To: Stalin's Law [Archive]

Lamanov

30th September 2006, 01:19

KC, don't be a prick. I didn't "provide" the quote, but it's in that child's signature. It's not my fault when someone missquotes a "great comrade" Stalin.

So could someone provide a link or a refference to a text from which this quote was taken?

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)I completely agree with that quote, as any revolutionary leftist with a hint of common sense would (the actual quote, not the one provided by DJ-TC).[/b]

My "hint of common sense" tells me that everyone who has ideas is an enemy, and that those who implement them, like sailors of Kronstadt or industrial workers in Hungary or students in Paris, are ought to feel the wrath of "revolutionary leftists".

Originally posted by [email protected]
Convincing people not to be racist or not to be fascists or capitalists is incredible difficult. You usually cant turn someone like that. The best way to stop these things is to prevent people from being exposed to such ideas in the first place.

Read: >>Convincing workers and students that socialism demands the leadership of our party and our great leader, and convincing them to lose the ideas of "autonomy", "action", "self-emancipation", "councils", is incredible difficult. You usually can't turn someone like that. The best way to stop these things is to prevent workers and students from being exposed to such ideas in the first place.<<

Demogorgon
Not letting people have ideas is the most terrifying prospect imaginable.

Exactly. It is a prospect of self-enslaved society which is leading to a totalitarian form of "total ideology". A prospect which is in absolute contradiction to the project outlayed in the Theses on Feuerbach.

RNK

30th September 2006, 01:22

There is a very fine line between educating people to allow them to see the moral truths themselves, and forcing them to accept those truths.

The problem is, when people are forced truth, it no longer becomes truth. They are simply being fed propaganda. There will always, always be people who do not agree with Communism for whatever reasons, be they misinformation and misguidedness, or simply disagreeing with the basis of, or greed, or whatever.

30th September 2006, 01:38

My "hint of common sense" tells me that everyone who has ideas is an enemy, and that those who implement them, like sailors of Kronstadt or industrial workers in Hungary or students in Paris, are ought to feel the wrath of "revolutionary leftists".

I think you misinterpreted the quote. Reactionaries should not be allowed to express reactionary ideas. Do you agree with that or not?

The problem is, when people are forced truth, it no longer becomes truth. They are simply being fed propaganda. There will always, always be people who do not agree with Communism for whatever reasons, be they misinformation and misguidedness, or simply disagreeing with the basis of, or greed, or whatever.

Everyone is fed propaganda, whether it is true or not. The truth itself is propaganda as it is portrayed in a way in which the person portraying it wants it to be portrayed.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 01:39

Originally posted by Whitten+Sep 29 2006, 09:58 PM--> (Whitten @ Sep 29 2006, 09:58 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 09:54 PM
You can't simply outlaw opposing ideas.

That's like forcing people not to be racist. In their minds they will still be racist - you must actually convince people not to be.
Convincing people not to be racist or not to be fascists or capitalists is incredible difficult. You usually cant turn someone like that. The best way to stop these things is to prevent people from being exposed to such ideas in the first place. [/b]
yeah and by doing that you become a fascist yourself....

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 01:41

Originally posted by Khayembii Com[email protected] 29 2006, 10:39 PM

My "hint of common sense" tells me that everyone who has ideas is an enemy, and that those who implement them, like sailors of Kronstadt or industrial workers in Hungary or students in Paris, are ought to feel the wrath of "revolutionary leftists".

I think you misinterpreted the quote. Reactionaries should not be allowed to express reactionary ideas. Do you agree with that or not?
yeah because we believe in that thing called democracy and free speach and since the reactionaries let us have ideas we must not let them have ideas. Otherwise that wouldn't be democratic... :roll:

30th September 2006, 01:44

yeah because we believe in that thing called democracy and free speach and since the reactionaries let us have ideas we must not let them have ideas. Otherwise that wouldn't be democratic...

Sorry, I don't believe in multi-party elections, nor do I believe in free speech for those that wish to take power from the workers and again subject them to the horrible conditions which they were in before they took power. The bourgeoisie shouldn't "be given an equal vote" and they "shouldn't be given equal representation"; that is a completely liberal viewpoint and it is a shitty attempt at fitting socialism in with bourgeois democracy.

Lamanov

30th September 2006, 01:45

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 29 2006, 10:39 PM
I think you misinterpreted the quote. Reactionaries should not be allowed to express reactionary ideas. Do you agree with that or not?

No, I don't.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 01:47

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 29 2006, 10:45 PM

yeah because we believe in that thing called democracy and free speach and since the reactionaries let us have ideas we must not let them have ideas. Otherwise that wouldn't be democratic...

Sorry, I don't believe in multi-party elections, nor do I believe in free speech for those that wish to take power from the workers and again subject them to the horrible conditions which they were in before they took power. The bourgeoisie shouldn't "be given an equal vote" and they "shouldn't be given equal representation"; that is a completely liberal viewpoint and it is a shitty attempt at fitting socialism in with bourgeois democracy.
HAHA good one! unless your serious in which case you're just as good as Hitler and Stalin and should stop posing and claiming 'you know what's best for the workers'. The workers now whats best for themselves and they don't need you telling them 'what best for them' like Stalin did with his gulags and oppressive police.

30th September 2006, 01:50

HAHA good one! unless your serious in which case you're just as good as Hitler and Stalin and should stop posing and claiming 'you know what's best for the workers'. The workers now whats best for themselves and they don't need you telling them 'what best for them' like Stalin did with his gulags and oppressive police.

Wow, absolutely ingenious response. Ever think about writing a book?

Do you think if you asked workers in a time of revolutionary upheaval how they should treat the bourgeoisie that they would respond by saying "I think we should give them full equality and freedom to express their ideas"? Fuck no. In fact, they would be more militant about it and would probably suggest shooting them and having that be that.

Moreover, my argument had absolutely nothing to do with some idea about me "knowing what's best for the workers" so I have no idea where you got that bullshit from. Pulled it out your ass, perhaps?

Leo

30th September 2006, 01:57

Originally posted by Henry
yeah because we believe in that thing called democracy and free speach and since the reactionaries let us have ideas we must not let them have ideas. Otherwise that wouldn't be democratic...

Oh my, a liberal trot. I just wanna drink more and more. (And I have already drank more than enough... and its fucking Ramazan! :lol: )

Anyway, I completely agree with KC's replies to Henry.

DJ-TC, If I were you, I would attack Stalin and Stalin kiddies, from Stalin's capitalism or imperialism. Attacking people on just short quotes they said aren't regarded valid by most people, as they can be interpreted in much different ways. I would focus on the material facts instead of someones words, it's up to you of course.

Lamanov

30th September 2006, 01:59

Stalin's quote got you confused KC. We're talking about ideas. Not guns.

Originally posted by KC+--> (KC)Moreover, my argument had absolutely nothing to do with some idea about me "knowing what's best for the workers" so I have no idea where you got that bullshit from. Pulled it out your ass, perhaps?[/b]

Oh? But two centimeters up the screen you tell us what the workers would "probably" do, that is, what's "best for them": :lol:

KC
Do you think if you asked workers in a time of revolutionary upheaval how they should treat the bourgeoisie that they would respond by saying "I think we should give them full equality and freedom to express their ideas"? Fuck no. In fact, they would be more militant about it and would probably suggest shooting them and having that be that.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 02:01

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 29 2006, 10:51 PM

HAHA good one! unless your serious in which case you're just as good as Hitler and Stalin and should stop posing and claiming 'you know what's best for the workers'. The workers now whats best for themselves and they don't need you telling them 'what best for them' like Stalin did with his gulags and oppressive police.

Wow, absolutely ingenious response. Ever think about writing a book?

Do you think if you asked workers in a time of revolutionary upheaval how they should treat the bourgeoisie that they would respond by saying "I think we should give them full equality and freedom to express their ideas"? Fuck no. In fact, they would be more militant about it and would probably suggest shooting them and having that be that.

Moreover, my argument had absolutely nothing to do with some idea about me "knowing what's best for the workers" so I have no idea where you got that bullshit from. Pulled it out your ass, perhaps?
umm okay... that's pretty fucking stupid. Stalin said the same thing and look at where that got the CPSU. If they really are hated by the people, give them free speach, because you have nothing to worry about. They'll be embarrassed during the next elections, and they will get pretty much no attention because they have no support. And you implied that
'you know what's best for the workers'. I don't support bourgeious elections, however I don't support the fascism you advocate. I support true direct democracy and if the populace decides they hate socialism, they deserve the right to be able to say something about it, not be crushed by tanks and beaten down by police and thrown in jail. Have you learned nothing from the 20th century?

Lamanov

30th September 2006, 02:01

Originally posted by Leo
DJ-TC, If I were you, I would attack Stalin and Stalin kiddies, from Stalin's capitalism or imperialism. Attacking people on just short quotes they said aren't regarded valid by most people, as they can be interpreted in much different ways. I would focus on the material facts instead of someones words, it's up to you of course.

I have a specific reason for asking this kid what he thinks that quote means.

You may try to guess what it is, but don't say it out loud. ;)

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 02:04

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Sep 29 2006, 10:58 PM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Sep 29 2006, 10:58 PM)
Henry
yeah because we believe in that thing called democracy and free speach and since the reactionaries let us have ideas we must not let them have ideas. Otherwise that wouldn't be democratic...

Oh my, a liberal trot. I just wanna drink more and more. (And I have already drank more than enough... and its fucking Ramazan! :lol: )

Anyway, I completely agree with KC's replies to Henry.
[/b]
oh another fascist-sympathizer, great! I love how you stalinists think that democracy is bad and that you ideology will always be loved by the workers. It's like 1931 all over again... or like the 20th century never happened...

Jonnydraft

30th September 2006, 02:04

Demogorgon

30th September 2006, 02:04

It's a ridiculous notion that it would somehow be beneficial to oppress the bourgoisie. When you start persecuting people, socialism has already failed. And at any rate all it would be would be totalitarian measures to stamp down on all criticism.

Do you really thinkk socialism is so weak it cannot withstand criticism?

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 02:06

Leo

30th September 2006, 02:06

I have a specific reason for asking this kid what he thinks that quote means.

But can't he interpret it to be just the way he wants to make his point seem like? Anyway, as I said it's up to you.

You may try to guess what it is, but don't say it out loud.

:) Ok, I'll be really silent (!)

30th September 2006, 02:11

Stalin's quote got you confused KC. We're talking about ideas. Not guns.

What's the point of guns without ideas which facilitate the use of guns? That's about as sensible as saying "guns kill people".

umm okay... that's pretty fucking stupid. Stalin said the same thing and look at where that got the CPSU. If they really are hated by the people, give them free speach, because you have nothing to worry about. They'll be embarrassed during the next elections, and they will get pretty much no attention because they have no support. And you implied that
'you know what's best for the workers'. I don't support bourgeious elections, however I don't support the fascism you advocate. I support true direct democracy and if the populace decides they hate socialism, they deserve the right to be able to say something about it, not be crushed by tanks and beaten down by police and thrown in jail. Have you learned nothing from the 20th century?

Did you miss the middle of my post? Where I said that workers would probably want the bourgeoisie shot? Maybe you missed the implication there that the working class would decide to suppress the bourgeoisie along with its ideas? Get some reading comprehension (or some common sense).

LoneRed

30th September 2006, 02:16

Hey you are all attacking KC, or rosenpenis for not wanting reactionaries to have free speech, If it was up to me , I wouldnt even let them speech, There would be no reactionaries to give the free speech to

Demogorgon

30th September 2006, 02:18

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 29 2006, 11:12 PM

Did you miss the middle of my post? Where I said that workers would probably want the bourgeoisie shot? Maybe you missed the implication there that the working class would decide to suppress the bourgeoisie along with its ideas? Get some reading comprehension (or some common sense).
And what precisely is so good about a system where people can be shot just because other people want them dead?

It sounds far more like a dystopian nightmare to me than anything worth fighting for.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 02:18

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 29 2006, 11:12 PM

Stalin's quote got you confused KC. We're talking about ideas. Not guns.

What's the point of guns without ideas which facilitate the use of guns? That's about as sensible as saying "guns kill people".

umm okay... that's pretty fucking stupid. Stalin said the same thing and look at where that got the CPSU. If they really are hated by the people, give them free speach, because you have nothing to worry about. They'll be embarrassed during the next elections, and they will get pretty much no attention because they have no support. And you implied that
'you know what's best for the workers'. I don't support bourgeious elections, however I don't support the fascism you advocate. I support true direct democracy and if the populace decides they hate socialism, they deserve the right to be able to say something about it, not be crushed by tanks and beaten down by police and thrown in jail. Have you learned nothing from the 20th century?

Did you miss the middle of my post? Where I said that workers would probably want the bourgeoisie shot? Maybe you missed the implication there that the working class would decide to suppress the bourgeoisie along with its ideas? Get some reading comprehension (or some common sense).
yeah no shit I saw it, and they will be because we fighting against them for liberation and freedom. Once the revolution is over, free speech should not be suppressed by the gustapo as that is not liberation. I'm sure many people want all the neo-nazis shot, but do they get killed? No because we are civilized, and they are barbaric. They would do that to us and have, but what makes us different than the bourgeious and fascists is that we don't stoop down to their level because we (at least I'm not) a fascist. First its, the worker's want them silenced so let's do that. Then it's we need military police to help us uphold socialism. Than it's anybody who tells of their neighbors anti-revolutionary ideas will be rewarded. Than its we don't need elections as comrade stalin and the working class already have the revolution all figured out. What kind of shit is that? You can't be serious.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 02:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 11:17 PM
Hey you are all attacking KC, or rosenpenis for not wanting reactionaries to have free speech, If it was up to me , I wouldnt even let them speech, There would be no reactionaries to give the free speech to
Hitler said the same thing... except subsitute jews, communists, trade unionists for reactionaries <_<

Leo

30th September 2006, 02:21

Originally posted by LiberalHenry+--> (LiberalHenry) umm okay... that's pretty fucking stupid. Stalin said the same thing and look at where that got the CPSU.[/b]

Henry, there is something that is seriously wrong about your thinking here. The fact that Stalin said something that can be interpreted as a sensible point doesn't make him right in anything else.

