Post-revolution Questions

[Avtomatov]

If a revolution ever happened in the United States then what would we do to get rid of reactionary elements of society?

Perhaps we could take any children they might have and have the state raise them. There would be crimes like Attempted Indoctrination of a minor?

[RedAnarchist]

There won't be any crimes in post-revolutionary society as there will be no laws of the kind we have in today's society.

[Floyce White]

No. No. No.

You have it all wrong.

The idea of belonging and not belonging is the application of the idea of property to the behavior of people. When property is abolished and property trade is replaced with sharing, people will no longer be objects to be commanded to "go away" or "come Watson I need you." Nobody will tell anybody to go or stay, and nobody will have the power to enforce such commands. Nobody will be "gotten rid of." People will solve their conflicts directly by discussing issues with each other until a mutually satisfactory condition is reached. Nobody will resort to violence (or violence by proxy: laws, police, investigations, etc.).

[Avtomatov]

Really, then why were there police in the USSR?

Oh thats right, its because society would not function otherwise.


And parents are allowed to protect their children from bad influences. What if the parents are a bad influence. Oh thats right, we take them away and get them adopted. In my mind teaching children to be hateful, irrational, and reactionary are just as bad as teaching them how to have sex with their parents or how to do drugs. Its all unacceptable and must be dealt with.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:24 PM
Really, then why were there police in the USSR?

Oh thats right, its because society would not function otherwise.
Because the USSR was not a communist or socialist nation.

[Avtomatov]

It certainly was socialist. And you said after the revolution, socialism comes after the revolution.

[EusebioScrib]

Call it socialism if you want. The bottomline is that the USSR was a class society. No getting past that. You call it socialism I call it state-capitalism. Whatever.

Anyway, Floyce White got it right. Just a few additional comments. In post-revolutionary society the role of a "parent" will become rather obsolete as we know it. Instead society will raise the child as a whole. The biological parents may play a large role, they may not. It all depends on the situation.

[KC]

In post-revolutionary society the role of a "parent" will become rather obsolete as we know it. Instead society will raise the child as a whole. The biological parents may play a large role, they may not. It all depends on the situation.

This is a completely unsubstantiated prediction.

[EusebioScrib]

This is a completely unsubstantiated prediction.

Jesus, do we always have to get in a tid bit? I think your doing it just because you can. Opportunist :angry: :wub:

Anyway, child liberation is essential to the revolution, either we're all free or none are free, period.

Children should not be subject to their biological parents, I think this is a general assumption that any revolutionary would support. So if they aren't subject to the biological parents, who raises them? They shouldn't be limited to only their parents. It should be the role of society. In order to have an "equal opportunity" they need to have every opportunity. They need to be exposed to everything possible, not only what a few want.

[KC]

You don't know "what's going to happen" after the revolution, and commenting on such issues really is pointless and nothing more than mental masturbation.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 28 2006, 12:38 AM
You don't know "what's going to happen" after the revolution, and commenting on such issues really is pointless and nothing more than mental masturbation.
Kind of like your attacking Scrib. I think this idea is rather simple. I'll even lay it out for you:

Oppressive institutions are necessary outgrowths of class society
We want to destroy class society.
Therefore, we also want to destroy the oppressive institutions.

If the law of syllogism isn't enough, I can lay out a graph for you. You know my photoshop skills are reliable. How'd that be for mental masturbation. ;)

[KC]

You have yet to prove that Eusebio's claim WILL happen.

Also, I don't think I was making a statement either for or against what he said. All I said was that saying what WILL happen in a post-revolutionary society is just guess-work.

[Avtomatov]

Its what im saying, children shouldnt be indoctrinated. A reactionary environment is just as bad as an environment of drugs and gangs, children should be removed from such environments. Im just making suggestions, im not saying whats going to happen.

[EusebioScrib]

You don't know "what's going to happen" after the revolution, and commenting on such issues really is pointless and nothing more than mental masturbation.

Well, then how do you know that it will be communism and not another class society?

We are able to comment on such issues based on history and the way things have been/are developing.

Answer my question: Do you not believe in child liberation? Child liberation implies that children be not subject and limited to their parents raising methods. So how else do you think children would be able to grow up "free"? I see the only method is that they are raised by society.

Again, your only argueing just for the sake of arguement.

This is my last post with KC. I don't wanna get *****ed at for "derailing" another thread.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 28 2006, 01:01 AM
All I said was that saying what WILL happen in a post-revolutionary society is just guess-work.
At this point, even discussing the revolution, therefore, would be be guess work. What we do is we study history, and based on a materialist analysis of history, make conclusions about what will be the next step. Otherwise, you're not a Marxist. And, based on history, I assume that the post-revolutionary society will have eliminated oppressive instutions, because, otherwise, it wasn't a real revolution.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Avtomat+--> (Avtomat) If a revolution ever happened in the United States then what would we do to get rid of reactionary elements of society? [/b]
If they do nothing, then I guess we leave them alone. If they act reactionaryly, then I guess they are acted against.

