Log in

View Full Version : My totally unqualified opinion



Gaius
13th May 2006, 16:10
Its fair to say communism is on the defensive at the moment.

But rather than sit about here and vainly organise a 'revolution' that will never happen, would it not be better to begin a period of reflection - taking an honest look at past occurances with socialists and communists - and reforming communism and socialism to make it applicable with a globalised world?

Furthermore, i think you should advocate more capitalism in the world, as does it not state somewhere amongst Marx's teachings that capitalism will bear the seeds of its own destruction? Surely then, more capitalism is needed? Take for example Nepal. If it goes down the Maoist line, then its in for trouble.

I believe you should do the following;

1) Take a long sabbatical - ten years or so. Call mass conferences. Invite every communist organisation in the world to a central meeting point and debate, debate, debate. perhaps form a new communist international?

2) Research and develop communism more to make it applicable to the 21st century. Calm peoples fears. Begin a process of education.

3) Encourage globalisation wherever you can.

Forward Union
13th May 2006, 16:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:10 PM
Its fair to say communism is on the defensive at the moment.

No. Because communism is a broad term, and the movement is largely in a state of transition, from Leninism to Libertarianism. Leninism is on the defensive (theoretically) as are other authoritarian models like maoism and Stalinism, from capitalists and other Communists.

Libertarian movements like Anarchist-Communism, or Council communism are under attack, but as much as any idea. I think it would be fair to say Socialism is on the defensive, but not communism.

There are mass conferences, debates, we are always debating, and this wont stop even when we're doing well, it's a part of democracy.

black magick hustla
13th May 2006, 16:28
as Additives said, there has been a reborn of libertarian ideals which are superseeding the old authoritarian models for socialism. (maoism, leninism, etc).

as redstar said, 40 years ago it was blasphemy to speak about how lenin was a nutjob.

but now, i believe that the 21th century will slowly throw useless authoritarian models for communism to the dust bin of history. the old models of the vanguard parties are only becoming relevant to third world circumstances.

and even i have doubts about their approach toward the third world.

-----

you may be right about the "revolution never coming". i think there is more possibility for fascist monopoly capitalism in the future, than for communism. the attitude that revolution is inevitable is counterrevolutionary, it implicitly suggests that we should just be passive and wait for history to "click" for a revolution to spointaneously explode.

England Expects
14th May 2006, 21:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:56 PM

but now, i believe that the 21th century will slowly throw useless authoritarian models for communism to the dust bin of history. the old models of the vanguard parties are only becoming relevant to third world circumstances.


I'm sorry to do this, as we all make mistakes, but "21th" is criminal

Hegemonicretribution
14th May 2006, 22:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:38 PM
1) Take a long sabbatical - ten years or so. Call mass conferences. Invite every communist organisation in the world to a central meeting point and debate, debate, debate. perhaps form a new communist international?




I agree with AF with regards to this :)


2) Research and develop communism more to make it applicable to the 21st century. Calm peoples fears. Begin a process of education.
I can't disagree with this at all! This is already the case however.


3) Encourage globalisation wherever you can.
I completely disagree! How would the workers feel about a movement that sought to make things as bad as possible to bring about conditions for their own ideology? They would be completely turned off from the idea and set the left in general back a long way if this were to happen. What would be left to counter the right-wing if this was the case? Globalisation may well get wildly out of control.

It is through associating with real-life working class struggle that we gain a chance to educate workers, and shed some of the shitty reputation Stalin et al have cursed us with. Not by laying back and saying "Fuck it, leave it a few years and they will be dying to have us help them." An "us and them" atttude is not needed. What is needed is action now, and action throughout improving the lives of workers whilst explaining why capitalism is a root cause of the problems.

GlassDraggon
15th May 2006, 04:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:38 PM
Its fair to say communism is on the defensive at the moment.

But rather than sit about here and vainly organise a 'revolution' that will never happen, would it not be better to begin a period of reflection - taking an honest look at past occurances with socialists and communists - and reforming communism and socialism to make it applicable with a globalised world?

Furthermore, i think you should advocate more capitalism in the world, as does it not state somewhere amongst Marx's teachings that capitalism will bear the seeds of its own destruction? Surely then, more capitalism is needed? Take for example Nepal. If it goes down the Maoist line, then its in for trouble.

I believe you should do the following;

1) Take a long sabbatical - ten years or so. Call mass conferences. Invite every communist organisation in the world to a central meeting point and debate, debate, debate. perhaps form a new communist international?

