way to get enough seats was to unite various right wing parties. The SPD and KPD had, combined, enough seats to have more power than him if they had united. But they didn't. And for that they fell.




QUOTE
Well, I think it came about through thousands of years of social evolution,


Well sort of. Certain advances in the productive techniques brought about the material conditions for Capitalism. However a revolution where the Capitalists seized power was still required.



Where's your proof?





QUOTE
I'm not going to entertain the idea that these minor scuffles are going to be anything like this coup d'etat your hoping for. This will be absolute blood shed.


What do you think happened in France in 1789? ....do you think everyone sat around and had a peaceful discussion about abolishing feudalism?



Correct. But look where it got them. A war firstly. Then in years to come invasion after invasion. Then after that a strong capitalist system. What happened to this wonderful Revolution then? It failed. It fell on its face and died. Violent revolutions have a tendancy to do that.



QUOTE
Perhaps for a shortened period of time - maybe 50 years


Well 50 years is a lot of time. By then you would expect that there would have been several revolutions and therefore you could rule out the Communism in one country approach.



But the country having the first revolution would have lost moment and just like throwing a stone into the middle of a lake, eventually the ripples would die you and the waters would return to the way they were before hand.




QUOTE
For a little more on this theory, just take a look at the work of Le Bon.


From Wikipedia --

QUOTE (Emphasis added.)
Gustave Le Bon (May 7, 1841 – December 13, 1931) was a French social psychologist and sociologist. He was the author of several works in which he expounded theories of national traits, racial superiority, herd behaviour and crowd psychology.


You really agree with race theorists?


Arg! Wikipedia! I was referring to Le Bon's work on Mob mentality, not his racial superiority works. Fine then, you want a better example. Take the world of Zimbardo. His researched showed that if people were put in power for any great deal of time then this power goes to their heads.




There is, indeed, such a thing as "mob psychology": it is recognized (Lorenz, for example) that there exists a group communal response which evolved in our pre-human ancestors whereby a human crowd can become decidedly aggressive and lose all rationality and moral inhibitions.






QUOTE
Even if we change our lifestyles now then the problem won't go away now will it?


A lot of them would "go away."


Where to? If you're talking of a series of total revolution then these people would merely out run it until the Communist spread died down and then they'd just go back.



QUOTE
Supression of a counter revolution. That's very Stalinistic.


How every revolution has suppressed the counter revolutionaries. The revolutions that didn't, were defeated.


What? Which revolutions are you thinking of? There aren't any to my knowledge.




QUOTE
Historian John Gold reckons around the 50 million mark


Well "Historian John Gold" is blowing smoke out his ass. Even with the opening up of the Soviet archives, no one has been able to accurately determine how may people were killed. The figure is thought to be between 4 and 18 million.


Ah, the long sought after Lower Numbers School of thought. Shame really that there were a documented

9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.

That makes an easy 18 million and that was after 20 seconds on the internet.

Oh and please, a historians arguments still stand if the only reply you can come up with is they are "blowing smoke out of his ass".




QUOTE
So why is Trotsky so bad?


....because his theories, just like Mao's, Stalin's and Lenin's, are bollocks.


And so are yours. However, I can hold several authors, who aren't exactly minor in their fields, on my side. Apart from cursing, what have you got?

[WUOrevolt]

It seems to me that people are forgetting the importance of civil liberties.

[MogenDovid]

Thank you. That was one of my earlier issues although perhaps I didn't go into as much detail about is as I should have.

[Raisa]

I dont think there should be reducation camps for the ex-bourgeois, that implies that we give a shit what they think, and we dont.

Well , I dont anyway. <_<

[Amusing Scrotum]

If you&#39;re going to quote "Wikipedia (a very poor source that is laughed at in any academic circles), at least quote it correctly.

I didn&#39;t remember that it was Wikipedia that I got that from, indeed I may have read it somewhere else. If I had remembered where I read it, I would have said so and quoted correctly.


Hans Kammler - engineer and high-ranking officer of the SS. (His abilities as an engineer got him promoted - not his NAZI ideals

Are you saying that if he had been openly calling for equality for Jews he still would have been promoted? :lol:


Ernst Rohm - leader of the SA - murdered by NAZI&#39;s - he wasn&#39;t radical enough&#33;

If memory serves me correctly, he was murdered for trying to take over the party leadership.

.....and his "ideals" were pretty "radical." He believed that men had been the source of all good and that gay men were naturally superior.


Hugo Sperrle - a German Field Marshal of the Luftwaffe during World War II. (He was a soldier. Just like you would be if the revolution ever started)

So what if he was "just" a soldier. Following orders had not been a valid excuse since 1946.


Ok then, tell me where exactly Ms Luxemburg actually advocates the use of violence in the bringing about revolution. As far as I can understand, and several other academics as well, Ms Luxemburg advocates an energetic revolution with the aims of unlimited democracy. Not mention of violence. That&#39;s merely your interpretation.

I am not a scholar and I have only limited experience of the works of Mrs. Luxemburg. Therefore I am not able to give an academic answer to this question, perhaps a member more familiar with Mrs. Luxemburg&#39;s works could find a passage or two for you.