LiberalHenry
oh another fascist-sympathizer, great! I love how you stalinists think that democracy is bad and that you ideology will always be loved by the workers. It's like 1931 all over again... or like the 20th century never happened...

Oh dear, someones calling me a Stalinist instead of an "ultra-left nutcase" now. That's just beautiful :D Well, of course I am against democracy, I am a communist. First of democracy is a very bureocratic and hierarchic system. The only gig which enables cappies to present it as something desirable is that it allows 'people' to change the main staff in some period of time, yet this is in fact really meaningless: whoever gets elected has to do what the material conditions requires them to do: doing the best thing for capital. Making real changes with democracy is impossible, the system is not designed for that. Real changes happen when workers act for their interests and for themselves and electing a different group of staff to the office is highly irrelevant to workers struggle. A small elite party can't change anything by itself, that's what classes do.

Secondly, if we go to the roots of the word democracy, it means peoples power. People is a more material equivilant of nation, and it includes both the workers and the capitalists however the so called 'national' interests are always interests of the higher classes. So democracy unites different classes by saying "you are all equall at the ballot box", another thing preventing workers acting as a class.

As for the capitalists, well ... they won't really be there to speak after the proletariat took power, will they?

Bordiga had a nice piece on democracy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/wo...c-principle.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm)

Oh, one last thing Henry, don't use words like fascist that you don't know the meaning of on me, it just makes you look ridiculous.

30th September 2006, 02:24

And what precisely is so good about a system where people can be shot just because other people want them dead?

What you are referring to is class society. That's how class society works, whether you like it or not.

Once the revolution is over, free speech should not be suppressed by the gustapo as that is not liberation.

Nice Nazi reference.

We're not out to "liberate humanity"; we're out to liberate the working class.

I'm sure many people want all the neo-nazis shot, but do they get killed? No because we are civilized, and they are barbaric.

Okay Mr. Ethical. :rolleyes:

They would do that to us and have, but what makes us different than the bourgeious and fascists is that we don't stoop down to their level because we (at least I'm not) a fascist.

Perhaps we "shouldn't stoop to their level" and "be better than them" by getting our point across through peaceful protests and sit-ins? :rolleyes:

If you want to be more concerned with "being better than them" than with emancipating the working class then go ahead; just don't call yourself a revolutionary leftist.

First its, the worker's want them silenced so let's do that. Then it's we need military police to help us uphold socialism. Than it's anybody who tells of their neighbors anti-revolutionary ideas will be rewarded. Than its we don't need elections as comrade stalin and the working class already have the revolution all figured out. What kind of shit is that? You can't be serious.

What a slippery slope that is! :lol:

Demogorgon

30th September 2006, 02:28

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 29 2006, 11:25 PM
What you are referring to is class society. That's how class society works, whether you like it or not.

Sure, but I didn't see myself defending class based society, unlike you who would divide people into classes on the most basic level of who is fit to live and who isn't.

What precisely is it you fight for? A world where we are liberated from tyrnanny or a world where you can kill anybody you disagree with just because yu don't like their views?

30th September 2006, 02:30

Sure, but I didn't see myself defending class based society, unlike you who would divide people into classes on the most basic level of who is fit to live and who isn't.

Where did I do this?

What precisely is it you fight for? A world where we are liberated from tyrnanny or a world where you can kill anybody you disagree with just because yu don't

A world where the working class is emancipated. And the ends certainly justify the means.

Demogorgon

30th September 2006, 02:34

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 29 2006, 11:31 PM
A world where the working class is emancipated. And the ends certainly justify the means.
Your means are so brutal and terrible they cannot possibly justify the ends.

When I see people saying stuff like you say it is always clear to me it's not out of hope for a better world but out of plain hatred for anybody they dissaprove of. Socialism is for everybody, not just those you choose to let in. The bourgoise are not some evil race seperate from the rest of us, they are human's just like the rest of us needing liberated from their own corruption as much as everybody else.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 02:36

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Sep 29 2006, 11:22 PM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Sep 29 2006, 11:22 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
umm okay... that's pretty fucking stupid. Stalin said the same thing and look at where that got the CPSU.

Henry, there is something that is seriously wrong about your thinking here. The fact that Stalin said something that can be interpreted as a sensible point doesn't make him right in anything else.

LiberalHenry
oh another fascist-sympathizer, great! I love how you stalinists think that democracy is bad and that you ideology will always be loved by the workers. It's like 1931 all over again... or like the 20th century never happened...

Oh dear, someones calling me a Stalinist instead of an "ultra-left nutcase" now. That's just beautiful :D Well, of course I am against democracy, I am a communist. First of democracy is a very bureocratic and hierarchic system. The only gig which enables cappies to present it as something desirable is that it allows 'people' to change the main staff in some period of time, yet this is in fact really meaningless: whoever gets elected has to do what the material conditions requires them to do: doing the best thing for capital. Making real changes with democracy is impossible, the system is not designed for that. Real changes happen when workers act for their interests and for themselves and electing a different group of staff to the office is highly irrelevant to workers struggle. A small elite party can't change anything by itself, that's what classes do.

Secondly, if we go to the roots of the word democracy, it means peoples power. People is a more material equivilant of nation, and it includes both the workers and the capitalists however the so called 'national' interests are always interests of the higher classes. So democracy unites different classes by saying "you are all equall at the ballot box", another thing preventing workers acting as a class.

As for the capitalists, well ... they won't really be there to speak after the proletariat took power, will they?

Bordiga had a nice piece on democracy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/wo...c-principle.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm)

Oh, one last thing Henry, don't use words like fascist that you don't know the meaning of on me, it just makes you look ridiculous. [/b]
cut the stalinist fetish. please. You may love Stalinist Russia but the fact is that it is fucking oppressive! I cannot believe there are still idiots who call themselves communists or leftists when they don't believe in basic democracy. TOTALITARIANISM SUCKS! It does not liberate the working class because the working class has no say in matters. You'll probably say it's all bourgious propaganda but look at what your 'worker liberation totalitarianism' ideology led to in Russia, gulags and no worker control whatsoever. Police everywhere, and the feeling of being scared to speak your mind. I call you and KC fascists because it is what you guys truly are. A major part of fascism is totalitarianism and conformism that forces you not to speak your mind. Thus you are politically a fascist or fascist-sympathizer.

Lamanov

30th September 2006, 02:37

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 29 2006, 11:25 PM
We're not out to "liberate humanity"; we're out to liberate the working class.

Actually, workers ought to liberate themselves, and that self-liberation is equal to the liberation of society as a whole, the liberation of humanity from it's "inhuman shell".

Leo

30th September 2006, 02:42

Originally posted by Henry
cut the stalinist fetish. please. You may love Stalinist Russia but the fact is that it is fucking oppressive!

HAHA! You really are not so bright are you! No, I don't love the Stalinist Russia, I think it was just an ordinary capitalist and imperialist nation-state. I think that Stalin was a consciouss capitalist. I even have some evidence for that.

Anyway, with your last post, you proved that you somehow gained the ability to write without gaining the ability to read, as you didn't understand a single word of my last post.

Thus you are politically a fascist or fascist-sympathizer.

You don't know what fascist means...

Yet, I call you anti-working class because in a thread, I saw you support Trotsky's murder of striking workers in Kronstadt. Good job mate, keep supporting your idol.

30th September 2006, 02:53

cut the stalinist fetish. please. You may love Stalinist Russia but the fact is that it is fucking oppressive!

And you gathered this from the fact that he said that maybe Stalin might have been right about one or two things?

I cannot believe there are still idiots who call themselves communists or leftists when they don't believe in basic democracy.

You completely misunderstood what he said.

I call you and KC fascists because it is what you guys truly are. A major part of fascism is totalitarianism and conformism that forces you not to speak your mind. Thus you are politically a fascist or fascist-sympathizer.

You obviously don't know what fascism is. By your definition, all revolutions are fascist, which is the dumbest load of shit ever. Read up on fascism before you start throwing the word around like an insult.

Actually, workers ought to liberate themselves, and that self-liberation is equal to the liberation of society as a whole, the liberation of humanity from it's "inhuman shell".

We're out to liberate the working class (as in, we - the vanguard of the working class - help them develop class consciousness so that they are able to revolt against the bourgeoisie), which will liberate humanity; by liberating the working class, we liberate humanity. Humanity isn't liberated until the working class is liberated. The working class isn't liberated until class society no longer exists.

LoneRed

30th September 2006, 03:02

nice job equating me with hitler. You and others obviously have no understanding of socialism or revolution. When the working class takes power the voice of the bourgeois is at the very least suppressed, not to mention the bourgeois themselves, that might give you a heart attack, but im willing to take that risk

Demogorgon

30th September 2006, 03:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:03 AM
nice job equating me with hitler. You and others obviously have no understanding of socialism or revolution. When the working class takes power the voice of the bourgeois is at the very least suppressed, not to mention the bourgeois themselves, that might give you a heart attack, but im willing to take that risk
The instant you oppress people all progress collapses. Why are people gere so unwilling to learn basic lessons from history?

30th September 2006, 03:05

The instant you oppress people all progress collapses. Why are people gere so unwilling to learn basic lessons from history?

Revolution is inherently authoritarian and oppressive. Are you against that?

rouchambeau

30th September 2006, 03:07

yeah and by doing that you become a fascist yourself....

Go read up on what Fascism is, Left Henry.

Hitler said the same thing... except subsitute jews, communists, trade unionists for reactionaries

Hitler was also a vegetarian. "OMG VEGETARIANS R TEH NAZIS!!!!!11111"

Demogorgon

30th September 2006, 03:35

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 30 2006, 12:06 AM

The instant you oppress people all progress collapses. Why are people gere so unwilling to learn basic lessons from history?

Revolution is inherently authoritarian and oppressive. Are you against that?
I am against anything that is authoritarian and oppressive. Fortunately I would dispute your view revolution has to be authoritarian. If it did, I would want no part of it.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 03:39

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+Sep 29 2006, 11:43 PM--> (Leo Uilleann @ Sep 29 2006, 11:43 PM)
Henry
cut the stalinist fetish. please. You may love Stalinist Russia but the fact is that it is fucking oppressive!

HAHA! You really are not so bright are you! No, I don't love the Stalinist Russia, I think it was just an ordinary capitalist and imperialist nation-state. I think that Stalin was a consciouss capitalist. I even have some evidence for that.

Anyway, with your last post, you proved that you somehow gained the ability to write without gaining the ability to read, as you didn't understand a single word of my last post.

Thus you are politically a fascist or fascist-sympathizer.

You don't know what fascist means...

Yet, I call you anti-working class because in a thread, I saw you support Trotsky's murder of striking workers in Kronstadt. Good job mate, keep supporting your idol. [/b]
umm okay in your last post you basically reiterated what you were saying before. Nothing new or special. I don't see how you're not a stalinist, since you stand for everything stalinism stands for. I do know what fascism means. It's not some big secret. And kronsdat is a completely different subject. It is a well known fact that they were anti-semites, and that Lenin was willing to negoitate and that they were warned about the consequences of not dropping their weapons.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 03:59

okay fine, new topic directed at KC and Leo, what political system do you advocate for socialism? Soviets? Party beaurocracy? totalitarianism?

GX.

30th September 2006, 03:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 11:05 PM
It's a ridiculous notion that it would somehow be beneficial to oppress the bourgoisie. When you start persecuting people, socialism has already failed. And at any rate all it would be would be totalitarian measures to stamp down on all criticism.

Do you really thinkk socialism is so weak it cannot withstand criticism?
Oh yes. I don't see how it would be at all beneficial to suppress the enemies of the working class. They have inferior resources, military capabilities, and influence, and they have nothing to lose. In all likelihood, they will just politely bow out to the working class. Socialists should be able to withstand their 'criticism', which will always come in the form of a polite verbal warning. lol. In the words of Durruti: "All revolutions are totalitarian."

GX.

30th September 2006, 04:05

And do I even need to point out the impracticality of running a capitalist candidate in some kind of multi-party election when we're talking about totally restructuring social, economic, and political relations? Why on earth would the bourgeois ever agree to that?

LoneRed

30th September 2006, 04:32

Originally posted by Demogorgon+Sep 30 2006, 12:36 AM--> (Demogorgon @ Sep 30 2006, 12:36 AM)
Khayembii [email protected] 30 2006, 12:06 AM

The instant you oppress people all progress collapses. Why are people gere so unwilling to learn basic lessons from history?

Revolution is inherently authoritarian and oppressive. Are you against that?
I am against anything that is authoritarian and oppressive. Fortunately I would dispute your view revolution has to be authoritarian. If it did, I would want no part of it. [/b]
If thats what you believe you dont want a revolution, you want reform, thats the just of it.

Demogorgon

30th September 2006, 04:40

Originally posted by LoneRed+Sep 30 2006, 01:33 AM--> (LoneRed @ Sep 30 2006, 01:33 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:36 AM

Khayembii [email protected] 30 2006, 12:06 AM

The instant you oppress people all progress collapses. Why are people gere so unwilling to learn basic lessons from history?

Revolution is inherently authoritarian and oppressive. Are you against that?
I am against anything that is authoritarian and oppressive. Fortunately I would dispute your view revolution has to be authoritarian. If it did, I would want no part of it.
If thats what you believe you dont want a revolution, you want reform, thats the just of it. [/b]
Well in a large part yes. Reform works better than sudden change. That is another thing history teaches us.

Nothing Human Is Alien

30th September 2006, 04:57

yeah and by doing that you become a fascist yourself....

Can you please research the actuall meaning of fascism comrade? That would be great.

Rawthentic

30th September 2006, 05:00

I for one, do believe in the liberation of humanity. I understand that the capitalist class is parasitic and needs to be overthrown, but they oppress not out of the sheer enjoyment, but because they percieve that their right to have more and more is a fundamental right and any violation against it is a violation against their being. I hope I made myself clear. And I am a communist, but not Stalinist.

Lenin's Law

30th September 2006, 06:05

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 29 2006, 09:19 PM
I believe it' a miss quote, the quote actually says;

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."-Stalin.

