what does ideological unification mean? - dont ask vox he ha

[peaccenicked]

ideological unification
it is an obscenity to a petty minded anarchist.
Does it mean forced unification.
No.
Does it mean there is no democracy
No.
It means that ideas are thrashed out till such a point
that a unity is reached.
The actual political level of the Russian working class was very high before Stalin crushed the revolution.
workers knew the political situation in the advanced countries and the news from Germany was always welcome. You can imagine that in war time news is also received with avid attention.
The questions of the day were on everybodies lips.
These views crystalised around opposing camps.
The idea was to unify these camps.
How could it be done by force. That was impossible.
The workers were anything but blank slates that anything could be written on. As the anarchists seem
to imagine. It was the workers who set up the Soviets.
Study the russian revolution it was the greatest event of last century, witness the great debates, find out what actually happened
don't rely on my side of the story, but certainly dont be fooled by the anarchists.

[Valkyrie]

Ideological unification?!!!!! -- PUKE (opps, sorry Peacenicked, good thing it's virtual)

You mean the repression of freethought to new ideas and ways of doing things that haven't been thought of before, and that may come from the bottom of the barrel of society? Do you mean that if you join the ideologics of the party and thus diverge from the party line, you could very well end up like Trotsky or even worse, like Solzhenitsyn?

Ideological Unification - eeek!!! Heretical. Put me in the Gulag now!

[peaccenicked]

Why do you think ideological unification is supppression
A unity of ideas is not neccessarily an arranged or forced marriage.
Mariage are usually free and voluntary.
How can there be any organisation without
unity of ideas of some sort.
Even anarchist organise around the ideas they share.
It is simply a bullying slur on behalf of the anarchists and anti vanguardist to imply it is about force.
It is like slandering socialism with stalinism.
Anarchists seem to rely on stalinist methods when they are being criticised.

[munkey soup]

If, in coming to ideological unification, new ideas as well as old ideas are presented, discussed, re-shaped, and formed together, then it is not suppresive. All organizations need to have some form of standard, a unity of ideas, as peaccenicked said. Without some base of ideas to grow from, you will have anarchy, ideas will be coming from all directions and nothing will get done because you have no....mold, let's say. You are just a formless amoeba, just moving about eating up every idea, accomplishing nothing.

But if your mold becomes it, if there is no room for attachements, then you will eventually break, because you will no longer fit in the world.

[vox]

But, peacenicked, you llittle coward, you didn't say that at all!!!!!!

You said, "ideological unification on the principles of Marxism being reinforced by the material unity of organisation."

But you don't demand this "unification" in just one party, but in the whole of the working class, for you preface that with this, "the proletariat can, and inevitably will, become an invincible force only through its ideological unification on the principles of Marxism being reinforced by the material unity of organisation."

You DEMAND that the working class, entirely, agrees with you. Where is your allowance for dissent? Where is your allowance for Rosa Luxemburg? Do you allow any dissent at all?

Hey, if you wanna start a party and lay down a dogma for folks, go ahead and do it. Just don't expect every Marxist, let alone every worker, to join you.

Some might think you're full of garbage.

vox

[peaccenicked]

Vox you insulting liar.
You attacked Ideological unification now you chance the goalpost.
The working class must have ideological unity for the need for
revolution to happen.If the majority dont agree
how do you expect it to happen.

[peaccenicked]

Vox you insulting liar.
You attacked Ideological unification now you change the goalpost.
The working class must have ideological unity for the need for
revolution to happen.If the majority dont agree
how do you expect it to happen. There is no force a demand can be heeded or not.

[vox]

peacenicked,

First off, I've not changed the goalpost at all, I've simply answered what you've said, what you are on record as saying. You set the goalpost, comrade. Don't back away from it now.

If, as you say, the "working class must have ideological unity for the need for revolution to happen," then why does there need to be a Democratic Centralist party formed now, while we are still hashing out ideas? Is it that you may want the Structural Determinism of a Party to assist you in squashing the ideas you do not hold?

Indeed, when an epoch is marked by so many various threads of thought, wouldn't a Party of the kind that you suggest only succeed if various thoughts were suppresed by a party structure? That's the "material unity" of which you're so fond.