However, Mrs. Luxemburg most definitely advocates revolution and the dictionary lists a revolution as --


Revolution.

2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=revolution)

Now tell me how it is possible to overthrow (not change) a government and more precisely system of governance, without violence.

Of course you could contest Mrs. Luxemburg meant something else. Perhaps she was referring to "Orbital motion about a point, especially as distinguished from axial rotation" when she used the word "revolution."


I just said that the politcal system we have in place at the moment allows a person to rise from the bottom of the food chain to the top if they can work it to their advantage.

They can rise to the top and they can work it to their advantage. However they cannot work it to the advantage of the whole of the working class.


Working within the system isn&#39;t necessarily a bad thing is it?

Not all of the time, but most of the time.


Please, a flash animation probably created by a bored 15 year school kid in America. That&#39;s not academic proof. I&#39;d like to see where these figures were gained from.

I cannot "off hand" think of any sources on the internet, but there are plenty out there. Perhaps you could make a thread in the learning or resources forums,asking if a member could provide some information.

It is "out there" and I&#39;m sure someone here would know where.


Yes, Marx did call for a revolution. Did he once say it was to be a violent one? No.

Well what kind of revolution do you think Marx meant?


Unity. A strange concept to people here I see, but let me show you what it could offer.

How is it a strange concept to people here. There are fro instance, a number of members who are involved with the International Workers of the World (or IWW). That seems like unity if you ask me.


These three would be able to shatter any political or economic resistance thrown up against them.

Indeed a "mass revolutionary force" (your words) would be able to shatter (in other words overthrow) the current system.


But Marx says workers of the world. Not workers of one nation take up arms and overthrow your elitist overlords.

He says "workers of the world" but like everything, this has to start somewhere and this means it has to start in a particular nation.


Sure, but my source isn&#39;t wikipedia

I wasn&#39;t aware that wikipedia said "Capitalism would collapse?"

Anyway, my source isn&#39;t wikipedia, it&#39;s Marx.


an academic. Wikipedia is run by a bunch of people with very little understanding of history, economics, politics or indeed anything useful in an educated debate.

Indeed wikipedia is not a great source.

However from this little tirade. I suspect your main "gripe" with wikipedia is that it allows the "rabble" to contribute. It must be utterly disgusting in your eyes, that anyone outside the "circles of power" even dares to offer an opinion on a subject.

How dare those "ignorant swines" have an opinion, it&#39;s just not right. They should "learn their place," shouldn&#39;t they?

Well guess what, no one on this board, especially me, gives "two hoots" about petty bourgeois academics and their loathing of the "rabble."


If you wish to criticise it, use an academic source.

Am I not allowed to criticise it myself? :lol:

If you notice, he starts off by saying "I may be quite wrong." Not the best of starts. I reminds me of the racists who start off by saying "I&#39;m no a racist, but...."


Originally posted by Emphasis added.
but I do not have the impression that capitalism is likely to collapse of its own accord

He gets the "impression?" ...has he not done any serious work on the subject, or is his "academic brilliance" limited to his "impressions?"

However he is sort of right, Capitalism won&#39;t "collapse on its own." It will however, deteriorate to the point where it creates the material conditions of its demise. In other words it will get so bad that a whole class of people (the working class) will want to overthrow it.


and a credible alternative would have to be available.

I propose an alternative, a workers society.


No one will deny that the present crisis, dating form the early 1970s, is a threat to capitalism.

It is a "threat" and will become even more of a "threat"if it is not fixed and so far (after over 30 years) no one has been able to "fix" it.


Economically speaking (I do not say ideologically) it might even emerge strengthened from the trial....

It is funny that he says he is not speaking "ideologically" because that whole extract is limited to his "impression" of Capitalism. He says so in his own words.


Why redstar2000?

He is if you like, Revolutionary Left&#39;s resident academic. He is (and I don&#39;t say this lightly) an incredibly intelligent individual, who is very well read and has a very good understanding of Marx.

Marx incidentally, was an academic (of sorts) and no doubt there are passages of Marx&#39;s work which could be used to refute Braudel&#39;s "impression" of Capitalism.


No, but would you be able to exist in a society where all the rules of economics, trade, standards of living, it all changed. Nothing from the old system kept. Nothing

I really don&#39;t "get" your point here. No doubt it is your great academic intellect. Could you rephrase it so that me (a mere mortal) can understand your point.


But they didn&#39;t. And for that they fell.

So did the other right wing parties. Hitlers coup went against most of Germany and it would have probably still been successful even if there was a "left" wing government.

Don&#39;t forget, in Spain the left wing parties did unite and Franco used the military to gain control. Fascism has never needed parliamentary democracy to gain power.


Where&#39;s your proof?

1789 in France and 1849 in America are just two cases. Oh and I nearly forgot, Russia in 1917.


What happened to this wonderful Revolution then? It failed.

The revolution itself failed, but Capitalism was still the end result and wouldn&#39;t have been possible had the initial revolution not occurred.


But the country having the first revolution would have lost moment

How so? ....they would have overthrown the bourgeois and its lackeys and implemented proletarian democracy. They would need to keep the "momentum" because the "goal" will have been achieved.

You have been reading too much of Trotsky&#39;s "hot air" about "perpetual revolution."


