Am I an elitist? - unfounded charges

[peaccenicked]

Firstly, I dont believe in the rule of an elite.
I think the majority should rule.
As far I can see Lenin was a democrat too.
I am fairly well read in Lenin and all I see
is the democratic spirit in his writings and he covered most everything he did in his writings.
Vox is merely trying to equate Leninism with Stalinism.
Democratic centralism with bureaucratic centralism.
One demands debate, the other stifles it.
Merely repeating the charge of elitism is not a proof.
IP equates socialism with stalinism without proof.
Vox denigrates the history of the workers movement by falsifying the actuality of history.
He merely repeats the charges of Anarchists.
Who can't argue. They tell you that you are lying about democratic centralism.
It is not recognised as a possible form. Then tell you that you are scum for holding beliefs contrary to theirs.
They become intellectual bullies ie elitists.

[vox]

Look, peacenicked, I understand that you've become desperate. I stand by what I say, you distance yourself from what you say. Fair enough.

Do we really need another thread about this? Or are you acting like a capi? Are you hoping that if you SPAM enough you won't ever be held accountable?

I don't like you, peacenicked. I'm on you like a fly on shit, son, and starting new threads justs wastes everyone's time.

Why not trying an actual answer for once?

You are the one that demand a Material Structure to prop up you Ideological Unity, right? You're on record as saying that, not me.

Fact is, you don't want debate, you just watn people to follow you, isn't that true?

vox

[peaccenicked]

intellectual bully.
material unity as I have just posted referred to pulling material resources together. Why spend a fortune on
diferrences when you can express them in the one place.

[vox]

but don't you rest your material foundation upon intellectual obedience?

Isn't this what we've been arguing about?

Of course it is, and of course I'm right.

vox

[peaccenicked]

nonsense.
All that is asked is that in a party action
that a member abides by the majority decision.
He has full democratic rights of criticism before the decision is made.

[vox]

That's all well and good, but don't you assume "Ideolgical Unifcation" before the party? From what I've read, you do, and in doing so exclude the any that doesn't conform to your way of thinking.

Isn't that what Party Unity is all about?

vox

[El Che]

Guys take it else where. Stop spaming the forums with your fights.

[peaccenicked]

nonsense
Ideological unity is a product, not an imposition.
Only a bully imposes.
A political party if it does not have a democratic 'war of position.' Then it is bureaucratically trying to impose its decisions.
You here are trying to enforce your beliefs by
outrageous associating your opponents beliefs
with words like 'scum' and distorting the meanings of terms. Democratic centralism is not bureaucratic centalism. One demands debate the other stifles it.

[vox]

Again, peacenicked, I ask if it takes a majority of the working class, then where does your "vanguard" party fit?

vox

[peaccenicked]

To quote Che Guevara
"The vanguard group is ideologically more advanced tha the mass; the latter understands the new values, but not sufficiently. While among the former there has been a qualitative change which enables them to make sacrifices to carry out their function as an advance guard, the latter go only half way and must be subjected to stimuli and pressures of a certain intensity. That is the dictatorship of the proletariat operating not only on the defeated class but also on individuals of the victorious class.

All of this means that for total success a series of mechanisms, of revolutionary institutions, is needed. Fitted into the pattern of the multitudes marching towards the future is the concept of aharmonious aggregate of channels, steps, restraints, and smoothly working mechanisms which would facilitate that advance by ensuring the efficient selection of those destined to march in the vanguard which, itself, bestows rewards on those who fulfill their duties, and punishments on those who attempt to obstruct the development of the new society."
This is good enough for me.

[vox]

El Che,

I understand your anger about all of this, and I agree with you to an extent.

I'd be happy to limit this to one thread, but, as you will see if you examine the board, peacenicked has spread this out over many, many threads, perhapss hoping, like a good capi, that we would be confused.

I, personally, think that what we are arguing, aside from the pissing contest, is very important. I think it goes right to the very heart of believing whether the proletariat can change things by itself or whather it needs a "vanguard party" to do it for them, so we have another boss to obey.

This is a vital question, I think.

I'm sorry if we've disturbed this board too much, but I won't allow a lying piece of Leninist garbage to believe that his is the right way of thinking.

vox

[peaccenicked]

This debate was about vanguardism?
Why is Vox hiding from the Che guevara quote.

[vox]

Not hiding at all.

If Che were here today, I'd tell him to fuck off with that elitist bullshit, and you can quote me on that, contextually, of course (like you've any honor).