You wish the latter to precede the former, yes? And this has been my argument against you since you first appeared, for you've never, not ever, even given the numerous chances to do so, stated otherwise. Indeed, you stated just the opposite, as I recall.

vox

[peaccenicked]

utter nonsense.
You only mentioned ideological unifcation in your first attack on that particular sentence.
I am not backing away again you lie.
Where on earth have I mentioned quashing ideas.
You are merely falsely accusing Leninism of Stalinism.

[vox]

peacenicked,

Like the good little coward on the capitalist board, you've ignored my question and offered nothing but insult and invective.

Because I really don't think you understand what you read, though I give you credit for trying, here's the question in simpler terms:

If the working class must have Ideological Unification, and you believe in a Material Unity of Organisation, then why do you, who supposedly believes in democracy, wish to institute the Material Unity BEFORE the Ideological Unification? Indeed, if there is any Unification of Ideology in the working class, then change happens, with or without a party.

However, you little Leninst egomaniac, you wish for there to be a PARTY STRUCTURE before any awaress happens! You want to DEFINE the awareness BEFORE the awareness.

I've said this all before, and you've never really answered. You're on record, by the way, so at least have the vulger dignity of not trying to squirm.

You're playing a losing game, peacenicked. I answer your questions and you say "But but but...!!"

vox

[peaccenicked]

Is the pulling together of resource around a programme.
An anti democratic crime. You are a political baby.
All you have said to me is ignorance, insults and invective.

[vox]

No, pulling together resources around a shared ideology is the genesis of a party. You, however, have stated the exact opposite, tiime and again.

You say that it's only the Ideological Unification of the proletartiat that can succeed, right? But you also demand a Structural Unification that does not allow dissent.

Your "prole" movement only exists if the proles want it, right? Or does it exist like the CPUSA? An ideological camp that demands obedicence?

Keep giving two line answers. I know I'm right, and your short and practically incoherent responses are on the low ground.

vox

[peaccenicked]

You are just telling fibs.
"But you also demand a Structural Unification that does not allow dissent. "
This is nowhere to be seen in Lenin or my posts.

[vox]

I've shown over and over again how it's to be found in your posts. Please answer them instead of denying a truth, Leninist. But, then, that's all Leninists know how to do, isn't it? Deny the truth?

vox

[peaccenicked]

You have only lied and repeated your lies.

[vox]

You just keep saying that over and over, peacenicked, and maybe people will forget that you said that communism DEMANDS "ideological unification on the principles of Marxism being reinforced by the material unity of organisation."

They're your words, foul as they are and as I've shown them to be.

I can't help it that you can't win.

vox

[peaccenicked]

That has nothing to do with the suppression of dissent.

[vox]

peacenicked,

I've already talked about this. You've always chosen not to answer, only contradict. I lay out the argument, you say "no no."

I'm sorry, peacenicked, but you've not a leg on which to stand.

vox

[peaccenicked]

Nothing you say is even logically connected.

[vox]

Good defence, peacenicked.

Say things without quotes, without backing anything up, and proclaim it as truth.

"Nothing you say is even logically connected."

If that's the case, then you should be able to disprove what I say very easily.

But you don't, and you can't.

Gloating when beaten is a hubrus that even Greek gods would deny.

vox

[peaccenicked]

It is impossible to argue with someone who makes up stories about your position then insists his story is your position.
"I've never had a problem with the "educational role" of a party, only with that party declaring itself the State, and here, I believe, you will find the difference between me and you, for your Leninism demands some bizarre sort of Ideological Purity in order to belong to the Party, does it not? After all, you claimed that the Material manifestation of the party hinged on Ideological Unity, right? "
Ideological purity is a pure fantasy of yours and a complete bastardisation of my position.
Perhaps you should think about the possibility that the God almight super Vox is in error.
All you do is make bigger errors and larger fantasies.
You remind me of the my Country right or wrong patriots.
If Vox thinks it must be true even if it is a fantasy.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:14 pm on Mar. 9, 2002)

[Rosa]

vox: I think that you're really out of line. Why are you so alergic on thought about "union"? What do you want? Everybody to be left alone to live their own lifes? It's impossible! (and is one idea, and you want everybody to accept it, so isn't that somekind of union?).Human is "zoon politikon", and living in a society requests consenzus about highest values that all would share. You've ruined a good attempt to built that "system of highest values that all leftists on this site would share", and that would be something that unite us. Deconstructive you are, and for no reasons, really, except your personal ones. Or you want to construct something else? Be so kind and explain yourself.