2) Research and develop communism more to make it applicable to the 21st century. Calm peoples fears. Begin a process of education.

3) Encourage globalisation wherever you can.
I'm just gonna take this bit by bit.

The part about "...and vainly organise a 'revolution' that will never happen..." first-
There is no force in the United States that could rise up and fight toe to toe with the U.S. Armed Forces (or even the Special Forces branch). I'm assuming that's the type of "revolution" you invision. But there are 3 very viable aspects of revolution which can and would be very successful with an appropriate amount of organization. The most important of those would be education of the masses. If the majority of workers were able to step back and look at how horrendous their working and living conditions are in comparison to what they could be, that alone would provide the force necessary for a successful revolution. The second branch of viable revolution is economic. The U.S. economy (and empire) has probably reached it's peak and I personally believe it is on the decline. The nation's economy is so top heavy that it will likely collapse at some point in my lifetime. When that happens, it will give us an opportunity to step forward and rebuild. The third branch of revolution lies in direct action. Direct action being protests, rallies, unionization, worker sit-ins, worker strikes, corporate crackdowns and other non-violent means. Within this branch there is also a section allocated to the use of violence. I can picture you scoffing at the thought of using violence against such a large and powerful country. I suggest you look at Irish history from the 1916 Easter Uprising all the way up to the creation of a free and independant Ireland. The U.K. was the world super-power at that point and Ireland was in essentially the same position as we are now.

Then on to your capitalist rant:
Capitalism works like a virus. It consumes and grows and then has to consume more in order to continue growing. It's a vicious cycle with infinite growth possibility. That's wonderful...except there's very limited resources in the world. Infinite growth in a world of finite resources is a recipe for disaster. So capitalism, like a virus, consumes it's host and then it dies. Capitalism doesn't bear the seeds of it's own destruction- it IS destruction. I agree with you that Maoism is a terrible thing. But Maoism is not leftism- it is fascism under the guise of communism.

Now to your points:
1) That's already happening, especially in Latin America. Also, please don't use the words "leftist" and "communist" interchangeably. I'm a leftist but I'm not a communist. There is a difference and you seem to be missing it.

2) Again...watch the word "communism". Change it to "Research and develope Leftist theory...". Once again, this has already been happening. We've been refining and improving Leftist theory well into the late 20th and 21st century. Leftist theory is continually changing and being improved. I think part of this misconception on your part lies in your view of Leftism as "communism" and thereby relating it to the U.S.S.R.

3) Define "globalisation". If you're talking about Free Trade Zones, NAFTA, The World Bank etc etc etc then I think you need to do some research beyond the oily surface. You remember how I said that capitalism grows infinitely and consumes infinite resources in a finite world? That means that when grew past our ability to sustain ourselves within our own country, we had to start stealing resources and labor from other people. I've done a fair bit of global travel and I've seen the results first hand. You get outside the United States and Europe and you find starvation and poverty on a level that is incomprehensible to any American who hasn't seen it first hand. Many of these people arent starving and impoverished because of poor economic management on their government's part. The result of their starvation and impoverishment can be directly linked to Globalization and Free Trade.


My recommendations for you:
1. Watch the movie "Life In Debt" about the Jamaican Free Trade Zones
2. Read a LOT more about Leftism
3. Stop using the word "Communism" in the place of "Leftism"
4. Look up the dates and locations for some of the global Leftist gatherings
5. Read about the tactics used by the I.R.A. in Ireland from 1916-Independence



I'd keep going but I think this is enough homework for now :-P If you want more just PM me.

Oh-Dae-Su
15th May 2006, 04:41
hey was it me? or did someone hijack this webpage?

encephalon
15th May 2006, 06:00
yep. good old self-proclaimed fascists.

GlassDraggon
15th May 2006, 07:10
Did any of that come off as fascist?
Didn't mean to.
:-)

**Edit**
Ohhh, you meant the web page being hijacked (?)
Thought you were saying that I was a fascist :-P

Zero
15th May 2006, 07:17
Even though I do agree with many people here in the statements that it is Socialism and Leninist Communism that is on the defensive (for the most part anyway) I don't see any bad coming of mass gatherings and debating between us. Maybe make it of Marxism in general, rather then Socialisms or Authoritarianisms...