Arg&#33; Wikipedia&#33;

"Arg" what? ....it got it right didn&#39;t it? ....Le Bon is a racist.


I was referring to Le Bon&#39;s work on Mob mentality, not his racial superiority works.

Don&#39;t you think one effects the other? .....or would you trust social studies produced by Nazi scientists?


His researched showed that if people were put in power for any great deal of time then this power goes to their heads.

So what? ....a Communist society would work on the basis that no one gets into power. What part of a classless, hierarchy-less society don&#39;t you get?


whereby a human crowd can become decidedly aggressive

Indeed a group would become decidedly aggressive if, for instance, they found out a member of the commune had been raped. I have no particular problem with "mob mentality" being used on rapists. I actually think it would be preferable.
_____

What is interesting, is I bet that Zimbardo&#39;s work implies that only the "rabble" become aggressive and that "enlightened men" (our rulers) can escape the "mob mentality" of the "rabble."

It is essentially, an argument for despotism. The "rabble" need leaders because they are uncivilised and these "enlightened men" who will lead us, are able to maintain their "rationality and moral inhibitions" in times of adversity.

I am that far wrong on this particular "academics" outlook on society?


If you&#39;re talking of a series of total revolution then these people would merely out run it until the Communist spread died down and then they&#39;d just go back.

Huh? :huh:

If for instance, there was a revolution and wage slavery and Capitalism was overthrown. Why would the people who just overthrew it accept the return of the old system?


Which revolutions are you thinking of?

The French revolution in 1789 for instance, killed many of the former aristocracy and lords. They suppressed the old order.


That makes an easy 18 million and that was after 20 seconds on the internet.

So when you don&#39;t name any sources for the figures, I&#39;m supposed to believe them? .....and you have a problem with wikipedia. :lol:


Oh and please, a historians arguments still stand if the only reply you can come up with is they are "blowing smoke out of his ass".

Well he is. I have read a few things, by decent historians, that contradict that. However Russian history is not of great interest to me, if you really want to discuss the figures, I suggest you make a thread on the subject.

The Leninists, Stalin "kiddies" and Maoists, love to discuss history. Oh and I forgot, the "Trots" of course especially enjoy discussing the "evil Stalin" and his crimes. Though I don&#39;t think that even they use the figure of 50 million.


And so are yours.

Indeed they are, however I don&#39;t hold myself up as a "revolutionary genius" who wishes to "lead" the working class to victory. It&#39;s not my "cup of tea."


However, I can hold several authors, who aren&#39;t exactly minor in their fields, on my side.

What, a racist, a "rabble" hater and someone who comments on his "impressions."

"Your side" really isn&#39;t anything special and that you choose these particular "academics" really does say a lot about your "brand" of Socialism.


Apart from cursing, what have you got?

Well that revolutionary genius Karl Marx for one. :lol:

....and Marx, is far better than all three of the "academics" you listed.

[MogenDovid]

QUOTE
If you&#39;re going to quote "Wikipedia (a very poor source that is laughed at in any academic circles), at least quote it correctly.


I didn&#39;t remember that it was Wikipedia that I got that from, indeed I may have read it somewhere else. If I had remembered where I read it, I would have said so and quoted correctly.


You took it practically word for word from Wikipedia. You phrase can be found on the 6th paragraph of wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorp



QUOTE
Hans Kammler - engineer and high-ranking officer of the SS. (His abilities as an engineer got him promoted - not his NAZI ideals


Are you saying that if he had been openly calling for equality for Jews he still would have been promoted? laugh.gif


I&#39;m not saying that he wasn&#39;t NAZI, I&#39;m saying that he was smart enough to know when to keep his mouth shut and just use his abilities to get his promotion. Are you saying that all SS members are NAZI - please, I&#39;d like to see you prove that.



QUOTE
Ernst Rohm - leader of the SA - murdered by NAZI&#39;s - he wasn&#39;t radical enough&#33;


If memory serves me correctly, he was murdered for trying to take over the party leadership.

.....and his "ideals" were pretty "radical." He believed that men had been the source of all good and that gay men were naturally superior.



Ernst Rohm believed in revolution. He believed in overthrowing Adolf Hitler and replacing him. He was killed foir being a politcal enemy of Adolf.



QUOTE
Hugo Sperrle - a German Field Marshal of the Luftwaffe during World War II. (He was a soldier. Just like you would be if the revolution ever started)


So what if he was "just" a soldier. Following orders had not been a valid excuse since 1946.


Being "Just a soldier" still is being accepted. It means that men blame their commanding officers - the men who issue the orders to kill - and put the blame where it belongs.



QUOTE
Revolution.

2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.


dictionary.com

Now tell me how it is possible to overthrow (not change) a government and more precisely system of governance, without violence.



Same website

A sudden or momentous change in a situation


QUOTE
I just said that the politcal system we have in place at the moment allows a person to rise from the bottom of the food chain to the top if they can work it to their advantage.


They can rise to the top and they can work it to their advantage. However they cannot work it to the advantage of the whole of the working class.


Please. The class system started to fall through in the 1950&#39;s. The class sytem as we know it has completely changed.