[TheDerminator]

vox.

Still flogging a dead horse with you destructionalism.

You see, what I think you and people like you and El Che, have in common with the Stalinists and the BORGS is that there is a complete misrepresentation of Lenin as anti-democratic.
There is nothing democratic about Stalinism, and for the Stalinists to lump Stalin and Lenin together is just the same as the BORGS lumping Stalin and Lenin together.
That exactly is what you and El Che are doing.

The subject is democracy, and we should not lose sight of the subject.
Rightfully, Lenin criticised BORG psuedo-democracy as being a realm for opportunistic functionairies. I do not see you arguing with that analysis too much unless you are naive about BORG pseudo-democracy, which I doubt.
Now, the socialist movement, must have political organisation, and not to have it, is head in the sand time. It is extreme workerist economism to advocate a socialist movement without a political organisation.
So, you then have to move onto what form of political organisation is required.
Yep, it should be democratic. Should it be just a national organisation?
Nope. It has to be international, as well as nationalist or it is not part of an internationalist movement, which is a difference between an advanced socialist movement, and a primitive socialist movement.
We have to be internationalists.
As soon as you go beyond petty nationalism, you are organising on a higher level, and there has to be centralisation within internationalism, or it is not just a chicken without a head syndrome. It is many chickens without heads, all going off in various directions.
The idea that leadership is anathema to socialist democracy is a backward idea. It is the realm of the Friends of the People. It is not in the realm of practical organisation in the real world.
Democratic centralism need not be undemocratic centralism, and that is your error. The specific conditions of Russia meant that Lenin took the point of view that only the vanguard party could maintain socialism, and that if the party was democratic in its internal structure, the party would be composed of the most advanced component of the Russian people. They would guide even the majority towards a socialist society, and the vindication would be a society led by those serving the interests of the working class in the interests of the working class.
This was the Leninist view, and okay it is not BORG democracy.
However, what does the word "democracy" mean? It relates to control. Power. Power through democratic control. But what does control mean? It means acting in the interests of those who possess control.
This is the rub, vox. You see, you can vote for the US Democratic Party in the next election. Power to the people? Control to the people? Bad fucking joke, as you know from your own experiences.
This is the rub. Because, believe it or not it is possible to believe that you can act in the interests of the working class as the minority. That is what Lenin thought. That is openly said in his writings on the "left-wing" infantile disorder.
In fact, Lenin thought it was naive to believe, that you could ever convince the majority, thus there was the necessity for the revolution by a minority, and the minority leads the majority. It does not matter that they called themselves the Bolsheviks. In reality, it was a minority who created the Russian Revolution, and once you create it, it does not matter if you lose popularity, you still ought to be acting in the interests of the working class against counterrevolution.
This was the Leninist philosophy. Anti-democratic is indeed a childish simplisitic assessment. There are much higher stakes. The highest stake is the interests of the working class, and not the idea of having a referandum every day on every subject.
There is a huge difference between the democratic centralism of Lenin, and what peaccenicked calls "bureaucratic centralism", but ofcourse "bureaucratic" is a euphamism.
You see vox, when you have an internal democracy, when you have the interests of the working class as your main objective, you are still with the spirit of international socialism, you are still acting out the "dictatatorship of the ploretariat" which was created out of the ashes of the Paris Commune.
However, when the vanguard party, becomes the party of the elite, governed by an elite, and the top leader is an egomaniacal **** called Josef Stalin, then that is not the dictatorship of the ploretariat. That is only vicious dictatorship by a ****, and that is a huge fucking difference.
Lenin was not a ****, and neither was Che.
All Lenin was, was ill-equipped to lead international socialism, and that is what Lenin should have done. Lenin, and Che had the spirit of socialism, and that spirit of socialism is not acted out every four or five years in pseudo BORG democracy.
Kinda of weird that you and El Che, who believes in the non-reality of being think that Lenin was a ****. Not so weird you know. Not so weird that the Stalinists think that **** came from the same mould as Lenin just like you, and the BORGS. Not so weird.
Ideological purity? I do know whether to laugh or cry.
If only there was ideological purity. I mean how "impure" does everyone want us to be. There is enough fucking filth out there without us adding to it.
Ofcourse, that is not what is meant, it is back to Moskitto's "toleration", and pluralism.
Moskitto who sees Karl Marx as too authoritarian! Nice overview that one. Sounds like that ole anathema to the "dictatorship of the ploretariat" that Moskitto, Supermodel and El Che could have and endless discourse about.
I would just ask them to watch the end of the film Missing with Jack Lemon, and Sissy Spacek. That is what happened in Chile. That is what the ****s do if you do not have a dictatorship of the ploretariat. The bastards fucking slaughter you, and everyone who follows you. Do we really need to learn the hard way yet again? How high does our body count have to go?
What is your alternative to internationalist centralist organisation vox. Give me a laugh. Share the bad fucking joke.
I will just warn you though. I have heard the joke before, and I never found it that funny the first time around. Be brave. Give us your vision for internationalist socialist organisation. Don't be shy.
If it is not translatable into a few paragraphs, you can always start up a new thread, but do not fog us off with some obscure leftist guru. If you know your arguments give us them. I will be the hammer, and you will be the nail.
You see, I am a democrat, and I do not share the pessimism of Lenin, in fact when ethos becomes central to a real socialist movement worthy of the name, then it there is the realisation, that it can only work if the majority share that ethos, and if we cannot overtake the BORG mindset, then it is the fault of the poor quality of the socialist movement.
We have a powerful enemy, if all you have is some vague decentralised democracy within each nation as your way of organising, I suggest you go back to the drawing board, because you only have a foggy notion of internationalism, and that is as much as Lenin or Allende possessed. Weird eh?