Then again I think the Anarchists would just go on mass slaughter mode once they reach the Maoist booth.

encephalon
15th May 2006, 10:36
Then again I think the Anarchists would just go on mass slaughter mode once they reach the Maoist booth.

Have you ever dealt with RCP'ers for more than 15 minutes? The anarchists wouldn't be the only ones in mass slaughter mode. The next time I hear "Bob Avakian said" is the next time I get booked for assault.


Ohhh, you meant the web page being hijacked (?)

Yes. The g00ns are self-proclaimed fascists, though I doubt they're even aware of what fascism actually means. I'm guessing they're just saying it to look like assholes.

Enragé
15th May 2006, 15:20
defense?

dude, since Seattle the revolutionary left has been on the offensive!

Look around the world, the movement is growing!

IronColumn
15th May 2006, 17:15
Yeah the zapatistas are alive and kicking, all of south America has moved to the left, international capitalism is in an extremely tenuous position, the welfare state is shrinking, more workers are being laid off, the supreme world bully is being humbled by two invasions of third rate powers. . .

the right is on the defensive, and who knows what will happen this go round?

Orange Juche
15th May 2006, 18:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:04 AM
Yes. The g00ns are self-proclaimed fascists, though I doubt they're even aware of what fascism actually means. I'm guessing they're just saying it to look like assholes.
Its actually safe to assume that they probably had no political connections to the hack. Alot of hackers who do that kind of stuff do it as graffiti artists do what they do. Its their "tag." They probably didn't care about the politics of this site, they were just being asses who were "tagging" the site with stuff that would offend us, because, that was their tag for this site... they probably said what they said to be asses, not because they care to any level.

They probably saw that this site was a less secure than some others, and it would be an easy tag.

Gaius
15th May 2006, 20:06
Originally posted by GlassDraggon+May 15 2006, 03:29 AM--> (GlassDraggon @ May 15 2006, 03:29 AM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 03:38 PM
Its fair to say communism is on the defensive at the moment.

But rather than sit about here and vainly organise a 'revolution' that will never happen, would it not be better to begin a period of reflection - taking an honest look at past occurances with socialists and communists - and reforming communism and socialism to make it applicable with a globalised world?

Furthermore, i think you should advocate more capitalism in the world, as does it not state somewhere amongst Marx's teachings that capitalism will bear the seeds of its own destruction? Surely then, more capitalism is needed? Take for example Nepal. If it goes down the Maoist line, then its in for trouble.

I believe you should do the following;

1) Take a long sabbatical - ten years or so. Call mass conferences. Invite every communist organisation in the world to a central meeting point and debate, debate, debate. perhaps form a new communist international?

2) Research and develop communism more to make it applicable to the 21st century. Calm peoples fears. Begin a process of education.

3) Encourage globalisation wherever you can.
I'm just gonna take this bit by bit.

The part about "...and vainly organise a 'revolution' that will never happen..." first-
There is no force in the United States that could rise up and fight toe to toe with the U.S. Armed Forces (or even the Special Forces branch). I'm assuming that's the type of "revolution" you invision. But there are 3 very viable aspects of revolution which can and would be very successful with an appropriate amount of organization. The most important of those would be education of the masses. If the majority of workers were able to step back and look at how horrendous their working and living conditions are in comparison to what they could be, that alone would provide the force necessary for a successful revolution. The second branch of viable revolution is economic. The U.S. economy (and empire) has probably reached it's peak and I personally believe it is on the decline. The nation's economy is so top heavy that it will likely collapse at some point in my lifetime. When that happens, it will give us an opportunity to step forward and rebuild. The third branch of revolution lies in direct action. Direct action being protests, rallies, unionization, worker sit-ins, worker strikes, corporate crackdowns and other non-violent means. Within this branch there is also a section allocated to the use of violence. I can picture you scoffing at the thought of using violence against such a large and powerful country. I suggest you look at Irish history from the 1916 Easter Uprising all the way up to the creation of a free and independant Ireland. The U.K. was the world super-power at that point and Ireland was in essentially the same position as we are now.

Then on to your capitalist rant:
Capitalism works like a virus. It consumes and grows and then has to consume more in order to continue growing. It's a vicious cycle with infinite growth possibility. That's wonderful...except there's very limited resources in the world. Infinite growth in a world of finite resources is a recipe for disaster. So capitalism, like a virus, consumes it's host and then it dies. Capitalism doesn't bear the seeds of it's own destruction- it IS destruction. I agree with you that Maoism is a terrible thing. But Maoism is not leftism- it is fascism under the guise of communism.