QUOTE
Working within the system isn&#39;t necessarily a bad thing is it?


Not all of the time, but most of the time.


I&#39;m sure you can academically back that up.



QUOTE
Yes, Marx did call for a revolution. Did he once say it was to be a violent one? No.


Well what kind of revolution do you think Marx meant?


Perhaps a dramatic yet peaceful transition? Hasn&#39;t that idea ever been entertained here?



QUOTE
Unity. A strange concept to people here I see, but let me show you what it could offer.


How is it a strange concept to people here. There are fro instance, a number of members who are involved with the International Workers of the World (or IWW). That seems like unity if you ask me.


Would you ever, as a party, join with Socialists?




QUOTE
These three would be able to shatter any political or economic resistance thrown up against them.


Indeed a "mass revolutionary force" (your words) would be able to shatter (in other words overthrow) the current system.


That&#39;s putting words in my mouth. I merely said shatter - not overthrow. "Shatter" could mean toppling through economic means.



QUOTE
But Marx says workers of the world. Not workers of one nation take up arms and overthrow your elitist overlords.


He says "workers of the world" but like everything, this has to start somewhere and this means it has to start in a particular nation.


So go on then, enlighten me - where is this mythical nation that will be the start of this world wide revolution where everyone will unite against the "evils of capitalism" and the moment it&#39;s over everyone will live better lives. Don&#39;t get me wrong - lovely idea. But that&#39;s all.




QUOTE
Sure, but my source isn&#39;t wikipedia


I wasn&#39;t aware that wikipedia said "Capitalism would collapse?"

Anyway, my source isn&#39;t wikipedia, it&#39;s Marx.


You regularly quote wikipedia. I quote John Gold, Fernand Braudel, Marx and other prominent historians.



QUOTE
I&#39;m an academic. Wikipedia is run by a bunch of people with very little understanding of history, economics, politics or indeed anything useful in an educated debate.


Indeed wikipedia is not a great source.

However from this little tirade. I suspect your main "gripe" with wikipedia is that it allows the "rabble" to contribute. It must be utterly disgusting in your eyes, that anyone outside the "circles of power" even dares to offer an opinion on a subject.

How dare those "ignorant swines" have an opinion, it&#39;s just not right. They should "learn their place," shouldn&#39;t they?

Well guess what, no one on this board, especially me, gives "two hoots" about petty bourgeois academics and their loathing of the "rabble."


No, my main "gripe" with wikipedia is it&#39;s narrow view of history. It provides very simple facts. Nothing else. No opinions, just the "facts" of one person. If it provided a section for debate between historians - regardless of their social background.




QUOTE
If you wish to criticise it, use an academic source.


Am I not allowed to criticise it myself? laugh.gif

If you notice, he starts off by saying "I may be quite wrong." Not the best of starts. I reminds me of the racists who start off by saying "I&#39;m no a racist, but...."


Hmm, a response to an historian by associating him with racism. Very clever. Try to be a little academic about your arguments or they just look plain ridiculous. In fact, I want you to try and use something other than wikipedia, a flash site, an anti American website or Marx/Engels/Statin - you know the use crowd.

Then will I say you can criticise it. Hell, even Professors use other historians to support their opinions. They don&#39;t think that they are that important - despite their years of dedication to a subject.



QUOTE
but I do not have the impression that capitalism is likely to collapse of its own accord


He gets the "impression?" ...has he not done any serious work on the subject, or is his "academic brilliance" limited to his "impressions?"

However he is sort of right, Capitalism won&#39;t "collapse on its own." It will however, deteriorate to the point where it creates the material conditions of its demise. In other words it will get so bad that a whole class of people (the working class) will want to overthrow it.


He&#39;s got three books out dedicated to the social aspects of the world, whether it was economic related or not. He&#39;s a social historian - a Marxist so do read the books before you say he hasn&#39;t written that much.



QUOTE
and a credible alternative would have to be available.


I propose an alternative, a workers society.


Propose all you like - that doesn&#39;t detract the fact that no matter how much you propose a theory, you have to make certain that every base is covered or when you take your plans to the final stage they will fall flat on the floor.



QUOTE
No one will deny that the present crisis, dating form the early 1970s, is a threat to capitalism.


It is a "threat" and will become even more of a "threat"if it is not fixed and so far (after over 30 years) no one has been able to "fix" it.

And what makes you certain that there is still a threat? Capitalism is just fine and getting better. Unfortunately...



QUOTE
Economically speaking (I do not say ideologically) it might even emerge strengthened from the trial....


It is funny that he says he is not speaking "ideologically" because that whole extract is limited to his "impression" of Capitalism. He says so in his own words.


Irnoically he seems very fond of Marx&#39;s works...



QUOTE
Why redstar2000?


He is if you like, Revolutionary Left&#39;s resident academic. He is (and I don&#39;t say this lightly) an incredibly intelligent individual, who is very well read and has a very good understanding of Marx.

Marx incidentally, was an academic (of sorts) and no doubt there are passages of Marx&#39;s work which could be used to refute Braudel&#39;s "impression" of Capitalism.


You say you aren&#39;t an academic. You say redstar2000 is - show me. An academic is either published or does tours. Tell me when/where one is. I&#39;d gladly go see one and discuss Marx with him.