May the Force be with U!

derminated

derminated

[El Che]

The issue is the power structure within society, no within any given organisation. You can organise in whatever way you want friend as long as that organisation doesnt have power (power i can not avoid) over me it does not concern me.


Lenin took the point of view that only the vanguard party could maintain socialism, and that if the party was democratic in its internal structure, the party would be composed of the most advanced component of the Russian people. They would guide even the majority towards a socialist society, and the vindication would be a society led by those serving the interests of the working class in the interests of the working class.

Horrible dreadfull stuff this. Sad to see this from you, truly is. I dont trust you, i dont trust lenin or che, i dont trust stalin, i dont trust my mother. I want democracy. I want power to answer for its self, i dont want a self apointed representative. I I I I I I I I. There are alot of I`s out there and i consider my self "more advanced" than non of them. What if i dont want socialist society? i have no voice? Horrible dreadfull stuff.

Power to the people? Control to the people? Bad fucking joke, as you know from your own experiences.

You have to do it with the people, you cant do it for them, thats right. Take an ethical stand man!! you that like ethos so much!! stand up!! Is it ethical to say I am more advanced than thou!? Here ill lead your dumb ass!

joke`s on you and yours.


[i]

(Edited by El Che at 2:51 pm on Mar. 9, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Power is the issue. The party issue is important because democratic centalism is being mystified, it is a form of party organisation. The vanguard can only come to power by winning the battle for democracy.
Is party power a good thing? no
It is a necessary evil in the transition from
capitalism to socialism.
Comrade you seem to want to avoid the issue of power.
How does democracy end power.
How do you define democracy?
You seem to want to equate workers power with that of capitalist power. You have reduced democracy to the right for you to have your say.
Where in any of this discourse has your right to political discourse be denied or theorised out of existence.
I do not see any logic in your assumptions which are merely capitalist assumptions about socialism.

[El Che]

I do not see any logic in your assumptions which are merely capitalist assumptions about socialism.