Wow! I didn't know just a mere sig of mine would warrant an entire 3 page thread!
Anyway, it was a misquote, I have corrected it. Thank you Scarlet Hammer. :hammer:

I am glad in some ways though, because it has been shown by several Comrades here that, at least on this point that Stalin was 100% correct.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 06:08

Originally posted by Stalin's Law+Sep 30 2006, 03:06 AM--> (Stalin's Law @ Sep 30 2006, 03:06 AM)
Scarlet [email protected] 29 2006, 09:19 PM
I believe it' a miss quote, the quote actually says;

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."-Stalin.

Wow! I didn't know just a mere sig of mine would warrant an entire 3 page thread!
Anyway, it was a misquote, I have corrected it. Thank you Scarlet Hammer. :hammer:

I am glad in some ways though, because it has been shown by several Comrades here that, at least on this point that Stalin was 100% correct. [/b]
why would you put either quote in your signature, both are oppressive and sickening.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 06:12

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 30 2006, 01:58 AM

yeah and by doing that you become a fascist yourself....

Can you please research the actuall meaning of fascism comrade? That would be great.
okay let me rephrase. It's authoritan, totalitarian, and repressive. There is that better? I used the word fascist because one key aspect of fascism is an ultra-authoritan political ideology. That is what they were advocating. Obviously there is more to fascism so perhaps I was wrong using that word...

Lenin's Law

30th September 2006, 06:16

Originally posted by Whitten+Sep 29 2006, 09:58 PM--> (Whitten @ Sep 29 2006, 09:58 PM)Convincing people not to be racist or not to be fascists or capitalists is incredible difficult. You usually cant turn someone like that. The best way to stop these things is to prevent people from being exposed to such ideas in the first place.[/b]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> (Khayembii Communique)Sorry, I don't believe in multi-party elections, nor do I believe in free speech for those that wish to take power from the workers and again subject them to the horrible conditions which they were in before they took power. The bourgeoisie shouldn't "be given an equal vote" and they "shouldn't be given equal representation"; that is a completely liberal viewpoint and it is a shitty attempt at fitting socialism in with bourgeois democracy. [/b]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
As for the capitalists, well ... they won't really be there to speak after the proletariat took power, will they?

[email protected]
Hey you are all attacking KC, or rosenpenis for not wanting reactionaries to have free speech, If it was up to me , I wouldnt even let them speech, There would be no reactionaries to give the free speech to

LoneRed
If thats what you believe you dont want a revolution, you want reform, thats the just of it.

Thank you comrades, you have all made excellent rebuttals for which I agree completely! It makes me very, very happy that there are indeed revolutionaries here after all! :hammer:

Lenin's Law

30th September 2006, 06:21

Originally posted by Demogorgon the [email protected] 30 2006, 01:41 AM
Well in a large part yes. Reform works better than sudden change. That is another thing history teaches us.
Then, why are you here?

If you truly believe in reformism over revolution and believe that that is what history has taught us then why on earth would you be on a website called REVOLUTIONARY Left?!?

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 06:21

I don't understand how people can so blatantly ignore what life was like the first time this was done. It was a police state. It was authoritan. And you were afraid to speak because you would get jailed. That's the fucking opposite of communism. Anybody who claims to be a revolutionary and believes in that is as fucking reactionary as it gets. They are the people who give communism a bad name among people today because of their reactionary and anti-worker ideology.

RedCommieBear

30th September 2006, 06:32

Originally posted by LoneRed+Sep 29 2006, 11:17 PM--> (LoneRed @ Sep 29 2006, 11:17 PM)If it was up to me , I wouldnt even let them speech, There would be no reactionaries to give the free speech to[/b]
Great logic, there. You're for free speech, as long as you agree with statement being said.

Noam Chomsky
""If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."

Nothing Human Is Alien

30th September 2006, 06:47

What is a Noam Chomsky quote supposed to do for us? Why don't you quote him when he told people to vote for John Kerry?

okay let me rephrase. It's authoritan, totalitarian, and repressive. There is that better?

Not really. "Totalitarian" is a gem from the bourgeoisie. What does it mean? It's like authoritarian. It's used in this classless sort of abstract way, with no relation to reality.

Total what? The authority of who, used to repress what? Those are the sorts of things materialists have to answer.

I'm a communist. I'm a worker. I fight for, and support, total authority of my class. To acheive classless society, we must use our authority (when we get it) to repress the remnants of the bourgeoisie and agents of the imperialists.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 07:00

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 30 2006, 03:48 AM
What is a Noam Chomsky quote supposed to do for us? Why don't you quote him when he told people to vote for John Kerry?

okay let me rephrase. It's authoritan, totalitarian, and repressive. There is that better?

Not really. "Totalitarian" is a gem from the bourgeoisie. What does it mean? It's like authoritarian. It's used in this classless sort of abstract way, with no relation to reality.

Total what? The authority of who, used to repress what? Those are the sorts of things materialists have to answer.

I'm a communist. I'm a worker. I fight for, and support, total authority of my class. To acheive classless society, we must use our authority (when we get it) to repress the remnants of the bourgeoisie and agents of the imperialists.
well umm by the time of the revolution hopefully the working class and people as a whole will be behind our ideology and reactionaries will be few and far apart and won't matter. Unless we are ignorant stalinists who have learned nothing from the brutalities of the 20th century, there will be no need whatsoever to ban free speech.

VenceremosRed

30th September 2006, 07:15

LeftyHenry said...

well umm by the time of the revolution hopefully the working class and people as a whole will be behind our ideology and reactionaries will be few and far apart and won't matter. Unless we are ignorant stalinists who have learned nothing from the brutalities of the 20th century, there will be no need whatsoever to ban free speech.

I would actually say the real danger lies in left opportunism, not dogmatic Stalinists.

Look, I uphold Stalin and the socialist construction in the Soviet Union. I also recognize:

1) Stalin made serious errors, and even committed some crimes against the Soviet people. I am not denying any of this. Contrarilly, I am arguing for using science, not utopian dreams to evaluate Stalin and the era (often, Stalin is judged AS the era, as if one man could influence events so broadly!)

2) Limits exist to how much the state can actually control, wether bourgeois or proletariat. Mao showed that mans thinking derives from his social experience, not the propaganda of the state.

3) Agency among the masses is vital - mass democracy is extremely important, and accountability (which obviously took a back seat during Stalin's rule) is vitally important.

Also, there are dogmo-revisionists, ie "Stalinists" who claim all accusations against Stalin are false. They usually adorn themselves in USSR/Chinese nostaglia and are generally really creepy (North Star Compass).

As a communist, I reject these people - and the line of the utopian anarchists who do not recognize the need for the proletariat state.

VenceremosRed

30th September 2006, 08:13

LoneRed

30th September 2006, 09:24

there ya have it folks. It doesnt Work better, it may be easier on the people, but definitely Does NOT work better

Leo

30th September 2006, 11:27

umm okay in your last post you basically reiterated what you were saying before. Nothing new or special. I don't see how you're not a stalinist, since you stand for everything stalinism stands for.

No, I don't. I stand for the working class, I stand against its enemies.

okay fine, new topic directed at KC and Leo, what political system do you advocate for socialism? Soviets? Party beaurocracy? totalitarianism?

I advocate the first stage of communism, DotP, a communal semi-state ruled by workers councils.

Demogorgon

30th September 2006, 16:17

Originally posted by Stalin's Law+Sep 30 2006, 03:22 AM--> (Stalin's Law @ Sep 30 2006, 03:22 AM)
Demogorgon the [email protected] 30 2006, 01:41 AM
Well in a large part yes. Reform works better than sudden change. That is another thing history teaches us.
Then, why are you here?

If you truly believe in reformism over revolution and believe that that is what history has taught us then why on earth would you be on a website called REVOLUTIONARY Left?!? [/b]
Because I believe in radical change to society, I could just as well ask what you are doing here with your ultra-authoritarian ideas?

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 17:27

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 30 2006, 08:28 AM

No, I don't. I stand for the working class, I stand against its enemies.

Ya and Stalin said the same thing while "silencing" workers who said, "wait a minute Stalin, where are our worker council and human rights going?

It's not about that. EVERYONE HERE aside from restricted members stand for the working class and against its enemies. It's just a question of how we do that.

Capitalists stand against the working class, yet they let us have a party, hold rallies, and participate in their rigged elections because we are not a threat right now in our numbers.

Capitalists should be treated the same under a socialist society. If not because you support free speech, because one of the reasons people today think of communism as a curse word is because of the fact that it was "tyranical, no free speech, everyone drove the same car...blah blah shit shit". It was this impression that was fed to people by capitalists allover the world which slowed and stopped the revolution in many countries

I advocate the first stage of communism, DotP, a communal semi-state ruled by workers councils.

Ya soviet or council democracy is still democracy. I advocate that system as well.

Leo

30th September 2006, 17:59

Ya and Stalin said the same thing while "silencing" workers who said, "wait a minute Stalin, where are our worker council and human rights going?

Weren't we already over that Stalin thing?

It's not about that. EVERYONE HERE aside from restricted members stand for the working class and against its enemies. It's just a question of how we do that.

Of course everyone here doesn't stand for the working class and against its enemies. Just look at all the people supporting Hizbullah or Israel on Lebannon.

Capitalists stand against the working class, yet they let us have a party, hold rallies, and participate in their rigged elections because we are not a threat right now in our numbers.

:rolleyes: How naive...

Capitalists should be treated the same under a socialist society. If not because you support free speech, because one of the reasons people today think of communism as a curse word is because of the fact that it was "tyranical, no free speech, everyone drove the same car...blah blah shit shit". It was this impression that was fed to people by capitalists allover the world which slowed and stopped the revolution in many countries

No, workers will kill capitalists, not by giving them any food if not anything else. Free speech is a bourgeois myth, and we won't give any free speach to cappies.

Ya soviet or council democracy is still democracy. I advocate that system as well.

I didn't say soviet or council democracy, because I reject the concept of "people", which is simply a more material word for nation. Democracy means people's rule, it ignores classes, it is a completely bourgeois concept.

Bordiga on democracy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/wo...c-principle.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm)

Sentinel

30th September 2006, 18:02

Ya soviet or council democracy is still democracy. I advocate that system as well.

But do you seriously believe reforms can get us there? If you do, you have failed to understand the nature of class society, and class war. The current ruling class, the bourgeoisie, has enormous wealth, power and resources it is going to invest to negate any attempts to reform society against it's interests, by any means possible. :(

They are not going to give up, ever. Therefore, the capitalist class must be destroyed in a revolution. Not necessarily by killing every single one of them, as you no doubt will interpret my post, but by taking their possessions and tools away, ending private property and the price system once and for all.

Zeruzo

30th September 2006, 18:10

Originally posted by Stalin's Law+Sep 30 2006, 03:06 AM--> (Stalin's Law @ Sep 30 2006, 03:06 AM)
Scarlet [email protected] 29 2006, 09:19 PM
I believe it' a miss quote, the quote actually says;

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."-Stalin.

Wow! I didn't know just a mere sig of mine would warrant an entire 3 page thread!
Anyway, it was a misquote, I have corrected it. Thank you Scarlet Hammer. :hammer:

I am glad in some ways though, because it has been shown by several Comrades here that, at least on this point that Stalin was 100% correct. [/b]
It's actually an un-sourced quote, so either way it's silly to use with Stalins name on it...

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 19:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:03 PM

Ya soviet or council democracy is still democracy. I advocate that system as well.

But do you seriously believe reforms can get us there? If you do, you have failed to understand the nature of class society, and class war. The current ruling class, the bourgeoisie, has enormous wealth, power and resources it is going to invest to negate any attempts to reform society against it's interests, by any means possible. :(

They are not going to give up, ever. Therefore, the capitalist class must be destroyed in a revolution. Not necessarily by killing every single one of them, as you no doubt will interpret my post, but by taking their possessions and tools away, ending private property and the price system once and for all.
umm I'm not a reformist and I never said that I am.

Sentinel

30th September 2006, 19:08

umm I'm not a reformist and I never said that I am.

Sorry, I got you mixed up with 'Demogorgon', who said:

Well in a large part yes. Reform works better than sudden change. That is another thing history teaches us.

OneBrickOneVoice

30th September 2006, 19:14

Weren't we already over that Stalin thing?

No we haven't gone over anything.

No, workers will kill capitalists, not by giving them any food if not anything else. Free speech is a bourgeois myth, and we won't give any free speach to cappies.

If free speech is a bourgious myth, than you and me and everyone on this forum would be in jail right now. You can't have free speech without letting your enemies speak and if you don't support free speech, you support totalitarianism.

I didn't say soviet or council democracy, because I reject the concept of "people", which is simply a more material word for nation. Democracy means people's rule, it ignores classes, it is a completely bourgeois concept.

Democracy is a political system which makes desicions based on fair elective processes. The "people" are made up of the working class, and which ever way the working class votes that side will win. Democracy is the fairest political system there is. I can't believe there are authoritans on this forum who still praise Stalin and his repressive ideals.

Lamanov

30th September 2006, 20:17

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 29 2006, 11:54 PM
We're out to liberate the working class (as in, we - the vanguard of the working class - help them develop class consciousness so that they are able to revolt against the bourgeoisie), which will liberate humanity; by liberating the working class, we liberate humanity. Humanity isn't liberated until the working class is liberated. The working class isn't liberated until class society no longer exists.

Oh, so, you would be... are the uh... uhm... "vanguard"? :lol:

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

I'd like to make one digression:

"Vanguard", in terms of Marx, relates only to workers themselves, just as I've spoken of it [the self-liberation]. But of course, you wouldn't know that, because you are fed by your "party line" ideology - whatever fifty seven varieties of it, it doesn't matter.

I would hate to dissapoint you, but the only time Marx affirmated the term - in the context of the vanguard as the "vanguard of the working class" - it was used in his posthumously published Drafts of the Civil War in France [link] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/drafts/ch01.htm), and one text about the arrests performed in Germany by the militarist regime in 1872 [link] (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/hague-report.htm), and, of course, both times he speaks of the "vanguard of the working class" as and integral part of it, affirmated through practical revolutionary expression, and never separated.