As for the sources that "refute" Braudel - Braudel is a Marxist.



QUOTE
No, but would you be able to exist in a society where all the rules of economics, trade, standards of living, it all changed. Nothing from the old system kept. Nothing


I really don&#39;t "get" your point here. No doubt it is your great academic intellect. Could you rephrase it so that me (a mere mortal) can understand your point.


Sarcasm. The lowest for of wit. Fine then, I&#39;ll play that game.

OK then, mere mortal. Here&#39;s how it goes. Imagine you living in your world (this world) today and tomorrow, when you wake up, you don&#39;t grab some loose change off the fire surround, or from your pocket, and walk down the street to the long corner shop and buy a loaf of bread, or indeed 5 if you so desire. Instead you get your coupon ticket (and for a truly equal society where everyone gets treated the same you would need some kind of rationing system) and you walk down to the truck and stand in a cue to wait for your precious loaf of bread. Sounds wonderful doesn&#39;t it?



QUOTE
But they didn&#39;t. And for that they fell.


So did the other right wing parties. Hitlers coup went against most of Germany and it would have probably still been successful even if there was a "left" wing government.

Don&#39;t forget, in Spain the left wing parties did unite and Franco used the military to gain control. Fascism has never needed parliamentary democracy to gain power.


Not saying that it doesn&#39;t. I&#39;m saying with a united front, fascism needs to be certain of its footing before it continues. Tell me. Would you cross the picket of a Socialist?



QUOTE
Where&#39;s your proof?


1789 in France and 1849 in America are just two cases. Oh and I nearly forgot, Russia in 1917.


The French Revolution 1789 - propelled one man to the front but was over and returned to its old ways by 1815.

1849? Care to elaborate?

The Russian Revolution 1917 -
6 to 8 million people died under Lenin from war, famine etc.
Red Army
Battle: 632,000
Disease: 581,000
Whites:
1,290,000 battle + disease
Red Terror ;Executed: 50-200,000
Stalin&#39;s Famous "Purges" 30M

Total ;
40,000,000 dead - from the consequences of one revolution.



QUOTE
What happened to this wonderful Revolution then? It failed.


The revolution itself failed, but Capitalism was still the end result and wouldn&#39;t have been possible had the initial revolution not occurred.


So what your saying is that a Communist Revolution caused Capitalism in Russia?



QUOTE
But the country having the first revolution would have lost moment


How so? ....they would have overthrown the bourgeois and its lackeys and implemented proletarian democracy. They would need to keep the "momentum" because the "goal" will have been achieved.

You have been reading too much of Trotsky&#39;s "hot air" about "perpetual revolution."



See my above point about how when a Revolution just happens and isn&#39;t followed up by another it loses its momentum and collapses - resulting in more corruption.



QUOTE
Arg&#33; Wikipedia&#33;


"Arg" what? ....it got it right didn&#39;t it? ....Le Bon is a racist.


It was an arg of annoyance. And just because some random person posting on Le Bon said he was a racist doesn&#39;t make them right. After all, Hitler said that Homosexuals were inheritently weak - was he right because he wrote a book about it.



QUOTE
I was referring to Le Bon&#39;s work on Mob mentality, not his racial superiority works.


Don&#39;t you think one effects the other? .....or would you trust social studies produced by Nazi scientists?


Ah now you&#39;re getting onto the ideas of charismatic leadership. Look up a man called Stanley Milgram. He theorised that anyone will do what they are told if put under the right circumstances. He wasn&#39;t a NAZI - he was living in post World War Two conditions.

Mobs can be led by a charsimatic leader and channelled to do something based on what the leader is like.




Charismatic leadership theory suggests that when followers observe certain leader behaviors they make attributions of extraordinary leadership abilities (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988, 1998; Berger, 1963; Weber, 1947; Shamir, 1992)


http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/138186-1.html



QUOTE
His researched showed that if people were put in power for any great deal of time then this power goes to their heads.


So what? ....a Communist society would work on the basis that no one gets into power. What part of a classless, hierarchy-less society don&#39;t you get?


And who would stop them? An elected body of workers? The Army?



QUOTE
whereby a human crowd can become decidedly aggressive


Indeed a group would become decidedly aggressive if, for instance, they found out a member of the commune had been raped. I have no particular problem with "mob mentality" being used on rapists. I actually think it would be preferable.


And what happens to this mob after they&#39;ve torn a man limb from limb? Where does its pent up aggression go?



What is interesting, is I bet that Zimbardo&#39;s work implies that only the "rabble" become aggressive and that "enlightened men" (our rulers) can escape the "mob mentality" of the "rabble."

It is essentially, an argument for despotism. The "rabble" need leaders because they are uncivilised and these "enlightened men" who will lead us, are able to maintain their "rationality and moral inhibitions" in times of adversity.

I am that far wrong on this particular "academics" outlook on society?


Actually you are so far wrong it makes me laugh. Before you slag an academic off for being elitist in their thinking at least look into their works.



QUOTE
Which revolutions are you thinking of?


The French revolution in 1789 for instance, killed many of the former aristocracy and lords. They suppressed the old order.


Which came back in 1815.