Do you really believe this? do you think this of me? Because i would not impose my views on others I dont infact posses my own views? I betray them comrade? because i will not impose them with the concent of the majority?


How does democracy end power.

What the fuck kind of question is that? Do you think me a lunatic anarchist? I am not, again, guilty of such charges. Democracy does not end power, rather it awards it, periodicaly to those who have the suport of the majority, expressed by their vote. This is representative democracy. Democracy is a process, there are problems with all democracies around the globe, these problems are as distinct as the nations that host them. Nothing is perfect we have work to do. Work with the people. Death to vanguardism. Never again. Death to fascism.

[peaccenicked]

Imposing your views.
Expressing your views.
Big difference.
You are implying that participatory democracy ends power. That is true.
That however leaves us with the concrete problem.
How does power end.
Only a 'lunatic' can imagine that the whole population
will participate in the revolution, at first.
The capi's wont, the criminals wont, the clerics wont. The old hang overs of capitalism will not disappear at the stroke of a revolutionary wish.
The revolution is an act of removing power from the capis and taking power by the majority of the working class. How do you wish to end power?

[Anonymous]

"You are implying that participatory democracy ends power. That is true."

This is not true and it wont become true because you keep repeating it. What power are you talking about ? The power of the capitalists? what? I live in a democracy, I will vote in a shortly. Are you telling me that the next goverment of protugal does not have power? and that all the goverments of today dont have power? what the ... are you talking about.

"The capi's wont, the criminals wont, the clerics wont. The old hang overs of capitalism will not disappear at the stroke of a revolutionary wish."

If the majority doesnt want it, it wont come, for i will not impose it. I dont recognise my self the authority to do so.


"Democracy is when the indigent,and not the men of property are the rulers" - Aristotle."

Who has the power peace? who has the power? the indigent have the power at least in the first world. Yes that right. Thats a fact. Its a bloody fact. If all the working men of my contry and yours voted socialist party tomorrow who would win? who is the majority? Why dont they do it then? because they think its all bull. They think we are all the same, politicians, thats why. Our job is not Leninst revolution! its to make them trust us. They have the power. Their is the strenght of numbers. In a vanguardist state, who has the power? not the indigent nop, their self apointed representatives thats who. You misunderstand your own signature.

[peaccenicked]

Who has the power

The vangard party should not come to power if it does not have majority support.
If it does have majority support should it decline power?
All majority decisions are an imposition on the minority.
This is the way the world is. It is objective . I have no wish to impose my will or the will of the minority.
If there is a referendum on capital punishment I will vote against it and if that becomes the will of the majority so be it. If the majority want the death penalty,
then they are imposing their will on me. As a democrat I must accept the decision but I will still campaign against it.

[Rosa]

eL cHE SAID:"They think we are all the same, politicians, thats why. Our job is not Leninst revolution! its to make them trust us. They have the power. Their is the strenght of numbers."
I'd like to add the (so often quoted phrase on this site) "special/capitalistic-mindset of those voters. It's not just about their trust, but about their ignorance of reality they're involved, how does it really affect them and so on...they forgot that people are the ones who are making a system, and that there is no reason for taking the system for granted (that's that "capit.mindset")...they need education. Marx would probably say that they're alienated from their (social)product (state)

[peaccenicked]

In reactionary times the capitalist mindset is more
entrenched, the hope for socialism is in events and that people, young people in particular become distrustful of the media machine etc,
It is not very useful to try and convert capitalists to socialism on a one to one basis, as the odds are low on success, we have little to point to, where we can have success is in educating those sympathetic to socialism
away from the old ideas that still keep them tied to the system. The work of agitation, propaganda and education is limited by our own resources and the mood of the workers in general. In a revolutionary situation,
everybody will be wanting to know what we are talking about,

[vox]

I largely agree with what El Che has said.

However, I will also answer so I won't be accused of any sort of dishonesty.

The Derminator,

To answer the question of internationalism, I say that, yes, any Leftist movemonet shoudl be internationalist. I've said that before and I say that now. However, you go on to say, "It has to be international, as well as nationalist or it is not part of an internationalist movement, which is a difference between an advanced socialist movement, and a primitive socialist movement."