Originally posted by Avtomat+--> (Avtomat) Perhaps we could take any children they might have and have the state raise them. There would be crimes like Attempted Indoctrination of a minor?[/b]No state, not crimes, no laws. Fuck that shit.


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
This is a completely unsubstantiated prediction.Actually I agree. But it makes sense to a limited extent.


Khayembii [email protected]
You don't know "what's going to happen" after the revolution, and commenting on such issues really is pointless and nothing more than mental masturbation.Hey! I coined the phrase "mental masturbation" (at least as far as I know), I demand credit! :P

But it isn't mental masturbation really. We should discuss what might happen after any revolution, think about possible pitfalls (people might think that constituent assemblies might be a good idea, they might want to keep police around) and thrash out why they are bad. And it could ultimately produce something better. Imagine if the anarchists during the Russian Coup in 1917 had thought a bit more about where Lenin and his cronies would lead the revolution. Maybe they wouldn't have supported him, maybe they would have attempted to kill the fucker instead (just like he did to them).



barista.marxista
Oppressive institutions are necessary outgrowths of class society
We want to destroy class society.
Therefore, we also want to destroy the oppressive institutions.But is parental "authority an oppressive institution?


(For the record I call things that I consider pointless mental theorising, that while fun will ultimately produce nothing, 'mental masturbation'. An example, "are we all just brains in vats?".)

[KC]

We should discuss what might happen after any revolution, think about possible pitfalls (people might think that constituent assemblies might be a good idea, they might want to keep police around) and thrash out why they are bad.

Yes, but Eusebio wasn't talking about what could happen. He is saying that it will happen.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:16 PM
If a revolution ever happened in the United States then what would we do to get rid of reactionary elements of society?

Perhaps we could take any children they might have and have the state raise them. There would be crimes like Attempted Indoctrination of a minor?
The reactionary elements of society are systematically destroyed by the communist-workers. The dictatorship of the proletariat, by its name, squashes all capitalist resistance.

[Avtomatov]

Some of you are anarchists. What we are talking about here is a communist revolution. Maybe the anarchists will help us because im sure they would prefer communism to capitalism. But the fact is we need laws. Anarchy does not oppose laws, anarchy opposes the government.

What youre proposing is both anarchy and anomie, anomie meens no laws. In the media when they talk about anarchy like chaos, anomie would be a better word for chaos.

[EusebioScrib]

Some of you are anarchists. What we are talking about here is a communist revolution. Maybe the anarchists will help us because im sure they would prefer communism to capitalism. But the fact is we need laws. Anarchy does not oppose laws, anarchy opposes the government.

You know what? I'm starting to believe your avatar is exactly what you look like. It seems to fit your posts well.

Firstly, you don't have any understanding of anarchism, you are basing it off of typical bourgeois ideas. Yea way to go. What is communism to you then? You think we'll have "laws" as we have them today in communism? You think we'll have "government" as we have it today? Laws are fetishized ideas that truely are made to be broken. You clearly have no faith in the masses to rule themselves decentralized and autonomously. Why are you here?

[Avtomatov]

Anarchy

1) Absence of any form of political authority.
2) Political disorder and confusion.
3) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anomie

1) Social instability caused by erosion of standards and values.
2)Alienation and purposelessness experienced by a person or a class as a result of a lack of standards, values, or ideals: “We must now brace ourselves for disquisitions on peer pressure, adolescent anomie and rage” (Charles Krauthammer).

[French, from Greek anomi, lawlessness, from anomos, lawless : a-, without; see a-1 + nomos, law; see nem- in Indo-European Roots.]

[EusebioScrib]

Your fetishizing the dictionary. We decide what the terms mean, not the dictionary.

Firstly we need to make a distiction between "anarchy" and "Anarchy or Anarchism." Simple anarchy is used to discribe disorder and chaso, i.e. the anarchy of capitalism. However Anarchy and Anarchism are social systems which are classless and stateless hence communism.

You know what real Marxists say to your dictionary? Fuck you! We'll decide what terms mean ourself, we won't let some "professors" or whoever writes those things do it. Man makes the meaning of words, not vic versa.

[Avtomatov]

okay maybe ill start calling myself a nazi, because i feal that the word nazi meens love and compassion and rationalism.

But it really doesnt matter so ill let it go.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

"Fetishizing"


WHAT?

-Alex

[KC]

Fetishism: Excessive attachment or regard.

[EusebioScrib]

okay maybe ill start calling myself a nazi, because i feal that the word nazi meens love and compassion and rationalism.

Right :huh:


Fetishism: Excessive attachment or regard.

Eh, that doesn't give a full understanding of what I meant. Fetishism means giving a man made object or idea power over man. For example God. Man created that idea, but he gives that idea power over him etc.

[rouchambeau]

-Take away the conditions for their existence.

-The state? Communism has no state.