QUOTE
That makes an easy 18 million and that was after 20 seconds on the internet.


So when you don&#39;t name any sources for the figures, I&#39;m supposed to believe them? .....and you have a problem with wikipedia. laugh.gif


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm



QUOTE
Oh and please, a historians arguments still stand if the only reply you can come up with is they are "blowing smoke out of his ass".


Well he is. I have read a few things, by decent historians, that contradict that. However Russian history is not of great interest to me, if you really want to discuss the figures, I suggest you make a thread on the subject.

The Leninists, Stalin "kiddies" and Maoists, love to discuss history. Oh and I forgot, the "Trots" of course especially enjoy discussing the "evil Stalin" and his crimes. Though I don&#39;t think that even they use the figure of 50 million.


Granted, but the average figure does go up that high in some cases. Besides, whilst they may not be right, they have at least researched it.




QUOTE
However, I can hold several authors, who aren&#39;t exactly minor in their fields, on my side.


What, a racist, a "rabble" hater and someone who comments on his "impressions."

"Your side" really isn&#39;t anything special and that you choose these particular "academics" really does say a lot about your "brand" of Socialism.


Again, read up on those "racist", "rabble hater" historians before you comment. It just makes you look stupid.



QUOTE
Apart from cursing, what have you got?


Well that revolutionary genius Karl Marx for one. laugh.gif

....and Marx, is far better than all three of the "academics" you listed.


Says you and a few others, but not one of you would admit the chance that Marx wasn&#39;t 100% right all of the time. A strength of an argument is its ability to withstand an arguement.

[Rockfan]

Of course Marx wasn&#39;t 100% right but alot of us here wouldn&#39;t concider ourselves Marxist if he was dam close. Right probly isn&#39;t the right word either because it&#39;s opinion not fact what you think of his works.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You took it practically word for word from Wikipedia.

As I have already said, I didn&#39;t remember that wikipedia was where I read it, I may well have not read it in wikipedia. I honestly can&#39;t remember.


Are you saying that all SS members are NAZI

I don&#39;t care whether they believed in "Nazism" or not. That they actively took part in the actions of the Nazi&#39;s, is enough in my opinion for them to be tried.

It doesn&#39;t matter whether they agreed with gassing Jews or not. They still did it.


He was killed foir being a politcal enemy of Adolf.

Which is completely irrelevant to the original point that members of the Freikorps went on to become high ranking members of the Nazi party.


Being "Just a soldier" still is being accepted. It means that men blame their commanding officers - the men who issue the orders to kill - and put the blame where it belongs.

No it&#39;s not. The individual soldier still has to face punishment for their crimes as well as their officers.


A sudden or momentous change in a situation

However that is not what Marx meant when he used the word revolution. I don&#39;t know how you can possibly dispute that Marx referred to the overthrow of the government when he used the word revolution.


Please. The class system started to fall through in the 1950&#39;s. The class sytem as we know it has completely changed.

:lol:

I almost wet myself reading that comment. The fundamental relationships of the "means of production" have not changed one bit.


I&#39;m sure you can academically back that up.

Perhaps the whole of the last century and the history of social democracy is sufficient evidence. A century of documented evidence should be enough for you. Whether it is backed up "academically" or not.


Perhaps a dramatic yet peaceful transition? Hasn&#39;t that idea ever been entertained here?

Yes it has and it has also been rubbished. Do you really think that the bourgeois will hand over the "means of production" if we ask them nicely? :lol:


Would you ever, as a party, join with Socialists?

I am not a member of the IWW. However as I understand it there are already Socialists in the IWW.


"Shatter" could mean toppling through economic means.

How does the class without capital economically topple the owning class?


So go on then, enlighten me - where is this mythical nation that will be the start of this world wide revolution where everyone will unite against the "evils of capitalism" and the moment it&#39;s over everyone will live better lives. Don&#39;t get me wrong - lovely idea. But that&#39;s all.

You really have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about. I am not in the "business" of "enlightening" arrogant people. If you want to learn about materialist philosophy, Marx&#39;s historical materialism and the reasons why a revolution will happen. I suggest you read some Marx.


No opinions, just the "facts" of one person.

Well that is what an encyclopedia is meant to do. If you want to read opinion pieces, read writers that offer opinions.


In fact, I want you to try and use something other than wikipedia, a flash site, an anti American website or Marx/Engels/Statin - you know the use crowd.

What&#39;s the "use crowd?"


Then will I say you can criticise it.

Unless you haven&#39;t noticed, you have come to a political board where the members offer their opinions. If you want to find a place where every comment is a quote from "a voice of authority" I suggest you look somewhere else.

Plus Communists and Anarchists don&#39;t have much time for "voices of authority." Hierarchy is not "our thing."


He&#39;s a social historian - a Marxist

A Marxist who thinks Capitalism "has every chance of surviving." :lol:


you have to make certain that every base is covered or when you take your plans to the final stage they will fall flat on the floor.

There are numerous works outlining how a future society could work. If you wish to find out, I suggest you read them.


And what makes you certain that there is still a threat?

There are still classes.

Really have you even read Marx, or are you just trying to "show off?"


Irnoically he seems very fond of Marx&#39;s works...