AlwaysAnarchy

30th September 2006, 22:18

You know this is really disturbing that so many people on this forum are apparently on the extreme authoritarian pro-Stalinist side...I thought this part was becoming near extinct and now I see, sadly, it is not.

Look, if we don't have freedom of speech for EVERYONE we are no better than the capitalist and in fact probably much worse. Freedom of speech is essential. How can we justify being here and allowed all the individual freedoms in the world (free speech, free religion, freedom of association, freedom to have political parties, etc) and then deny those very same freedoms in order to move toward a more "progressive" future?

The authoritarians keep on saying how it would be essential for us to be oppressive and fascistic in order to "save" the revolution from the capitalists, but you know? I think we can take our message to the workers WITHOUT using violence and try to win them over. Its a fight I think its worth it.

Besides, if we really need to be oppressive to save the revolution, then it's probably not worth saving. I'd take a Salvador Allende anyday than have a Stalin, 20 million people killed, the revolution overthrown for all intents and purposes anyway and then have the name of socialism blackened and hated for generations.

AlwaysAnarchy

30th September 2006, 22:25

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 29 2006, 11:21 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 29 2006, 11:21 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 11:17 PM
Hey you are all attacking KC, or rosenpenis for not wanting reactionaries to have free speech, If it was up to me , I wouldnt even let them speech, There would be no reactionaries to give the free speech to
Hitler said the same thing... except subsitute jews, communists, trade unionists for reactionaries <_< [/b]
Exactly!

You know it's good someone brought the real revolutionary Noam Chomsky in here. For it is Chomsky that said that "the Bolsheviks are far less objectionable than the Democrats." And that "if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for everyone or you don't believe in it at all."

What appears to be happening here is the divide between the real, authentic anti-authoritarians (myself, Liberal Henry and Demogorgon) and the pseudo-fascist authoritarians ( KC, LoneRed, Stalins Law, Mathijs, Leo Uelimann) Fortunately, it is becoming clear which side the people are on: real democracy, increasing democracy, freedom of speech, the right to dissent, and not the Marx' failed dictatorship of the proleteriat.

AlwaysAnarchy

30th September 2006, 22:27

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 29 2006, 11:43 PM
HAHA! You really are not so bright are you!
Um, I think it is you who is not so bright. Liberal Henry has shown a lot of the principled and honest positions of real revolutionaries that the authoriatarians and Stalinists have not.

LoneRed

30th September 2006, 22:37

We're not talking about everday speech non-threatening, we're talking about speech that threatens the workers republic, I for one at that point would risk everything to stop the bourgeois from setting up capitalism again

Wanted Man

30th September 2006, 23:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:26 PM
What appears to be happening here is the divide between the real, authentic anti-authoritarians (myself, Liberal Henry and Demogorgon) and the pseudo-fascist authoritarians ( KC, LoneRed, Stalins Law, Mathijs, Leo Uelimann)
Wow, I'm becoming an internet celebrity. People are starting to mention my name even in threads where I am not present. But, you do have a point, the internet is serious business:

http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/b2/Seriousbusiness2.jpg

Your little rant is even more funny when you consider that Leo Uilleann(hey, have some fucking respect and spell someone's name correctly) is probably further away from "Stalinism" than anyone else on this board. And, umm, pseudo-fascism? Lolz, next time you try to sound intelligent, you might want to find out what your words mean. This goes for both "pseudo" and "fascism". The "Liberal Henry" is also hilarious. Was that intentional, or did his dull liberalism bore you so much that you misread his name?

Anyway, congratulations at seeing the "divide" that is "happening" here right now. After all, RevLeft is the epicenter of all revolutionary activity in the world, and the future of the movement will clearly be decided by who emerges victoriously from the P.Anarchist - L.Henry - Demogorgon versus KC - LR - SL - Matthijs - Leo factional struggle. Stick it to the man, Chomsky! Your little arguments on internet forums will end up in the history books one day, because there have never been Stalin discussions on RevLeft before!

Fortunately, it is becoming clear which side the people are on: real democracy, increasing democracy, freedom of speech, the right to dissent, and not the Marx' failed dictatorship of the proleteriat.
Whatever, kid. Come back when Saint Chomsky has led the people into a peaceful anarchist "revolution", to which the bourgeoisie will immediately surrender without even raising a fist.

Leo

1st October 2006, 01:14

If free speech is a bourgious myth, than you and me and everyone on this forum would be in jail right now.

Those kind of stuff might be far away from you and your life but trust me, there are many people who are in jail in the entire world because of political speech.

You can't have free speech without letting your enemies speak and if you don't support free speech, you support totalitarianism.

A mouthpiece of capitalism is not even free in his thinking, how can he ever be free in his speech? Speech is not just done for speech. For a freethinker, it is not only a right but a duty to speak up, reactionaries can't speak freely as they are already slaves to masters: capitalists. And why would capitalists want to speak in public? For capitalism. Now, we won't allow capitalists to live because they don't produce and we won't allow them to exploit us. They won't be there to speak.

Democracy is a political system which makes desicions based on fair elective processes.

Democracy is the fairest political system there is.

Says the US government :rolleyes:

The "people" are made up of the working class, and which ever way the working class votes that side will win.

Yet whoever wins, it doesn't matter because all who are elected into the office has to do what the capitalists tell them to do. Elections are not connected to the daily interets of the working class, this is why workers really shouldn't and don't give a fuck about elections.

I can't believe there are authoritans on this forum who still praise Stalin and his repressive ideals.

Trotsky's ideas weren't really much different you know?

Leo

1st October 2006, 01:21

Originally posted by Pacifist+--> (Pacifist)I'd take a Salvador Allende anyday than have a Stalin[/b]

I won't take either, I don't have a fetish to pick which left-capitalist leader I will support.

Originally posted by Pacifist+--> (Pacifist)You know it's good someone brought the real revolutionary Noam Chomsky in here.[/b]

Real revolutionary? You mean reformist liberal <_<

[email protected]
For it is Chomsky that said that "the Bolsheviks are far less objectionable than the Democrats."

Whom he advocates voting for <_<

Matthijs
Leo Uilleann (hey, have some fucking respect and spell someone's name correctly)

Thank you!

The "Liberal Henry" is also hilarious. Was that intentional, or did his dull liberalism bore you so much that you misread his name?

That gave me a good laughter :lol: I guess I was the one who first call LeftyHenry LiberalHenry when I was quoting him.

Your little rant is even more funny when you consider that Leo Uilleann is probably further away from "Stalinism" than anyone else on this board.

I've been trying to explain this to them. It seems that they call anyone who opposes their bourgeois liberal ideas a "stalinist" without having the faintest idea on what Stalinism actually is.

Jazzratt

1st October 2006, 01:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:19 PM
You know this is really disturbing that so many people on this forum are apparently on the extreme authoritarian pro-Stalinist side...I thought this part was becoming near extinct and now I see, sadly, it is not.
Agreeing that reactionaries should not be granted freedoms which could have the potential to undermine the revolution is not extremely authoritarian, nor pro-Stalnist. It is common bloody sense.

Look, if we don't have freedom of speech for EVERYONE we are no better than the capitalist and in fact probably much worse. Freedom of speech is essential. How can we justify being here and allowed all the individual freedoms in the world (free speech, free religion, freedom of association, freedom to have political parties, etc) and then deny those very same freedoms in order to move toward a more "progressive" future? We don't have the time for petty moral superiority arguments with capitalists (they'd lose anyway, regardless of stance on freedom of speech.).We must understand that certian freedoms need to be postponed in a post revolutionary transition, otherwise we just end up with counter revolutions.

The authoritarians keep on saying how it would be essential for us to be oppressive and fascistic in order to "save" the revolution from the capitalists, but you know? I think we can take our message to the workers WITHOUT using violence and try to win them over. Its a fight I think its worth it. And once the workers have this message, then what? The Capitalists will all raise their hands and say "It's a fair cop" and we'll live in a lovlely anarchist utopia made up of vegan collectives that prance around naked in communes?

Besides, if we really need to be oppressive to save the revolution, then it's probably not worth saving. I'd take a Salvador Allende anyday than have a Stalin, 20 million people killed, the revolution overthrown for all intents and purposes anyway and then have the name of socialism blackened and hated for generations. I doubt anyone who says they would not sacrifice the freedoms of the reactionaries in order to progress society has any commitment to the movement at all. I certianly think you will become a liberal in a couple of months, scared off by revolutionaries that actually want a revolution.

Lamanov

1st October 2006, 02:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:26 PM
...and not the Marx' failed dictatorship of the proleteriat.

Marx's DOP is not a failure.

OneBrickOneVoice

1st October 2006, 03:47

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 30 2006, 10:15 PM

Those kind of stuff might be far away from you and your life but trust me, there are many people who are in jail in the entire world because of political speech.

right but you and I have free speech so stfu saying that people don't deserve the right to think their own thoughts and say there own ideas. Stop advocating a fucking police state.

A mouthpiece of capitalism is not even free in his thinking, how can he ever be free in his speech? Speech is not just done for speech. For a freethinker, it is not only a right but a duty to speak up, reactionaries can't speak freely as they are already slaves to masters: capitalists. And why would capitalists want to speak in public? For capitalism. Now, we won't allow capitalists to live because they don't produce and we won't allow them to exploit us. They won't be there to speak.

So just shoot or arrest anyone who thinks differently? That makes sense. Ha and you call capitalism oppressive. You make capitalism look like a paradise, a outhouse look like a mansion. How can the working class be liberated if they're afraid to speak their minds?

And you have got to be shitting me when you say 'anyone who doesn't agree with me is a mouthpiece of capitalism and can't think.' That's the dumbest shit ever said!

Says the US government :rolleyes:

Says everybody except the fascists and Stalinists...

Yet whoever wins, it doesn't matter because all who are elected into the office has to do what the capitalists tell them to do. Elections are not connected to the daily interets of the working class, this is why workers really shouldn't and don't give a fuck about elections.

'however dictatorships are in the daily interest of the working class and liberate them from tyranny...'

Trotsky's ideas weren't really much different you know?

eh?

OneBrickOneVoice

1st October 2006, 03:50

That gave me a good laughter I guess I was the one who first call LeftyHenry LiberalHenry when I was quoting him.

woah your pretty fucking revolutionary, aren't ya? Pretty clever changing my name to 'liberalhenry' real genius. It's quite odd that free speech and free thought is now called liberal and bourgious and all that other stalinist fetish.

LSD

1st October 2006, 04:58

I think you misinterpreted the quote. Reactionaries should not be allowed to express reactionary ideas. Do you agree with that or not?

What "Comrade" Stalin might have meant seems incredibly unimportant to me, but I think that the above quote is a disturbing example of how contemporary Leninism continues to perpetuate his legacy.

A communist revolution is supposed to be about the self-emancipation of the proletariat towards the radical restructuring of society. And you seriously think that a part of that great process will be censorship?

Will be, what, repressing people's ability to communicate based on former class allegiance or whatever other arbitrary standard you use to judge the "value" of their speech?

Who exactly do you think will be making these decisions anyway? You? Maybe your particular "vanguard party"?

Let me explain something to you, if this "socialist transition" of yours is going to be democratic, it cannot employ censorship. That's not a "moral" statement, it's a practical one.

Democratic censorship is impossible. So either you abandon any pretense of being a democrat or you give up this ludicrous idea of "holding down" the "evil" capitalists. 'Cause you really can't have both.

Convincing people not to be racist or not to be fascists or capitalists is incredible difficult. You usually cant turn someone like that. The best way to stop these things is to prevent people from being exposed to such ideas in the first place.

And how on earth do you propose doing that?

Sorry, I don't believe in multi-party elections, nor do I believe in free speech for those that wish to take power from the workers and again subject them to the horrible conditions which they were in before they took power.

And you'll determine what people's "wishes" are ...how?

Wait, let me guess, the "leader" will decide... :rolleyes:

Cryotank Screams

1st October 2006, 05:07

You know this is really disturbing that so many people on this forum are apparently on the extreme authoritarian pro-Stalinist side...

Well, I would assume I'm pro-Stalinist since I am a Maoist-Stalinist, and furthermore I wouldn't expect to see and find it disturbing that a "pacifist," is on a revolutionary Leftist site.

The authoritarians keep on saying how it would be essential for us to be oppressive and fascistic in order to "save" the revolution from the capitalists
I give you modern China; living proof if the "aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism," plan/theory is not in place, the revolution, society, and system will pollute and degrade back to the old oppresive system.

Stalin, 20 million people killed
Yes, believe all the propaganda the capitalists spew out, <_< .

OneBrickOneVoice

1st October 2006, 05:50

What "Comrade" Stalin might have meant seems incredibly unimportant to me, but I think that the above quote is a disturbing example of how contemporary Leninism continues to perpetuate his legacy.

These kind of political ideals are not unique to leninists. Anarchists believe in censorship and etc... as well. I remember arguing a similiar topic with violencia.Proletariat a while back.

LoneRed

1st October 2006, 06:39

It's funny that you argue that point yet have a Sandinista thing by your avatar, they didnt accomplish their goals through peace, they knew that was hopeless so they took up arms, and guess what suppressed the reactionary elements. Oh! NO!

apathy maybe

1st October 2006, 06:59

Originally posted by LeftyHenry
These kind of political ideals are not unique to leninists. Anarchists believe in censorship and etc... as well. I remember arguing a similiar topic with violencia.Proletariat a while back.Yes, but violencia.Proletariat is not exactly the best example of a "typical" anarchist.

Anyway, I think that Stalin was a fucked up guy, and that we should let everyone say whatever they want, and what they are not allowed to say will be determined by the local community in a full democratic process. It will not be about censorship however, but rather "good taste" or similar. Just like we do not accept insulting language towards minorities and women on this board (though it is hardly a prime example of "democracy").

OneBrickOneVoice

1st October 2006, 07:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:40 AM
It's funny that you argue that point yet have a Sandinista thing by your avatar, they didnt accomplish their goals through peace, they knew that was hopeless so they took up arms, and guess what suppressed the reactionary elements. Oh! NO!
hey dumass I'm not the reformist here. That's panarachist. The Sandinistas actually brought free and fair elections to Nicaragua. 1984 was the fairest election in Nicaraguan history. All candidates were allowed to participate. They also erased illiteracy and dramatically increased living standards despite the fact that the reactionary contras were trying to destroy and improvements made.