How can something be both internationalist and nationalist, economically speaking? Surely you've moved beyond protectionsim and free trade. You unify a dichotomy here, but you give no indication as to its synthesis, and I'm very troubled by that. See, I don't believe that nationalism, what with its imperialism or racial purity or protectionism or allegiance, can stand alongside internationalism.

"Democratic centralism need not be undemocratic centralism, and that is your error. The specific conditions of Russia meant that Lenin took the point of view that only the vanguard party could maintain socialism, and that if the party was democratic in its internal structure, the party would be composed of the most advanced component of the Russian people. They would guide even the majority towards a socialist society, and the vindication would be a society led by those serving the interests of the working class in the interests of the working class."

Oh, only the most advanced would tell the majority how to live, how to labour? This is what I've been talking about since the beginning.

How is this "guidence" democratic at all? Marx, silly boy that he was, thought that the working class should have a say in their own lives. Lenin must have been much more brilliatn, eh? For you say that he concluded that the "best" should "guide" the working class to their best interests. Doesn't the working class know its own best interests???

How, exactly, does this deliver the means of production into the hands of the working class, by they way? It sounds like it delivers the means of production into the hands of the Party, no? I've said all of this before.

"However, what does the word "democracy" mean? It relates to control. Power. Power through democratic control. But what does control mean? It means acting in the interests of those who possess control.

(...)

"This is the rub. Because, believe it or not it is possible to believe that you can act in the interests of the working class as the minority."

Okay, which is it? You say that control means working in the interest of those in control (in this case a Leninist vanguard) and yet you also claim that the minority (Leninist vanguard) can act in the interest of the Other! Hee! Which is it? In whose interest does the Party act? I've always maintained that it only and always acts in the interest of the party, not of the working class, and for this I've been strongly condemned.

You, however, back me up, even if you didn't mean to.

"You see vox, when you have an internal democracy, when you have the interests of the working class as your main objective, you are still with the spirit of international socialism, you are still acting out the "dictatatorship of the ploretariat" which was created out of the ashes of the Paris Commune.

"However, when the vanguard party, becomes the party of the elite, governed by an elite, and the top leader is an egomaniacal **** called Josef Stalin, then that is not the dictatorship of the ploretariat. That is only vicious dictatorship by a ****, and that is a huge fucking difference."

Yes, I see that. I've always seen that. However, you allow for NO DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF THE PARTY, and so there is no way for the workers, the "masses," to stop this, to stop Stalin, from happening, correct?

This is exactly what I've been saying all this time.

You go on for a bit, then, about who's a **** and who isn't, but I think the point is made. If you wish you place your faith in the Cult of Personality, hoping that the non-**** leaves (undemocratic) power to another non-****, if you prefer a king, then I can't help you.

It is, I say, and I stand by this, only through democratic action that the working class can realize its power.

vox

[vox]

"vox: I think that you're really out of line. Why are you so alergic on thought about "union"? What do you want? Everybody to be left alone to live their own lifes? It's impossible! (and is one idea, and you want everybody to accept it, so isn't that somekind of union?).Human is "zoon politikon", and living in a society requests consenzus about highest values that all would share. You've ruined a good attempt to built that "system of highest values that all leftists on this site would share", and that would be something that unite us. Deconstructive you are, and for no reasons, really, except your personal ones. Or you want to construct something else? Be so kind and explain yourself."

Okay, I'll explain myself, once again.

I don't believe in Ideological Unity as a condition for acceptance into some sort of Vanguard Party. Indeed, I disagree with the notion of a Vanguard Party in and of itself!

I don't believe that it's through a strict pedantry that Socialists be made legitimate. You said that humans are political animals, and I agree with this. However, it is only when GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to be political that we can be political, otherwise we are the masses cowed by illegitimate authority. The Leninists say that they are acting in our interest. SO DO THE CAPITALISTS.

Do you want vibrant political discourse? Then you can't embrace Leninism, which demands, from the masses, strict obedience. As The Derminator wrote, the few would decide for the many in the interest of the many. HA!