A large number of bourgeois academics have been "fond" of Marx&#39;s works. Marx is after all, a genius.

However their "fondness" is completely irrelevant.


You say redstar2000 is - show me.

I was being humorous. Notice I said "He is if you like, Revolutionary Left&#39;s resident academic."


I&#39;d gladly go see one and discuss Marx with him.

Why don&#39;t you just do that in the theory section of this board?


As for the sources that "refute" Braudel - Braudel is a Marxist.

He&#39;s a historian who has a "fondness" for Marxism. I would not describe him as a Marxist, though some Marxists have given him favourable reviews.


Sarcasm. The lowest for of wit.

Poor English, a sign of low intelligence. :lol:


Sounds wonderful doesn&#39;t it?

It sounds like you don&#39;t know anything about the subject you are discussing.


Would you cross the picket of a Socialist?

Huh? :huh:

If you are asking would I become a scab, the answer is no.


The French Revolution 1789 - propelled one man to the front but was over and returned to its old ways by 1815.

Not really, it "cleared the way" for Capitalism.


1849? Care to elaborate?

I&#39;m afraid I got my dates wrong on that one. I&#39;m referring to the American revolution.


So what your saying is that a Communist Revolution caused Capitalism in Russia?

You really have no understanding of Marxism do you? .....the Russian revolution was Communist in words, Capitalist in deeds. It would after all be impossible for a feudal society to skip a stage of class society and epoch of production. That is of course, if the Marxist worldview is correct.

Capitalism was all the Russian revolution could ever produce.


See my above point about how when a Revolution just happens and isn&#39;t followed up by another it loses its momentum and collapses - resulting in more corruption.

Your point is completely wrong, because you haven&#39;t a clue what you are talking about.


And just because some random person posting on Le Bon said he was a racist doesn&#39;t make them right.

Well is he a race theorist?


Mobs can be led by a charsimatic leader and channelled to do something based on what the leader is like.

So? .....Communists and Anarchists don&#39;t want leaders. Neither do we want "leadership theories."


And who would stop them? An elected body of workers? The Army?

Society.


And what happens to this mob after they&#39;ve torn a man limb from limb?

They go for lunch. :lol:


Where does its pent up aggression go?

Well if they&#39;ve torn a man "limb from limb." I would hypothesise that their "pent up aggression" had been "spent."


Before you slag an academic off for being elitist in their thinking at least look into their works.

No thanks. I don&#39;t want to read Zimbardo, I have other things to do.

However you will notice that I only offered a hypothesis as to what I thought Zimbardo&#39;s work entailed.


Which came back in 1815.

What, the same aristocracy that was killed came back to life and power?


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

That is an interesting site. However "democide" as a concept does leave a lot "up in the air." Proving whether this or that event was or wasn&#39;t the governments fault, is often a matter of opinion.

However I have no particular interest in Russian history, I&#39;ll leave that to the experts. Though you should note this paragraph --


Although it&#39;s too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million.

-- and that --


but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery.

It seems the number I offered, is far more credible than the number you offered. So much for academia. :lol:


Besides, whilst they may not be right, they have at least researched it.

So what? .....if I researched for my whole life and I came to the conclusion that 2 + 2 = 5, I would still be wrong.


Again, read up on those "racist", "rabble hater" historians before you comment.

No thanks. I&#39;m perfectly happy with my ignorant world view.

I however could also say that you should read Communist literature before criticising it. Especially as you have come to a Communist and Anarchist forum. If I went to a Zimbardo or Le Bon forum, I would at least attempt a basic level of understanding before I even contemplated asserting my intellectual superiority.


but not one of you would admit the chance that Marx wasn&#39;t 100% right all of the time.

It may surprise you, but Marxism isn&#39;t treated as Theology. Marxists analyse everything, especially Marxism.

You may wish to read this piece -- What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1095081406&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) -- of course, that "old red" doesn&#39;t operate in the "circles of academia" may be off putting to you. However that is your decision. I suggest you read most of his papers, it will develop your understanding substantially.


A strength of an argument is its ability to withstand an arguement.

Then Marx&#39;s arguments must be incredibly strong. They have withstood over a century of criticism and they still live on. Indeed many bourgeois academics are now openly praising Marx&#39;s work.

[Hiero]

I have skimmed over the last post, and i have found an error in MogenDovid criticism of re-education camps.

He is criticism of re-education camps is based on their use in Nazi germany. This lack class analysis. Nazi Germany was capitalism turning into Fascism. Socialism is the proletariat overthrowing capitalism. If the proletariat holds power in the economic base and is correct in the superstructure then re-education camps will aid the proletariat and teach the proletariat ideology.

[MogenDovid]

I have little time for anyone who wishes to remain in their quotes "ignorant" world. If you don&#39;t intend to back up your words with researched evidence other than Marx and redstar2000&#39;s work then you really shouldn&#39;t post. You sound stupid.

As for the post by Hiero.

Two things - one - Adolf Hitler used "education camps" in the same sense that this thread was discussing - I&#39;m not talking abou the politics behind them - merely their application and the implications that each carry in their names.