Leo

1st October 2006, 09:56

right but you and I have free speech so stfu saying that people don't deserve the right to think their own thoughts and say there own ideas. Stop advocating a fucking police state.

No, I advocating workers spontenously killing capitalists. And you know what? They will spontenously kill capitalists because they don't want any of them around, this is class war. Revolution is not a liberal pipe-dream.

So just shoot or arrest anyone who thinks differently? That makes sense.

No, as I said, workers kill people who still think its okay to exploit workers, i.e capitalists.

And you have got to be shitting me when you say 'anyone who doesn't agree with me is a mouthpiece of capitalism and can't think.' That's the dumbest shit ever said!

That's not what I said. I said that a mouthpiece of capitalism is not even free in his thinking, and you can't deny this. I never said anything about "people who doesn't agree with me". You are either attacking a straw man or just seing things that aren't there.

Says everybody except the fascists and Stalinists...

No, says the US government.

'however dictatorships are in the daily interest of the working class and liberate them from tyranny...'

Dictatorship of the Proletariat, yes.

eh?

Trotsky's ideas weren't much different from Stalin's.

Zeruzo

1st October 2006, 15:16

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Oct 1 2006, 04:19 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Oct 1 2006, 04:19 AM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 03:40 AM
It's funny that you argue that point yet have a Sandinista thing by your avatar, they didnt accomplish their goals through peace, they knew that was hopeless so they took up arms, and guess what suppressed the reactionary elements. Oh! NO!
hey dumass I'm not the reformist here. That's panarachist. The Sandinistas actually brought free and fair elections to Nicaragua. 1984 was the fairest election in Nicaraguan history. All candidates were allowed to participate. They also erased illiteracy and dramatically increased living standards despite the fact that the reactionary contras were trying to destroy and improvements made. [/b]
And everybody knows how the sandinista's ended! The same as all governments that wanted to go soft on the bourgeouisie!
Hereby btw. also proving the impossibility of a democracy for all of the people, as you can see it is either proletarian democracy or bourgeouisie democracy, nothing in between. And right now Nicaragua degenerated into a bourgeouisie democracy from a democracy of all the people. And of course not forgetting the Imperialist manipulation of Nicaraguan elections, support of the contra's there... etc... etc...

Hit The North

1st October 2006, 17:23

Firstly, if the bourgeoisie, as a minority class presiding over the masses, can allow a degree of free speech, then the proletariat, after their victory over capitalism should be able to allow an even greater degree.

Secondly, the impulse to silence our enemies demonstrates a lack of confidence in our own ideas. Why would a true DOP have grounds to fear the extreme minority position held by reactionaries after the revolution?

Thirdly, free speech can only be denied through repression. This is an open justification for a police state.

Finally, free speech is a chimera anyway. What really counts is who's hands are on the levers of power.

OneBrickOneVoice

1st October 2006, 18:03

Originally posted by Zeruzo+Oct 1 2006, 12:17 PM--> (Zeruzo @ Oct 1 2006, 12:17 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:19 AM

[email protected] 1 2006, 03:40 AM
It's funny that you argue that point yet have a Sandinista thing by your avatar, they didnt accomplish their goals through peace, they knew that was hopeless so they took up arms, and guess what suppressed the reactionary elements. Oh! NO!
hey dumass I'm not the reformist here. That's panarachist. The Sandinistas actually brought free and fair elections to Nicaragua. 1984 was the fairest election in Nicaraguan history. All candidates were allowed to participate. They also erased illiteracy and dramatically increased living standards despite the fact that the reactionary contras were trying to destroy and improvements made.
And everybody knows how the sandinista's ended! The same as all governments that wanted to go soft on the bourgeouisie!
Hereby btw. also proving the impossibility of a democracy for all of the people, as you can see it is either proletarian democracy or bourgeouisie democracy, nothing in between. And right now Nicaragua degenerated into a bourgeouisie democracy from a democracy of all the people. And of course not forgetting the Imperialist manipulation of Nicaraguan elections, support of the contra's there... etc... etc... [/b]
they didn't 'go soft on the bourgieous'. they fought the contras to the end. It just happened that the people of Nicaragua were sick of the war and thought by elected the opposition (14 parties combined who barely beat the Sandinistas), they would stop the war. Today, the Sandinistas are ne of two major parties and are favored to win general elections this year. The US have already threatened sanctions. You are very wrong calling democracy bourgious. It's not. emancipation of the working class can only come in a society that truly takes there views into consideration and who's government is based off of the reprentitives they wish to elect.

OneBrickOneVoice

1st October 2006, 18:20

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 1 2006, 06:57 AM

Trotsky's ideas weren't much different from Stalin's.

That's why Trotsky was the sole socialist opposition to Stalin throughout the thirties until the end of his life.

No, I advocating workers spontenously killing capitalists. And you know what? They will spontenously kill capitalists because they don't want any of them around, this is class war. Revolution is not a liberal pipe-dream.

Ok so free speech would be legal but if workers wanted they could kill capitalists? That would be chaotic also quite repressive. That is basically shooting people who don't think like you because you percieve them as a threat. You've just proven that you're insecure with your views and think that the only way to reach a worker state is by using psuedo-fascist tactics on those who disagree. I've got a better idea. How about we just laugh in their face or beat them in the streets like we do nazis but we don't need to force them to think like us! We would be the majority, remember? They would be a small percentage.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat, yes.

ya and everyone knows he didn't mean a literal dictatorship.

That's not what I said. I said that a mouthpiece of capitalism is not even free in his thinking, and you can't deny this. I never said anything about "people who doesn't agree with me". You are either attacking a straw man or just seing things that aren't there.

What do you mean 'aren't free in their thinking'?

No, says the US government.

As hard as it is to believe, people prefer democracy than a police state or a chaotic slaughterhouse that you propose.

Leo

1st October 2006, 18:32

Ok so free speech would be legal but if workers wanted they could kill capitalists?

No, workers and workers organizations which are ruled by workers will actively fight against capitalists, fight to abolish capitalism, and if someone advocates capitalism, well, the problem won't be just what he says, it will be what he is. And, don't just understand shooting cappies down when I say workers will kill them. Workers produce, it's their thing, and just if they don't give anything to cappies, cappies will starve to death.

ya and everyone knows he didn't mean a literal dictatorship.

He ment dictatorship of a class over another class, workers dictatorship over capitalists.

What do you mean 'aren't free in their thinking'?

It means that reactionaries can't speak freely as they are already slaves to masters: capitalists. And why would capitalists want to speak in public? For promoting exploitation. Now, we won't allow capitalists to live because they don't produce and we won't allow them to exploit us (meaning: we won't give them anything we produce.)

As hard as it is to believe, people prefer democracy

Capitalists prefer democracy.

That's why Trotsky was the sole socialist opposition to Stalin throughout the thirties until the end of his life.

Of course he wasn't the sole opposition. There was the Trotskyist opposition, and then there was the real communist opposition:

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

OneBrickOneVoice

1st October 2006, 18:49

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 1 2006, 03:33 PM

No, workers and workers organizations which are ruled by workers will actively fight against capitalists, fight to abolish capitalism, and if someone advocates capitalism, well, the problem won't be just what he says, it will be what he is. And, don't just understand shooting cappies down when I say workers will kill them. Workers produce, it's their thing, and just if they don't give anything to cappies, cappies will starve to death.

mmkay I can agree with this unless the capitalist is a worker who is producing. Than what?

He ment dictatorship of a class over another class, workers dictatorship over capitalists.

Ya and the bourgious dictatorship allows for minimal free speech, why doesn't the proletarian dictatorship, or the dictatorship of the masses allow for a greater extent of free speech?

Capitalists prefer democracy.

No, anyone who doesn't want to have to be scared of being killed by others when they say what they think supports democracy. Anyone who hates the police and the bourgious supports democracy. And anyone who hates tyranny and oppression supports democracy.

Leo

1st October 2006, 18:57

mmkay I can agree with this unless the capitalist is a worker who is producing. Than what?

How can a capitalist be a worker who is producing? Why should a worker be a capitalist? Even if he is, how much can he produce? Can he produce enough to satisfy his every need?

Ya and the bourgious dictatorship allows for minimal free speech

Free speech is merely a spectacle in the bourgeoise society. Freethinkers aren't allowed it, so the so-called "free" speech is anything but free.

why doesn't the proletarian dictatorship, or the dictatorship of the masses allow for a greater extent of free speech?

For freethinkers and workers, yes, of course.

No, anyone who doesn't want to have to be scared of being killed by others when they say what they think supports democracy. Anyone who hates the police and the bourgious supports democracy. And anyone who hates tyranny and oppression supports democracy.

Democracy means being beaten by cops. Democracy means getting shot at the streets. Democracy means being exploited. Democracy means nationalism. Democracy means dictatorship of the bourgeoise.

Demogorgon

1st October 2006, 19:13

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 1 2006, 03:58 PM
Democracy means being beaten by cops. Democracy means getting shot at the streets. Democracy means being exploited. Democracy means nationalism. Democracy means dictatorship of the bourgeoise.
You are cpnfusing what democracy actually is with what it is made into by capitalists. Democracy and capitalism are incompatible so any "democracy" under capitalism will be flawed and undesirable.

However that does not mean democracy in a Socialist context is undesirable and indeed I would argue that not only can democracy only work in a socialist context, but socialism can only work in a democratic context.

Zeruzo

1st October 2006, 20:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:04 PM
they didn't 'go soft on the bourgieous'. they fought the contras to the end. It just happened that the people of Nicaragua were sick of the war and thought by elected the opposition (14 parties combined who barely beat the Sandinistas), they would stop the war. Today, the Sandinistas are ne of two major parties and are favored to win general elections this year. The US have already threatened sanctions. You are very wrong calling democracy bourgious. It's not. emancipation of the working class can only come in a society that truly takes there views into consideration and who's government is based off of the reprentitives they wish to elect.
Wow, i can notice you truly bothered to read my post <_< . It's as iff i'm talking to air, well the air DOES blow back... thats a change...

I already mentioned
A. The Contra's, and still said they went soft on the bourgeouisie (if you would correctly read my post). Since i have a bigger basis, then just the civil war to make my claims.
B. Mentioned the elections, and the electoral intrusion of the United States, thus how imperialists manipulate elections in the 3rd world, making a democracy for everybody impossible. It IS a class-issue. And as you mentioned yourself, the US already threatened sanctions, thus manipulating the elections in Nicaragua. Thus showing democracy for the whole people is impossible and inevitably has degenerated into a Bourgeouisie democracy.

It is no way/shape/form in the best interest of the proletariat to allow free speech for reactionaries. Why do it?
Are you a marxist anyway? People are shaped by they're enviroment! If you create a capitalist enviroment for them, they'll get a capitalist mentality! Maybe, one at a time. but it does happen!
Next to all this, i never said democracy is a solely bourgeouisie thing. I made the clear distinction between bourgeouisie and proletarian democracy. But you, with a clearly petit-bourgeouisie atitude, clearly show how democracy for everybody is what bourgeouisie democracy is.

Leo

1st October 2006, 21:17

You are confusing what democracy actually is with what it is made into by capitalists.

So what is democracy? What kind of a fetish makes people like you elevate democracy to such a high level?

Democracy and capitalism are incompatible so any "democracy" under capitalism will be flawed and undesirable.

Democracy: People's Power --> People = Material Meaning of Nation

National Interests = Interests of the National Bourgeoise

Democracy = A well-polished concept of capitalist power, de facto plutocracy.

Democracy is flawed and undesirable. Our cry should not be "power to the people (i.e nation) but "power to the working class".

Leo

1st October 2006, 21:37

Originally posted by Ace Ironbody
A communist revolution is supposed to be about the self-emancipation of the proletariat towards the radical restructuring of society. And you seriously think that a part of that great process will be censorship?

A communist revolution is not just about the self-emancipation of the proletariat towards the radical restructuring of society. It is mostly about class war, the proletariat actively and consciously fighting against capitalists to completely destroy them. Given this circumstances, workers will not tolerate capitalist ideas because they will not tolerate capitalists.

Democratic censorship is impossible. So either you abandon any pretense of being a democrat or you give up this ludicrous idea of "holding down" the "evil" capitalists. 'Cause you really can't have both.

It is not about censorhip, it is about workers destroying capitalism - violently. Of course, I am against democracy, "people's power" (I explained why in my previous posts" because I am for "workers' power", and of course I support the 'ludicrous' idea of workers "holding down" the "evil" capitalists. That's how class struggle works.

Whitten

1st October 2006, 21:57

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 1 2006, 06:18 PM

You are confusing what democracy actually is with what it is made into by capitalists.

So what is democracy? What kind of a fetish makes people like you elevate democracy to such a high level?

Democracy and capitalism are incompatible so any "democracy" under capitalism will be flawed and undesirable.

Democracy: People's Power --> People = Material Meaning of Nation

National Interests = Interests of the National Bourgeoise

Democracy = A well-polished concept of capitalist power, de facto plutocracy.

Democracy is flawed and undesirable. Our cry should not be "power to the people (i.e nation) but "power to the working class".
The working class are the people.

OneBrickOneVoice

1st October 2006, 22:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 05:31 PM
I already mentioned
A. The Contra's, and still said they went soft on the bourgeouisie (if you would correctly read my post). Since i have a bigger basis, then just the civil war to make my claims.
B. Mentioned the elections, and the electoral intrusion of the United States, thus how imperialists manipulate elections in the 3rd world, making a democracy for everybody impossible. It IS a class-issue. And as you mentioned yourself, the US already threatened sanctions, thus manipulating the elections in Nicaragua. Thus showing democracy for the whole people is impossible and inevitably has degenerated into a Bourgeouisie democracy.