The few will decide for themselves and the many will suffer for it.

Read my signature, Rosa. Give up illusions.

vox

[Rosa]

1)"zoon politikon" doesn't mean "a political creature", but "the creature of society".
okay, next:2)"people should have an opportunity to be politicaly active:yes, but how do you mean that they should unite? They have come to "ideas and values they all share", to be able to fight for them.
That Ideological Unity wasn't ment as "ticket for enterance in vanguard party", but as integrative factor for all people in the world who want to make better political &economy system.
3)I'm so sory for not judging Lenin's way of changing the structure: the situation in Russia was critical, and if he had started education-job on the masses, he'd probably be dead on half way. (killed, or of old age). Okay, if you think that situation in World is not so critical to demand quick action, that's your personal conclusion, and I have to respect it, bcs my wiew may be the opposite one, but is only subjective&personal, too. Reminding you :democracy is SLOW decision maker. And will respect it when there's no need to disobey it's principles. If you think that socialists of the world have enough money to do the propaganda up to capitalistic one, I understand your defend of democracy. Also, am aware that human potentials have much to do with it. (as Dermy would say: we have the "force" ):).So, hope that you see that I'm for democracy, too,...but am cautious in judgement making.

4)But, lets go back to the "Ideological Unity": that is not neccesary something made by few, but can be consenzus of all, and I don't see why you don't want something like that to start developing on this very site.
5) would strongly recomend you to read Peaccenick and others little bit more attention and to throw off that defensive attitude you have, nobody wants to harm you (at least I'm shure in this topic), and Peaccenick is the last one who would want to do it.
6)P.S. will never give up my ideals (in your words they're "illusions"), sorry, i don't want to. They give me "the force".

[El Che]

A man that lives alone is either a lunatic or a God. Indeed man is a social animal.

Peace if you are for democracy then you cant be marxist-leninist...

[peaccenicked]

That is an untrue assertion.
You should really real read ''The State and Revolution''
and tell me where Lenin goes wrong.
http://csf.colorado.edu/mirrors/marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/ 1917/sep/staterev/ch01.htm

[Rosa]

And peace if you don't judge Lenin so easy: if didn't do what he did, things would never change. Remember German attempt to make a communist state?and the failure of that?

[peaccenicked]

Lenin made many mistakes, the truth is I am not a Leninist, but I will defend him as what he was against caricature that bourgeois academics and anarchists decry him, which makes me as good as a Leninist in their eyes. It would be an insult to the memory of Lenin and Che, if I simply caved into their self serving propaganda war. You will find that I prefer to call myself a scientific socialist. This means it is my duty to defend the truth of history and not to leave it to the forces of ignorance, who want to paint the world in their own miserable colours.

[vox]

It's unfortunate that The Derminator has seemed to invoke the vox resolution and not responded to me, for I think that there are som rather important issues here.

But that's the nature of the Net: people respond to what they can.

vox

[peaccenicked]

"I don't believe in Ideological Unity as a condition for acceptance into some sort of Vanguard Party."
A condition of acceptance.???????????. In the real world,
A political party has a programme aims and goals.
If you agree with most of it you might be tempted to
join, but if you dont agree with it why bother.
That is the nature of political parties vanguard or otherwise.
There is no unquestioning obedience. It is not a rule.
You took that from chomsky and the anarchists, without examining it historically.

[vox]

Are you saying that Lenin didn't demand obedience? If you are, I have the quotes that prove you wrong. I've already showed them to you.

Face it, peacenicked, your elitiism is not welcome here.

The vanguard wihich you hold so dear defindes the proletariat on its own terms, regardless of the material conditions that prevail, and, from that initial misunderstanding, provides the Democratic Centralism so needed to quell dissent.

This isn't news.

This is commonplace, and tired, Leninism, the province of Little Dictators.

vox

[peaccenicked]

"Some people aren't nice! I'm not nice. I freely admit that, and I've said as much previously." Vox
Go and get yourself sorted out mate.
http://www.che-lives.net/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=153 (http://www.che-lives.net/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=153)