Now to your points:
1) That's already happening, especially in Latin America. Also, please don't use the words "leftist" and "communist" interchangeably. I'm a leftist but I'm not a communist. There is a difference and you seem to be missing it.

2) Again...watch the word "communism". Change it to "Research and develope Leftist theory...". Once again, this has already been happening. We've been refining and improving Leftist theory well into the late 20th and 21st century. Leftist theory is continually changing and being improved. I think part of this misconception on your part lies in your view of Leftism as "communism" and thereby relating it to the U.S.S.R.

3) Define "globalisation". If you're talking about Free Trade Zones, NAFTA, The World Bank etc etc etc then I think you need to do some research beyond the oily surface. You remember how I said that capitalism grows infinitely and consumes infinite resources in a finite world? That means that when grew past our ability to sustain ourselves within our own country, we had to start stealing resources and labor from other people. I've done a fair bit of global travel and I've seen the results first hand. You get outside the United States and Europe and you find starvation and poverty on a level that is incomprehensible to any American who hasn't seen it first hand. Many of these people arent starving and impoverished because of poor economic management on their government's part. The result of their starvation and impoverishment can be directly linked to Globalization and Free Trade.


My recommendations for you:
1. Watch the movie "Life In Debt" about the Jamaican Free Trade Zones
2. Read a LOT more about Leftism
3. Stop using the word "Communism" in the place of "Leftism"
4. Look up the dates and locations for some of the global Leftist gatherings
5. Read about the tactics used by the I.R.A. in Ireland from 1916-Independence



I'd keep going but I think this is enough homework for now :-P If you want more just PM me. [/b]
I understand what your saying. Also, I realise the USSR etc. were not communist states (Which is in itself an oxymoron, the concept of a communist state)

And please, don't talk to me about the IRA. Them scumbags ruined any chance we ever had of getting a united Ireland with their stupid martyrdom of 1916. Peaceful parliamentary politics would have gotten us Home Rule after the war. Its only a pity CS Parnell hadn't remained alive for it and there wouldn't have been all the unnecessary bloodletting by the IRA savages, who have indiscriminately killed people of all communities for over 70 years.

GlassDraggon
16th May 2006, 01:17
I disagree partially. Without the 1916 uprising, I seriously doubt Ireland would be seperate from the U.K. I do agree however that the post-Good Friday agreement terrorism was barbaric and counter-productive. But those were the actions of the modern day R.I.R.A. and not of the old school IRA. I've never supported terrorism against civilians, but the guerrilla tactics used by Sein Fein and the old IRA were perfectly justified and successfull.

All in my opinion.
-R

Gaius
16th May 2006, 19:21
I've never supported terrorism against civilians, but the guerrilla tactics used by Sein Fein and the old IRA were perfectly justified and successfull.


The vast majority of IRA violence in NI in the last 30 years was against civilians. The IRA hid behind a political movement when in reality, they're nothing more than the Irish mafia.

Hegemonicretribution
16th May 2006, 20:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 06:21 PM
The vast majority of IRA violence in NI in the last 30 years was against civilians. The IRA hid behind a political movement when in reality, they're nothing more than the Irish mafia.
I know there is some support for the ira on here, and I realise there is a need to oppose Imperialism, but the IRA are not worthy of support. I actually agree partially with Gaius on this one. Having spent time in Ireland (both republic and north) as well as having family there that have been affected by the situation I cannot condone the support of the IRA in the slightest.

If a secular, proletariat movement was to fight against the British for independence then I would probably hop on a ferry over there my self and join them! As it stands I support neither the imperialists or the Catholic pseudo-revolutionaries, and see little progress being made until there is a third group that is worthy of real support becoming large enough to have an impact.

Tungsten
16th May 2006, 21:09
I wouldn't call the Northern Ireland problem one of imperialism. Not on part of the UK, anyway. It should be quite clear by now that the people of NI don't want to be part of the republic (98.9%) and some of them don't want to be part of the UK either. A seperate state is the way to go, I think. Let them choose their own destiny.

I know there are IRA supporters here, who presumably see themselves as opposing imperialism, but I don't think the political subjucation of NI against the wishes of the majority is the way to do it. No prizes for guessing why.