It is no way/shape/form in the best interest of the proletariat to allow free speech for reactionaries. Why do it?
Are you a marxist anyway? People are shaped by they're enviroment! If you create a capitalist enviroment for them, they'll get a capitalist mentality! Maybe, one at a time. but it does happen!
Next to all this, i never said democracy is a solely bourgeouisie thing. I made the clear distinction between bourgeouisie and proletarian democracy. But you, with a clearly petit-bourgeouisie atitude, clearly show how democracy for everybody is what bourgeouisie democracy is.
Democracy is when everyone has the right to speak not just one group of people. I agree with you that people are shaped by their enviroment, but their enviroment will still be socialist even if they're exposed to capitalist thought. I just don't understand what you're proposing it's upsurd. The only way to stop people from speaking is through an oppressive police state, and I will not stand for that. Democracy is not 'petit-bourgious'. You have no faith in socialism and thus are reactionary if you think that socialism will crumble when people hear about capitalism. You think that capitalism is a better ideology and that if people here about capitalism they will become capitalism. That's bullshit. If you were a true marxist you would recognize that our logic is better than theirs and that the solution to reactionaries is letting them speak, and letting us rebuttle them and laugh at their ideology which proposes denying people the basic necessities of life. When the revolution comes, we will have the support of the people and there will be no need to use the KGB pseudo-fascist tactics you advocate.

OneBrickOneVoice

1st October 2006, 22:18

Originally posted by Whitten+Oct 1 2006, 06:58 PM--> (Whitten @ Oct 1 2006, 06:58 PM)
Leo [email protected] 1 2006, 06:18 PM

You are confusing what democracy actually is with what it is made into by capitalists.

So what is democracy? What kind of a fetish makes people like you elevate democracy to such a high level?

Democracy and capitalism are incompatible so any "democracy" under capitalism will be flawed and undesirable.

Democracy: People's Power --> People = Material Meaning of Nation

National Interests = Interests of the National Bourgeoise

Democracy = A well-polished concept of capitalist power, de facto plutocracy.

Democracy is flawed and undesirable. Our cry should not be "power to the people (i.e nation) but "power to the working class".
The working class are the people. [/b]
exactly what I've been trying to say this entire thread.

OneBrickOneVoice

1st October 2006, 22:24

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 1 2006, 06:38 PM
[It is not about censorhip, it is about workers destroying capitalism - violently. Of course, I am against democracy, "people's power" (I explained why in my previous posts" because I am for "workers' power", and of course I support the 'ludicrous' idea of workers "holding down" the "evil" capitalists. That's how class struggle works.
you cannot seperate workers from people as they are the people. The vast majority of the people are workers and whatever side the working class sides with, will be the side that wins.

You are either for democracy, or you are for tyranny. It's as simple as that. Every place where no basic democracy exsists, is a terrible and oppressive place.

The Grey Blur

1st October 2006, 22:29

Has 'Stalin's Law' actually replied in this thread?

OneBrickOneVoice

2nd October 2006, 01:07

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 1 2006, 07:30 PM
Has 'Stalin's Law' actually replied in this thread?
ya only once though

The Grey Blur

2nd October 2006, 03:11

Turns out he's a crypto-TroysKKKyist!11!1!1

Zero

2nd October 2006, 04:02

Man, I only read a few pages and now I'm going to have nightmares about authoritarian M-Lists. =(

Rawthentic

2nd October 2006, 05:26

Authoritarian leftism is a nightmare man, dont doubt it. What we need to do is learn from the past to create the future that we want.

CCCPneubauten

2nd October 2006, 05:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:27 AM
Authoritarian leftism is a nightmare man, dont doubt it. What we need to do is learn from the past to create the future that we want.
Do you ever say anything else?

Lenin's Law

2nd October 2006, 06:39

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 1 2006, 07:30 PM
Has 'Stalin's Law' actually replied in this thread?
Yes. I've replied 3 times actually. Can't you follow the thread?

Lenin's Law

2nd October 2006, 06:49

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Oct 1 2006, 10:08 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Oct 1 2006, 10:08 PM)
Permanent [email protected] 1 2006, 07:30 PM
Has 'Stalin's Law' actually replied in this thread?
ya only once though [/b]
No, 3 times. (Now 5 :P )

And really, what more do I need to say? A whole thread has been created out of me simply for misquoting Stalin by 1 word. I have since corrected that. I stand by that statement as do many revoluionaries here. I am for the workers taking power, the dictatorship of the proleteriat, not for bourgeois democracy, liberal-bourgeois free speech and the rest of the reformist nonsense.

Liberal Henry - How can you call yourself a "Bolshevik" and still believe in bourgeois democracy/freedom of speech which the real Bolsheviks clearly did not?

Lenin's Law

2nd October 2006, 06:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:18 PM
Because I believe in radical change to society, I could just as well ask what you are doing here with your ultra-authoritarian ideas?
An argument in semantics; for what consists of "radical change" to one person, say a redneck in the US South, is bourgeois change for another, say an advanced worker in New York.

So let's cut to the chase: Are you for a workers' revolution or do you support reform over revolution?

apathy maybe

2nd October 2006, 06:55

Who defines what enemies are though? Am I your enemy? I who would oppose you?

Demogorgon

2nd October 2006, 07:03

Originally posted by Stalin's [email protected] 2 2006, 03:54 AM
An argument in semantics; for what consists of "radical change" to one person, say a redneck in the US South, is bourgeois change for another, say an advanced worker in New York.

So let's cut to the chase: Are you for a workers' revolution or do you support reform over revolution?
And why are reform and revolution incompaitible?

To answer your question, I have no inferiority complex, nor do I harbour hatred for anybody that may not agree with my political views, therefore I have no fantasies about violence and killing to let frustration out of my system.

Consequently I believe in logic. The most logical way to achieve revolution is the best way, and obviously any logical means is going to have to be workable. Violence doesn't work. People have been asking how many succesful peaceful revolutions there have been, well I turn that around and ask how many succesful violent ones have there been? I don't see many succesful fully communist states here in October 2006, yet there have been a hell of a lot of violent revolutions.

I can tell you a lot of good things that have come about through reform though. You may tell me that that isn't good enough and I'd agree, but at the same time, would you rather be a worker in 2006 or 1906?

Society tends not to cope very well with very sudden change, that is why after violent revolutions its always "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". The social structure hasn't been washed away, just the people occupying it.

If you think me a moderate as a result, well you have very much the wrong measure of me, indeed if you think what Staln believed in was adequate, I can assure you, I am far to the left of you, but I am also a realist. Revolution has to build something new and it has to build it to last. That is the basis of my views, therefore we need to find the best way to do that.

2nd October 2006, 07:24

I am against anything that is authoritarian and oppressive. Fortunately I would dispute your view revolution has to be authoritarian. If it did, I would want no part of it.

So you're against revolution completely then. Killing people is inherently authoritarian and oppressive. You should be restricted.

I don't see how you're not a stalinist, since you stand for everything stalinism stands for.

And what is that exactly?

I do know what fascism means.

Obviously not, since you're calling Stalin fascist.

okay fine, new topic directed at KC and Leo, what political system do you advocate for socialism? Soviets? Party beaurocracy? totalitarianism?

This question is completely irrelevant because it is lacking a correct analysis of the material conditions in which revolution takes place. In other words, your anti-materialist (anti-marxist) outlook is shown for everyone to see right here.

I for one, do believe in the liberation of humanity.

You can't "believe in the liberation of humanity". That doesn't make sense at all.

I could believe in the eating of me when I get hungry, but that doesn't make much sense now does it?

I understand that the capitalist class is parasitic and needs to be overthrown, but they oppress not out of the sheer enjoyment, but because they percieve that their right to have more and more is a fundamental right and any violation against it is a violation against their being. I hope I made myself clear. And I am a communist, but not Stalinist.

Actually they remain where they are because they wish to maintain their living conditions and production relations.

why would you put either quote in your signature, both are oppressive and sickening.

Your member title says "Bolshevik". Either you're a complete fucking idiot or you like contradicting yourself. Which one is it?

okay let me rephrase. It's authoritan, totalitarian, and repressive.

Just as all revolution is...

Thank you comrades, you have all made excellent rebuttals for which I agree completely! It makes me very, very happy that there are indeed revolutionaries here after all!

Unfortunately, we're the minority.

I don't understand how people can so blatantly ignore what life was like the first time this was done. It was a police state. It was authoritan. And you were afraid to speak because you would get jailed.

Really, Bolshevik? Did you live there? Have you done an indepth study into both sides of the story? Moreover, if it was such an authoritarian, oppressive dictatorship then why did you support it, Bolshevik?

They are the people who give communism a bad name among people today because of their reactionary and anti-worker ideology.

Yeah, it's them. The capitalist media has absolutely nothing to do with it, right? :rolleyes:

well umm by the time of the revolution hopefully the working class and people as a whole will be behind our ideology and reactionaries will be few and far apart and won't matter. Unless we are ignorant stalinists who have learned nothing from the brutalities of the 20th century, there will be no need whatsoever to ban free speech.

Keep living in your utopian dream world, then, while we actually get shit accomplished.

1) Stalin made serious errors, and even committed some crimes against the Soviet people. I am not denying any of this. Contrarilly, I am arguing for using science, not utopian dreams to evaluate Stalin and the era (often, Stalin is judged AS the era, as if one man could influence events so broadly!)

Classes make history, and history makes leaders.

2) Limits exist to how much the state can actually control, wether bourgeois or proletariat. Mao showed that mans thinking derives from his social experience, not the propaganda of the state.

Actually, I disagree. Bourgeois culture and propaganda is profoundly effective in getting the working class to rally behind the bourgeoisie.

If free speech is a bourgious myth, than you and me and everyone on this forum would be in jail right now. You can't have free speech without letting your enemies speak and if you don't support free speech, you support totalitarianism.

Why don't you go tell Huey Newton that there's free speech in the US. Oh wait...

And if what you say is true, then I am proud to support totalitarianism.

Democracy is a political system which makes desicions based on fair elective processes. The "people" are made up of the working class, and which ever way the working class votes that side will win. Democracy is the fairest political system there is. I can't believe there are authoritans on this forum who still praise Stalin and his repressive ideals.

So you support giving members of the bourgeoisie a vote?

"Vanguard", in terms of Marx, relates only to workers themselves, just as I've spoken of it [the self-liberation]. But of course, you wouldn't know that, because you are fed by your "party line" ideology - whatever fifty seven varieties of it, it doesn't matter.

I would hate to dissapoint you, but the only time Marx affirmated the term - in the context of the vanguard as the "vanguard of the working class" - it was used in his posthumously published Drafts of the Civil War in France [link], and one text about the arrests performed in Germany by the militarist regime in 1872 [link], and, of course, both times he speaks of the "vanguard of the working class" as and integral part of it, affirmated through practical revolutionary expression, and never separated.

First, I don't have a "party line" ideology, much to your disappointment.

Second, I realize how Marx used the term and I agree with it. The members of the vanguard are members of the working class. I already agreed with it before. Just because I said "we" when I referred to the vanguard and "them" when I referred to those proletarians that aren't members of the vanguard, doesn't mean I don't agree with him. Quit your petty semantics babble.

Besides, if we really need to be oppressive to save the revolution, then it's probably not worth saving. I'd take a Salvador Allende anyday than have a Stalin, 20 million people killed, the revolution overthrown for all intents and purposes anyway and then have the name of socialism blackened and hated for generations.

Yeah, because Salvador Allende sure is bringing about communism... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I think that blah blah blah blah blah...

Why the hell do you even come here still?

No, anyone who doesn't want to have to be scared of being killed by others when they say what they think supports democracy. Anyone who hates the police and the bourgious supports democracy. And anyone who hates tyranny and oppression supports democracy.

You obviously don't know what democracy is.

The working class are the people.

Last I checked, the bourgeoisie were human as well (unless you believe that crazy conspiracy shit about them being aliens).

Authoritarian leftism is a nightmare man,

Then take those links to those organizations out of your signature.

Who defines what enemies are though? Am I your enemy? I who would oppose you?

Who defines what "what" is, or what "I" really means? Who am "I" really? How can we even "know" anything?

<_<

The most logical way to achieve revolution is the best way, and obviously any logical means is going to have to be workable. Violence doesn't work.

Wow, what a logical way of deducing that!

People have been asking how many succesful peaceful revolutions there have been, well I turn that around and ask how many succesful violent ones have there been?

All substantial change in society is performed through either direct violence or the impending threat of violence.

I can tell you a lot of good things that have come about through reform though. You may tell me that that isn't good enough and I'd agree, but at the same time, would you rather be a worker in 2006 or 1906?

And those reforms were passed because of the threat of violence and the destabilization of society.

Society tends not to cope very well with very sudden change, that is why after violent revolutions its always "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". The social structure hasn't been washed away, just the people occupying it.

French Revolution.

Demogorgon

2nd October 2006, 07:39

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 2 2006, 04:25 AM
French Revolution.
And how long did that last until it sank into the terror? No more than a few months. Not to mention the fact that the monarchy was soon back not long after that.

2nd October 2006, 08:49

And how long did that last until it sank into the terror? No more than a few months. Not to mention the fact that the monarchy was soon back not long after that.

Perhaps you didn't realize the fact that it was largely successful as a bourgeois revolution? And that it used violence and terror to accomplish that goal.

Moreover, your whole assertion that societal structure doesn't change "just the people that run it do" is completely unmarxist and completely idiotic; you're basically saying feudalism and capitalism are the same system with different masters.

Demogorgon

2nd October 2006, 08:55

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 2 2006, 05:50 AM
Perhaps you didn't realize the fact that it was largely successful as a bourgeois revolution? And that it used violence and terror to accomplish that goal.

Moreover, your whole assertion that societal structure doesn't change "just the people that run it do" is completely unmarxist and completely idiotic; you're basically saying feudalism and capitalism are the same system with different masters.
I feel myself under no obligation to follow every word Marx wrote without question. I was blessed with a mind of my own.

You evidently did not read my post properly if you think I said social structures never change, I said they don't just change suddenly. Feudalism and Capitalism are two different beasts but there was a long period of transition.