Two - perhaps you&#39;d like to expand on your theory of the difference between Communist "Education" camps and Facsist "education" camps. I&#39;m interested in why you think I&#39;m in error.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:00 PM
I have little time for anyone who wishes to remain in their quotes "ignorant" world. If you don&#39;t intend to back up your words with researched evidence other than Marx and redstar2000&#39;s work then you really shouldn&#39;t post. You sound stupid.
When discussing central Marxist theory there is really little need to read anything but Marx. Or perhaps you have "researched evidence" as to the nature of socialism or the success of "peaceful transition"?

[MogenDovid]

I wasn&#39;t saying anything controversial though was I? I was merely asking anyone posting here to make sure that they backed up their arguments with something other than a website and a long dead bourgeousie theorist. I&#39;m not belittling their works but Communism has changed a great deal since Marx - therefore his arguments need to be supported by modern theories.

[Comrade-Z]

I would hate to persecute people just for the views that they held. The determining factor is really deeds. I don&#39;t care how much a capitalist preaches. When we abolish classes, wage-slavery, and establish the most fulfilling workplace and community democracy in society, nobody of the former working class will want to return to the old ways. The capitalist preaching would be ineffective. Of course, the former capitalists might preach to each other and lay plots to restore capitalism, in which case they&#39;d need to be "set straight" by the local community--not in any sort of "Stalinesque" way, but in a way that&#39;s similar to helping someone with drug rehab. A true support network, with some humane restrictions temporarily placed on the capitalist if the capitalist is deemed a threat to the community. So, re-education camps? No. Just re-integration into the rest of society, gradual adjustment and learning, occasional restrictive measures as needed.

Now, going back to what I was saying about deeds, if a capitalist actively works to harm others and re-instate capitalism through violence, sabotage, etc., then of course the working class will have to defend itself and either kill the capitalist(s) or detain them until they are no longer a threat, as necessary.

The thing that creeps me out about talk of a "Red Terror" is that last time there were "Red Terrors" a bunch of anarchist-communists, left-communists, council communists, socialist revolutionaries, mensheviks, etc. were killed. I hope we know enough now not to let something like that happen again.

Now, if a menshevik group were to start violently attacking workers, then the workers would have every reason to fight back and kill the mensheviks. It doesn&#39;t matter if you call yourself socialist if you are capitalist and anti-working-class in practice. Labels don&#39;t mean &#036;hit. Deeds are what really matter. Does a person&#39;s deeds benefit and please the working class or harm and anger the working class? That&#39;s the question.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:06 PM
I wasn&#39;t saying anything controversial though was I? I was merely asking anyone posting here to make sure that they backed up their arguments with something other than a website and a long dead bourgeousie theorist. I&#39;m not belittling their works but Communism has changed a great deal since Marx - therefore his arguments need to be supported by modern theories.
The core aspects of Marxist theory has changed very little since Marx died. Additions have been made and points clarrified but class conflict has not gone away. People here may quote Lenin, Trotsky, Connolly, Gramsci et al... are these not good enough for you?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by MogenDovid+--> (MogenDovid)If you don&#39;t intend to back up your words with researched evidence other than Marx and redstar2000&#39;s work then you really shouldn&#39;t post.[/b]

I think Comrade Om said it best, "When discussing central Marxist theory there is really little need to read anything but Marx. Or perhaps you have "researched evidence" as to the nature of socialism or the success of "peaceful transition"?"


Originally posted by [email protected]
I&#39;m not belittling their works but Communism has changed a great deal since Marx

How has it changed? ......let me guess, there are now no classes? ......you hinted at as much when you said "The class sytem as we know it has completely changed."

How else am I supposed to respond to such a strange statement than to tell you to read what Marx wrote about classes and how they form?


Comrade&#045;Z
The thing that creeps me out about talk of a "Red Terror" is that last time there were "Red Terrors" a bunch of anarchist-communists, left-communists, council communists, socialist revolutionaries, mensheviks, etc. were killed. I hope we know enough now not to let something like that happen again.


The thing that "creeps me out" most. Is that people still think a post revolutionary society would be run by some revolutionary group.

After the revolution, I don&#39;t want any group in charge, from Leninists to Anarchists. I want the working class in charge, and should the workers decide that former Capitalists or for that matter Leninists and Anarchists should be "gotten rid of." Then we must respect this decision, it is what a workers society would be, the workers in charge.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Dec 21 2005, 01:12 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Dec 21 2005, 01:12 AM)
Comrade&#045;Z
The thing that creeps me out about talk of a "Red Terror" is that last time there were "Red Terrors" a bunch of anarchist-communists, left-communists, council communists, socialist revolutionaries, mensheviks, etc. were killed. I hope we know enough now not to let something like that happen again.


The thing that "creeps me out" most. Is that people still think a post revolutionary society would be run by some revolutionary group.

After the revolution, I don&#39;t want any group in charge, from Leninists to Anarchists. I want the working class in charge, and should the workers decide that former Capitalists or for that matter Leninists and Anarchists should be "gotten rid of." Then we must respect this decision, it is what a workers society would be, the workers in charge. [/b]
Good point. Since I made the statement in this thead about supporting a "red terror" I have been kind of thinking about it and relised I didn&#39;t really support it, and that comment kind of sealed it. Your right, the workers should decide.