Enragé
16th May 2006, 23:11
Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+May 16 2006, 07:06 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ May 16 2006, 07:06 PM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 06:21 PM
The vast majority of IRA violence in NI in the last 30 years was against civilians. The IRA hid behind a political movement when in reality, they're nothing more than the Irish mafia.
I know there is some support for the ira on here, and I realise there is a need to oppose Imperialism, but the IRA are not worthy of support. I actually agree partially with Gaius on this one. Having spent time in Ireland (both republic and north) as well as having family there that have been affected by the situation I cannot condone the support of the IRA in the slightest.

If a secular, proletariat movement was to fight against the British for independence then I would probably hop on a ferry over there my self and join them! As it stands I support neither the imperialists or the Catholic pseudo-revolutionaries, and see little progress being made until there is a third group that is worthy of real support becoming large enough to have an impact. [/b]
INLA?

GlassDraggon
17th May 2006, 07:57
I agree with pretty much all of that. Although I don't think the IRA suddenly appeared on it's own. I think it was a result of so many years of vicious tyranny on part of the U.K. (E.G. the unnecessary starvation in the mid 1800's and the mass exodus). So, although I don't condone the IRA's brutal actions, I see it as a result of the seeds that the U.K. sowed for so many years.

That being said, I don't believe all members of the IRA were demons. People like Michael Collins were (in my opinion) absolutely key in creating a sovereign and stable Ireland. I don't think someone like Eamon De'Valera could ever have achieved an independant or stable Ireland. He was just too damn bureaucratic, pompous and American to ever get anything tangible done.

I find it hard to simply say "The IRA". There were so many forces within the IRA and so many independant terrorist actions attributed to the "IRA" that the lines get blurry. I suppose when I refer to the "IRA" I think of the Michael Collins side (although he wasn't a saint either). I think of the direct and guerilla actions taken against the British military and government. Not the mindless terrorist attacks on civilians (Irish or British) or the selfish profiteering and blackmailing done in the name of the "IRA".

The means of the revolution can be argued. But the results have been pretty impressive. Ireland went from a subjugated territory to an independant country, now hailed as the "Celtic Dragon", all in a single lifetime. I don't mean to imply that everything is perfect...but those are very impressive steps in a single lifetime.

Once again, just my opinions.
-R

(I'll prolly spend the night mulling over this now :-P)

GlassDraggon
17th May 2006, 08:14
Gaius,
I just read your profile. I can see where we'd differ in some of our views. Up until fairly recently, my political views have been almost identical to your own. But in the last year they've changed a bit. I'm no longer totally non-violent. I believe that non-violence is almost always the best solution, but that in some instances, it's absolutely useless (maybe I'll elaborate on another thread). As for democracy...I think it's a great idea, but it's not always the best solution. America is a great example- if the 48% of the population is ignorant and apathetic to the candidates and the issues...then they can simply be bought by the highest bidder (advertising) and then it's a dictatorship by corporations. So in the case of America, I don't support the "democracy" that I live in. I also believe that every individual has an obligation to do whats best for the greater good (e.g. paying higher taxes to support a welfare system). But here in America, individual freedom takes precedence over the greater good.

I think the big clash in this thread probably relates to our differing views on acceptable violence. I see violence against civialians and armed struggle against an established imperialist state as being two very different issues. I accept and support the armed struggle against the British government (even the guerilla tactics and assassinations). But I do not, in any way, support violence aimed at civilian populations.


Maybe that's where we disagree?
-R

(Where do you live in Ireland?)

Gaius
17th May 2006, 17:09
I live 5 miles from the border with NI.



I wouldn't call the Northern Ireland problem one of imperialism. Not on part of the UK, anyway. It should be quite clear by now that the people of NI don't want to be part of the republic (98.9%) and some of them don't want to be part of the UK either. A seperate state is the way to go, I think. Let them choose their own destiny.


Thats complete bollox.

Tungsten
17th May 2006, 17:17
There was once a time that every socialist would have readily denounced nationalism as the measles of the human race. Not anymore, it would seem. How tragic.

Enragé
17th May 2006, 20:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:17 PM
There was once a time that every socialist would have readily denounced nationalism as the measles of the human race. Not anymore, it would seem. How tragic.
resistance to imperialism, struggle for self determination

chauvinism, racism, superiority-complex

2 kinds of nationalism
see the difference?

Gaius
17th May 2006, 22:09
Tungsten,

Seriously man, where did you get your information for you post about Northern Ireland? Orange Order Weekly?