As for the French revoltion. Certain goals of the bourgoisie were achieved in the long run, but more so in the reforms afterwards. Don't romanticise the revolution, it came about because the nobility had tried to resist inevitable change and matters exploded into violence. But there was no happy ending. The streets were awash with blood from the guillotines and before too long there was another king. A few rights were won but by and large the aims of the revolution were not achieved

apathy maybe

2nd October 2006, 13:32

Originally posted by KC
Who defines what "what" is, or what "I" really means? Who am "I" really? How can we even "know" anything?Blah Blah. This is bullshit and you know it. These terms are accepted in everyday language and the philosophical points (I think that) you are trying to raise are invalid.

Simple question, does “Stalin's Law”, or any of the rest of you who support this quote, see me as your enemy (and I will certainly oppose any attempt to establish an authoritarian state along the line of Stalin’s)?

If not me then whom?

2nd October 2006, 15:26

Blah Blah. This is bullshit and you know it. These terms are accepted in everyday language and the philosophical points (I think that) you are trying to raise are invalid.

Actually I was just mocking you. :lol:

Simple question, does “Stalin's Law”, or any of the rest of you who support this quote, see me as your enemy (and I will certainly oppose any attempt to establish an authoritarian state along the line of Stalin’s)?

If not me then whom?

This doesn't really matter.

Lenin's Law

2nd October 2006, 17:04

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 2 2006, 04:25 AM
So you're against revolution completely then. Killing people is inherently authoritarian and oppressive. You should be restricted.
I agree 100%. I have raised this issue before as I have seen more than 1 person here openly call for reform over revolution and have mocked the idea of a workers revolution taking power as being "violent" "oppressive" "authoritarian" etc etc I don't understand why these people who are so clearly, openly anti-revolutionary are not in OI.

Your member title says "Bolshevik". Either you're a complete fucking idiot or you like contradicting yourself. Which one is it?

:lol: Hear Hear!

BurnTheOliveTree

2nd October 2006, 19:12

I swear, if some of you had your way, there'd be no one left to persecute post revolution.

-Alex

Lenin's Law

2nd October 2006, 19:16

I swear, if some of you had it your way, there'd be no revolution.

BurnTheOliveTree

2nd October 2006, 19:24

Seriously though, I wouldn't want a revolution that's just a glorified murdering spree, and a glorified murdering spree is barely distuingashable from how some of you describe it. I find it very frightening.

-Alex

Zero

3rd October 2006, 07:29

Jesus, I swear some people have never read 1984. Through some of these posts I can see the "Ignorance is Strength!"

And the really sad thing is that I'm not joking. :(

Demogorgon

3rd October 2006, 07:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:30 AM
Jesus, I swear some people have never read 1984. Through some of these posts I can see the "Ignorance is Strength!"

And the really sad thing is that I'm not joking. :(
So true, though I can see certain individuals calling Orwell's work "bourgoisie propoganda".

At the end of the day though, I see certain people here attempting to create deities out of mortal men. Marx was not infallible, he made mistakes. In my view he was arguably the greatest political philosopher in history, but not every wod he wrote was Gospel truth. History has shown change can come about through means other than violent revolution.

Leo

3rd October 2006, 13:51

The working class are the people.

Wow, that really destroyed my arguements :rolleyes:

you cannot seperate workers from people as they are the people.

What an idiotic statement. Then we can't seperate capitalists from the working class as well as they also are the people?

You are either for democracy, or you are for tyranny.

Okay, I'm for workers tyranny over capitalists.

Liberal Henry - How can you call yourself a "Bolshevik" and still believe in bourgeois democracy/freedom of speech which the real Bolsheviks clearly did not?

Lets support this with an actual quote as well:

Originally posted by Lenin
Freedom yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT? Indeed, the sermons which the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries preach express their true nature: “The revolution has gone too far. What you are saying now we have been saying at the time, permit us to say it again.” But we say in reply: “Permit us to put you before a firing squad for saying that."

Who defines what enemies are though? Am I your enemy? I who would oppose you?

They defines themselves of course.

Who defines what "what" is, or what "I" really means? Who am "I" really? How can we even "know" anything?

:o :lol:

Lenin's Law

3rd October 2006, 15:54

Who defines what "what" is, or what "I" really means? Who am "I" really? How can we even "know" anything?

Is that you Bill Clinton? :lol:

http://suprmchaos.com/bill-clinton_sanchez2_090502.jpg

Iroquois Xavier

3rd October 2006, 15:59

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Lenin's Law

3rd October 2006, 16:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:30 AM
Jesus, I swear some people have never read 1984. Through some of these posts I can see the "Ignorance is Strength!"

And the really sad thing is that I'm not joking. :(
Oooh 1984! Nope, never heard of that one! :rolleyes:

Just finished that book in high school?

First sign of a pseudo-intellectual having a conversation in Communism - Brings up 1984 within the first 5 minutes.

It is funny though, the same people who talk about not revering Marx, bring up Orwell as if he some deity. Guys, 1984 is a book, and one that has been highly-used for propaganda by the bourgeosie. Orwell was actually never really a famous author in his time; it was largely because of capitalist propaganda and the fact that every high school student had to read his books that his name became so commonplace.

By the by, here's something to rock your world a bit - Did you know that Orwell wrote an introduction to 1984 that basically said that although it is obvously a satire on the Soviet Union, the West and Great Britain are pretty much the same. This introduction was censored in the free-speech loving West.

Ouch. Guess they don't teach you that in Mrs. Peter's 10th grade Social Studies class? :lol:

Zero

3rd October 2006, 17:13

Listen buddy, I know what it means. I used it because I just watched the remake of it in a movie. You can substitute that for V for Vendetta, or any really Distopian future drama. You talk about the slaughter of millions and suppression of all dissent, it really doesn't take too hard of a mind stretch to figure out what that leads to.

Demogorgon

3rd October 2006, 18:04

Originally posted by Stalin's [email protected] 3 2006, 01:03 PM
By the by, here's something to rock your world a bit - Did you know that Orwell wrote an introduction to 1984 that basically said that although it is obvously a satire on the Soviet Union, the West and Great Britain are pretty much the same. This introduction was censored in the free-speech loving West.

I daresay we all knew that. Did you have a point?

Lamanov

3rd October 2006, 18:18

Originally posted by Stalin's [email protected] 3 2006, 01:03 PM
It is funny though, the same people who talk about not revering Marx, bring up Orwell as if he some deity. Guys, 1984 is a book, and one that has been highly-used for propaganda by the bourgeosie. Orwell was actually never really a famous author in his time; it was largely because of capitalist propaganda and the fact that every high school student had to read his books that his name became so commonplace.

By the by, here's something to rock your world a bit - Did you know that Orwell wrote an introduction to 1984 that basically said that although it is obvously a satire on the Soviet Union, the West and Great Britain are pretty much the same. This introduction was censored in the free-speech loving West.

You obviously never read his Homage to Catalonia. But of course not. It speaks of British war ships guarding the Stalinist "revolution" from the threat of the workers' rebellion. "Bourgeois propaganda", I suppose. :rolleyes:

Well...

"A lie which burried you, lies
beneath the greater lie"

(Reminiscence of the Civil War in Spain, 1941.)

I suggest you to leave that talk of Marx and others to people who actually read their works. All of your engagement simply proved that you are an idiot.

Leo

3rd October 2006, 18:25

I think it is pretty definate that 1984 was used as bourgeois propaganda, even if its author never intended such use of his book. Yet, the main message Orwell gives, "Proles can't do shit" is unforgivable. I've heard that homage to Catalonia was really good, but it seems to me as if Orwell was among the people who shifted to the right after the war.

Lenin's Law

3rd October 2006, 18:29

. "Bourgeois propaganda", I suppose. :rolleyes:

Did you actually read what I said?

I said that Orwell's work has been used by capitalists, reactionaries etc for the purposes of bourgeois propaganda.

I suggest you to leave that talk of Marx and others to people who actually read their works. All of your engagement simply proved that you are an idiot.

We were not talking about Marx but about Orwell.

Furthermore, I hope you do not have some kind of infatuation with George Orwell. I hope you do know that Orwell at the end of his life worked with British Imperialism handing over the names of writers whom he felt were Communists in a McCarthyite fashion?

Orwell's red-list goes on display

The battle over George Orwell's political legacy is set to reignite next month when his notebook naming suspected communist sympathisers goes on public display for the first time.

The document proves that Orwell, long lionised by the Left, was not averse to scrutinising 135 possible 'cryptos' or 'fellow travellers', including the novelist and playwright J.B. Priestley, the Scottish poet Hugh McDiarmid, the novelist Naomi Mitchison and the Labour MP Ian Mikardo.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,11...1071367,00.html (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,11711,1071367,00.html)

LoneRed

3rd October 2006, 19:34

ya, 1984 was alright for what its worth, but its old news, i mean, it was kind of a pain to get through, we got the point, it was a police state.

On another note, there are a bunch of whiny ass liberals here. There is no revolution without bloodshed, and I will do what it takes to liberate my class.

Nothing Human Is Alien

3rd October 2006, 20:48

Yet, the main message Orwell gives, "Proles can't do shit" is unforgivable.

Same basic "moral" of animal farm.

Leo

3rd October 2006, 21:18

Same basic "moral" of animal farm.

Yah, pretty much... No wonder why the bourgeoise loves those two novels so much.

Nothing Human Is Alien

3rd October 2006, 22:02

Enough to make them required reading in many schools! Can't the fans of the book here anything though.. they love their liberalism! :D

Janus

4th October 2006, 01:02

What's up with the suddent interest in other people's sigs?

Anyways, another member with the same sig. already gave a decent explanation of it.

Post revolution the former ruling class will definitely not be allowed to have any ideas. Now before you start getting you balls all twisted up you must first realise that it's completely impossible to stop people from having ideas. The quote simply means that certain ideas will not be allowed to be expressed; a principle we still agree with today.

AlwaysAnarchy

4th October 2006, 04:35

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 3 2006, 07:03 PM
Enough to make them required reading in many schools! Can't the fans of the book here anything though.. they love their liberalism! :D
Come on, I don't think that's fair. Just because you enjoyed the message of 1984 and the warning it gave while in school doesnt mean it was bourgois propaganda.

AlwaysAnarchy

4th October 2006, 04:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:16 PM
The "Liberal Henry" is also hilarious. Was that intentional, or did his dull liberalism bore you so much that you misread his name?

No and I would like to apologize to Left Henry as I misread his name after seeing someone else quote him as being LiberalHenry. I should have been more careful and I do regret the error - it was not intentional.

Also I would like to say that unlike many here, LeftHenry is, like me, a real revolutionary and me and him and in 100% agreement on this anti-authoritarian business. I would just like to make it clear that that was not intentional.

LoneRed

4th October 2006, 22:47

you can say you two are the real revolutionaries all you want, but the fact of the matter is, is that a revolution is inherently authoritarian, you have just come to the conclusion that wherever "authoritarian" is used it dennotes something bad, a moral consideration. What is more authoritarian than taking someones life?

The way you and liberal henry, which suites him quite well, talk of revolution, makes revolution into a mere abstract concept about change. Not the revolution that many of us here are advocating.

Lamanov

4th October 2006, 23:02

1984 was a dystopia. It's not supposed to have a "moral", but to create a subjective psychological impression of such society -- not as an objective analysis.

Bourgois surely do uphold Orwell as a writer of such "morals" just as they uphold Marx to be an "economist". Of course, both is ludicrous.

Demogorgon

5th October 2006, 09:12

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 4 2006, 08:03 PM
1984 was a dystopia. It's not supposed to have a "moral", but to create a subjective psychological impression of such society -- not as an objective analysis.

Bourgois surely do uphold Orwell as a writer of such "morals" just as they uphold Marx to be an "economist". Of course, both is ludicrous.
Well Marx was an economist (amongst many other things). He was extremely well read on the subject and wrote acxdemic papers on economics and submitted them to peer review, that by definition makes him one.

Also though many economists try too ignore him as much as possible he was an important writer on the subject, offering a bettr version of Classical economics and an outright alternative (these days, it wasn't around in his day) to Austrian economics.

Lamanov

5th October 2006, 14:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 06:13 AM
Well Marx was an economist (amongst many other things). He was extremely well read on the subject and wrote academic papers on economics and submitted them to peer review, that by definition makes him one.

Also though many economists try too ignore him as much as possible he was an important writer on the subject, offering a bettr version of Classical economics and an outright alternative (these days, it wasn't around in his day) to Austrian economics.

You still have allot to catch up on.

Marx was first and foremost a revolutionary. If we'd title him properly we'd call him a professor doctor of philosophical sciences.

Marx never wrote papers on economics because he never attempted to understand economics as a way of fuctioning relations inside capitalism. He wrote only a critique of political economy: huge difference. He demasked political economy as a predominant ideology of bourgeois world, and through such process, showed that only intrest in economy we should see is in its destruction.

Marx's work on economy offers nothing to capitalism and it's personal science par exellance. That's what makes him far from being an economist.

Please, if you call Marx an economist, you only hinder his project of undermining capitalism.

...offering a better version of Classical economics and an outright alternative...

Marx's intention was pricesely the opposite: not to give a new and "better" version of Classical economics, but to make its negation for which only Aufhebung could be practical -- a liberation of humanity from these autonomous powers (such as political economy).

Demogorgon

5th October 2006, 17:32

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 5 2006, 11:19 AM
You still have allot to catch up on.

Marx was first and foremost a revolutionary. If we'd title him properly we'd call him a professor doctor of philosophical sciences.

Marx never wrote papers on economics because he never attempted to understand economics as a way of fuctioning relations inside capitalism. He wrote only a critique of political economy: huge difference. He demasked political economy as a predominant ideology of bourgeois world, and through such process, showed that only intrest in economy we should see is in its destruction.

Marx's work on economy offers nothing to capitalism and it's personal science par exellance. That's what makes him far from being an economist.

Please, if you call Marx an economist, you only hinder his project of undermining capitalism.

Marx's intention was pricesely the opposite: not to give a new and "better" version of Classical economics, but to make its negation for which only Aufhebung could be practical -- a liberation of humanity from these autonomous powers (such as political economy).
I am taking it you have no knowledge of economics?

Lamanov

5th October 2006, 19:27

How about a concrete responce...? :angry:

5th October 2006, 20:18

Economics is not the same thing as bourgeois economics.

LoneRed

5th October 2006, 22:33

definitely not, but many within the bourgeois circle use that as a way to garner a monopoly on economics. If all economics is bourgeois economics, there isnt much room for concern. The bourgeois economists just call theirs economics, trying to point it in a scientific direction like biology or something

Lamanov

5th October 2006, 22:33

Isn't economic science an invention of capitalist society, and weren't its pioneers significant thinkers of rising bourgeoisie?

Why should we pretend that economics are not a plain of thought characteristic of bourgeois society?

Marx's pretension in his engagement in its critique is obvious, and his views of political economy as a bourgeois science are obvious:

Capital, vol. I:

The categories of bourgeois economics consist precisely of forms of this kind. They are forms of thought which are socially valid, and therefore objective, for the relations of production belonging to this mode of social production.

1873 Afterword (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm):

Thus the Paris Revue Positiviste reproaches me in that, on the one hand, I treat economics metaphysically, and on the other hand — imagine! — confine myself to the mere critical analysis of actual facts, instead of writing receipts (Comtist ones?) for the cook-shops of the future.

...Political Economy belongs to the period in which the class-struggle was as yet undeveloped. Its last great representative, Ricardo, in the end, consciously makes the antagonism of class interests, of wages and profits, of profits and rent, the starting-point of his investigations, naively taking this antagonism for a social law of Nature. But by this start the science of bourgeois economy had reached the limits beyond which it could not pass. Already in the lifetime of Ricardo, and in opposition to him, it was met by criticism, in the person of Sismondi.

...

Demogorgon

5th October 2006, 23:04

Economics isn't something that was invented, simply to suit a system. It is an objective science with objective laws. These laws are worked out through observation of the economic effects of various actions. And the laws won't simply change with socialism just because we want them to.

Marx obviously understood all of this. His work isn't just a criticism of the science of economics, it is part of that science. The description Marx gives of the way the economy functions is little different from the one Adam Smith gives. The dfference is Marx suggests an alternative way of doing things-that is still of course compatible with the laws of economics.

Lamanov

5th October 2006, 23:28

Actually they were invented, just like any other science, invented to meet certain needs. It's that simple.

Now, what "laws of economics" remain within relations between producers once conditions of capitalist society which perpetuate them are removed?

Let's make an example:

"Law of value" maybe? But how could such law operate when there is no commodity form, when value as objectivated labor is not in cotradiction with use-value, when products are made to meet direct needs by consensus of producers, as use-values as such?

Any other laws?

I wouldn't be so quick to characterise Marx's work as such. For one thing it offers nothing to economics as a bourgeois science. In any other case, it gives us only a negation-form through which we may imagine what "economic relations" in classless society might look like, but still, we can't see no "laws".

5th October 2006, 23:33

Isn't economic science an invention of capitalist society, and weren't its pioneers significant thinkers of rising bourgeoisie?

Bourgeois economic science is a creation of capitalist society.

Economics is merely the science dealing with the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. It is not restricted to bourgeois economics.

The categories of bourgeois economics consist precisely of forms of this kind. They are forms of thought which are socially valid, and therefore objective, for the relations of production belonging to this mode of social production.

Note that he is talking about bourgeois economics, which is one form of economics. Certainly you agree that economics in pre-capitalist society took on different forms?

EDIT: When I get home tonight I think I'll be able to find a quote that explains this rather well.

Lamanov

5th October 2006, 23:42

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 5 2006, 08:34 PM
Certainly you agree that economics in pre-capitalist society took on different forms?

"Economic relations", of course.

But Economics as a separate, specialized discipline? As a science? One which, in practical terms, overlooks the boundaries of society which made it?

I couldn't be so sure.

Labor Shall Rule

5th October 2006, 23:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:19 PM
You know this is really disturbing that so many people on this forum are apparently on the extreme authoritarian pro-Stalinist side...I thought this part was becoming near extinct and now I see, sadly, it is not.

Look, if we don't have freedom of speech for EVERYONE we are no better than the capitalist and in fact probably much worse. Freedom of speech is essential. How can we justify being here and allowed all the individual freedoms in the world (free speech, free religion, freedom of association, freedom to have political parties, etc) and then deny those very same freedoms in order to move toward a more "progressive" future?

The authoritarians keep on saying how it would be essential for us to be oppressive and fascistic in order to "save" the revolution from the capitalists, but you know? I think we can take our message to the workers WITHOUT using violence and try to win them over. Its a fight I think its worth it.

Besides, if we really need to be oppressive to save the revolution, then it's probably not worth saving. I'd take a Salvador Allende anyday than have a Stalin, 20 million people killed, the revolution overthrown for all intents and purposes anyway and then have the name of socialism blackened and hated for generations.
"extreme authoritarian pro-Stalinist side"

Can you explain to me what Stalinism is?

"Look, if we don't have freedom of speech for EVERYONE we are no better than the capitalist and in fact probably much worse."

I don't think that any marxist has ever denied what you consider "freedom of speech". We believe that these rights shouldn't exist for members of the ruling class. All economic and political privileges of that bourgeois class are destroyed in the course of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to pave the way to socialism. Is that so hard of a concept to understand?

"The authoritarians keep on saying how it would be essential for us to be oppressive and fascistic in order to "save" the revolution from the capitalists, but you know? I think we can take our message to the workers WITHOUT using violence and try to win them over. Its a fight I think its worth it."

All revolutions are authoritarian. You are forcing the interest of one class on another.

"? I think we can take our message to the workers WITHOUT using violence and try to win them over."

That's already been tried before. Peaceful methods just have not worked. It seems to be historically proven!

Demogorgon

6th October 2006, 02:07

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 5 2006, 08:29 PM
Actually they were invented, just like any other science, invented to meet certain needs. It's that simple.

Now, what "laws of economics" remain within relations between producers once conditions of capitalist society which perpetuate them are removed?

Let's make an example:

"Law of value" maybe? But how could such law operate when there is no commodity form, when value as objectivated labor is not in cotradiction with use-value, when products are made to meet direct needs by consensus of producers, as use-values as such?

Any other laws?

I wouldn't be so quick to characterise Marx's work as such. For one thing it offers nothing to economics as a bourgeois science. In any other case, it gives us only a negation-form through which we may imagine what "economic relations" in classless society might look like, but still, we can't see no "laws".
The laws of economics are more basic than things like ideas of values. They are such things as the fact people will buy more of a good as it's price decreases and suppliers will on the other hand wish to supply less. Such things are unchanging.

Economics isn't something that was thought up as a conspiracy to keep the ruling classes in power. It is simply the science of studying the problem of scarcity. That is there will never be enough resources to satisfy absolutely everybody's wants. It is at it's route the study of how to get the most out of the resources we have.

That's as true in a Socialist economy as in a Capitalist one.

Lamanov

6th October 2006, 02:18

Originally posted by Demogorgon+--> (Demogorgon)Economics isn't something that was thought up as a conspiracy to keep the ruling classes in power. It is simply the science of studying the problem of scarcity...[/b]

...from the standpoint of the ruling class.

Finding a solution to a certain problem beyond the constraints of given society ceases to be an economic solution, it becomes a revolutionary solution, and thus, implies the transcendence of economy as a science, becuase economy as such is always confined to one given society -- one basic given "economic relation".

Originally posted by [email protected]
They are such things as the fact people will buy more of a good as it's price decreases and suppliers will on the other hand wish to supply less. Such things are unchanging.

...

Demogorgon
That's as true in a Socialist economy as in a Capitalist one.

In a Socialist society, "supply" and "demand" are not elements regulated on the market... there is no market, and prices don't exits, because commodity-forms do not exist.

Demogorgon

6th October 2006, 02:57

Originally posted by DJ-TC+Oct 5 2006, 11:19 PM--> (DJ-TC @ Oct 5 2006, 11:19 PM)
Originally posted by Demogorgon+--> (Demogorgon)Economics isn't something that was thought up as a conspiracy to keep the ruling classes in power. It is simply the science of studying the problem of scarcity...[/b]

...from the standpoint of the ruling class.

Finding a solution to a certain problem beyond the constraints of given society ceases to be an economic solution, it becomes a revolutionary solution, and thus, implies the transcendence of economy as a science, becuase economy as such is always confined to one given society -- one basic given "economic relation".

[email protected]
They are such things as the fact people will buy more of a good as it's price decreases and suppliers will on the other hand wish to supply less. Such things are unchanging.

...

Demogorgon
That's as true in a Socialist economy as in a Capitalist one.

In a Socialist society, "supply" and "demand" are not elements regulated on the market... there is no market, and prices don't exits, because commodity-forms do not exist. [/b]
For somebody seemingly so obsessed with Marx, you sound an awful lot like one of the Utopian Socialists he lambasted.

You make the mistake of presuming when your ideology and reality collide it must be reality that is wrong. Socialism has to be more than an ideology. There has to be a clear, realistic and above all achievable means of bringing it about. Denying the validity of economics just because you don't like it isn't the way to do it.

Lamanov

6th October 2006, 03:10

:rolleyes:

No, actually, I'm just not mistaking produtional relations for economics itself. I take economics for what it really is and in only context it's really used. Problems of achieving socialism don't lie in understanding economics, as you obviously are convinced, they are first and foremost a practical issue. Besides that...

* I don't have an "ideology".
* I'm not obsessed with anyone.
* I didn't say anything "utopian".
* Nothing I've said "colided" with reality.

I'm too tired to take any more part in this discussion. Who wants to get what I mean will scroll up and read what I wrote.

OneBrickOneVoice

6th October 2006, 03:51

Your member title says "Bolshevik". Either you're a complete fucking idiot or you like contradicting yourself. Which one is it?

Ya either your a fucking idiot or you don't know what Bolshevism means. It's a broad term for anything Leninist. I am a leninist however I don't support Stalinism and the pseudo-fascism you support. They are complete contradictions of Leninism and the self-emancipation of the working class and democratic centralism. Lenin would roll over in his grave if he heard the upsurd shit you and Stalin and Hitler say.

OneBrickOneVoice

6th October 2006, 04:53

Stalinism, is leninism applied to a situation in which the working class does not fully support socialism. In a post-revolutionary society where the majority of the working class support socialism, the suppression of democracy and free speech would make no sense as there is no threat. Unless of course you think socialism is a weak ideology in which case what the fuck are you doing here posing as a communist?

I definately don't need my ideology question by those pseudo-fascists like KC and Lenin's Law. Especially since the overwhelming amount of Bolshevik (leninist, trotskyist, etc..) parties agree with the at least basic democracy.

OneBrickOneVoice

6th October 2006, 05:04

I don't think that any marxist has ever denied what you consider "freedom of speech". We believe that these rights shouldn't exist for members of the ruling class. All economic and political privileges of that bourgeois class are destroyed in the course of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to pave the way to socialism. Is that so hard of a concept to understand?

All revolutions are authoritarian. You are forcing the interest of one class on another.

If the bourgiousie, a small elite percentage of the population, are able to allow us to speak up, hold rallies, debate on forums such as this, without fear, than the Proletariat, or the masses, should allow at least the same amount of freedom or near the same because they are a tiny percentage which have just been overthrown by the masses.

All revolutions are authoritarian but a revolution or a system that is rooted in a small elite class must surely be more authoritarian than a revolution or system that is rooted in the masses. Is that so hard of a concept to understand?

That's already been tried before. Peaceful methods just have not worked. It seems to be historically proven!

I agree. While social democracy may slightly improve capitalism, it will still be capitalism. The only method that works is a vanguard of the working class, however it must be a revolution, not a coup if we wish to acheive a truly socialist society.

6th October 2006, 07:00

DJ TC here is the quote that I said I would provide. Took me forever to find it:

The uncertainty surrounding the relationship between estate and estate society, and class and class society, revolves in part around the ambiguity inherent in the notion of the "economy". Its modern definition is a legacy of the bourgeoisie: it refers to the nexus of activities of market participants. Homo economicus is a rational utilitarian motivated not by the gain of power, but by the power of gain. Clearly, the assumption that class is an economic category in this sense makes nonsense of any attempt to apply it to precapitalist societies. But Marx took leave of the narrow economism of classical political economy for a definition of the economic structure as a society's relations of power over persons and productive forces.

Only in a capitalist society does economy in the broad sense assume the form of an economy in the narrow sense. THe bourgeois property order has shed its political skin: surplus is extracted by means of the free labor contract. Wage laborers have the unique attribute of being the sole proprietors of their capacity to work while being denied ownership of the means of production with which they work. In contrast, slaves own neither their labor power nor their means of production; peasants have some rights in both, although they are compelled to transfer given amounts of their labor and its product to the lord. Thus, the precapitalist "property relationship [necessarily] ... appears as a direct relationship of lordship and servitude, so that the direct producer is not free." Surplus is appropriated "by other than economic pressure," that is, through juridical-political means supported by tradition and sanctioned in the final analysis of the manifest force. This is the system which denotes the class structure of precapitalist societies. For example, the complex of private jurisdictions defining the privileges of the medieval nobility had a concrete practical meaning: it comprised the greater part of the levers whereby the members of the feudal ruling class extracted an economic surplus from the direct producers. THe peasantry thus showed sound class sense when it sought to dismantle these privileges.
- Claudio J. Kats, From Feudalism To Capitalism: Marxian Theories of Class Struggle and Social Change

Originally posted by LiberalHenry+--> (LiberalHenry)Ya either your a fucking idiot or you don't know what Bolshevism means. It's a broad term for anything Leninist. I am a leninist however I don't support Stalinism and the pseudo-fascism you support. They are complete contradictions of Leninism and the self-emancipation of the working class and democratic centralism. Lenin would roll over in his grave if he heard the upsurd shit you and Stalin and Hitler say.[/b]

Do you even know anything about the Bolsheviks and what they did? You know, before Lenin died?

LiberalHenry
Stalinism, is leninism applied to a situation in which the working class does not fully support socialism. In a post-revolutionary society where the majority of the working class support socialism, the suppression of democracy and free speech would make no sense as there is no threat.

Perhaps you didn't notice that the Bolsheviks "suppress[ed] democracy and free speech"?