However, looking at how Che lived both before and after the Cuban Revolution, one sees that his morality, and ideology, was reflected, as always, in his Meterial existence, of which I've previously spoken.

vox

[peaccenicked]

Telling Che to fuck off
really.
That is interesting that.
There is no elitism, merely a recognition of the educational role of the vanguard.
Perhaps it is you who should FUCK OFF.

[vox]

I stand by what I said, unlike you, peacenicked.

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?

I, on the other hand, demonstrate an understanding of the Social Relations of Production that seem to be a mystery to you. You want to equate Spartan loot with US dollars, but you can't.

Fact is, you want to place Che in a post-industrial society and have him parrot what he said, as if Che is too stupid to recognize that things have changed, that things are different.

You, not I, underestimate Che, or should I speak in your vernacular and, like Bush, say misunderestimet? I'm only trying to be helpful, of course.

vox

[peaccenicked]

"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? "
Wrong! you continually put your fantasies as my oppinion. I have never stated anything of the sort.
Where do you get your brass neck from. It is the height of crassness to ideologically infict someone with your
imputed fantasies of my 'totalitarianism'.
The material unity of any party hinges on ideological unity. If you dont agree on the programme then why form a material unity. You state your fallacy endlessly like a nit wit who keeps on insistig that white is black.
Your as helpful as a bullet in the head.
In fact your analysis would abolish all parties and
leave society as an amorphous mass of individuals with little in common.
I think you are quite simply unhinged.
As to marx on the power of money.
Perhaps you should read it before you rush to your typical phantastical conclusions.
What are you saying about Che, I thought you would tell him to fuck off with his vanguardism. Vanguardism is only one form of
Democratic centralism
Which is merely a form of organisation applicable
to all organisations as it is a form. It so happens to be most chosen by revolutionary organisations.
Even the anarchists organise this way! Don't they?


(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:56 pm on Mar. 7, 2002)

[Rosa]

to El Che: their fights are very educative, so don't read them if you're not interested.

[El Che]

I disagree, I think as it turns more into a fight then into a discussion it loses content. Shame too.

[peaccenicked]

I dont see it as a fight, I never picked it on
a personal level.
Vox has tried to ridicule and humiliate me and drawn
phantastical inferences from a bastardisation of Leninism that has very little to do with reality.
He doent see himself as a bully. He says he is just posting on a messageboard.
Trifiling little matters of personal abuse dont matter to him apparently so much so he can call someone 'scum'
on the left.
He imputes that lenin was a totalitarian, here I disagree but do I call him 'scum'. The question is a dispute that
has to do with an historical analysis of the Russian Revolution. Vox's position is Lenin is a was an totalitarian, Lenin was scum, I am Scum.
This is reducing the whole debate to the level of the gutter.
Now he tells us that Che was a different type of Leninist, not Scum.
This is a farce.
THis is an egomaniacal intellectual snob dishing out dirt because, he is not up to scratch on his so called area
of expert interest.
This behaviour is so childish that to give it the name of socialist or marxist, is to bring that name into disrepute.
How a bit of intellectual honesty?

(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:04 pm on Mar. 7, 2002)


(Edited by peaccenicked at 8:45 pm on Mar. 7, 2002)

[Rosa]

vox: are you trying to say that proleteriat doesn't need guidance in mind-changing-process? I mean: they are all so poisoned, "assimilated into a (certain) mindset"(Dermy, "Why capies are BORG?", p.7).
please explain to me how do you think that change could be done. Or do you think that only already-counsiouscnes-having proleteriat should be included in "new order"(when change is done). And can we assume that new order really exsist if there are living people with capitalstic mindset?Capitalists use their intelectuals to manipulate little people.
Why do you think that intelectuals commited to a left-ideas would want to be "another bosses to obey"?
Also, you are aware that human mind is vivid: why do u think that in "socialistic world" there's no possibility of standing up with some questions about validity of system? And do you really think that rational argumentation would have worse effect than:"Go to Sibir, you enemy of the order!".
Am not asking you about ethical evaluaton of those 2 solutions, but about effectiveness of them.
(P.S.my answers to that questions:1)NEVER
2)NEVER 3)NEVER

[vox]

"Capitalists use their intelectuals to manipulate little people."

"Little people?"

Who are those "little people?" The ones who disagree with you?

Lenin demanded obediance. This is not a point of debate but simple historical fact. He demanded obediance to the Party. Are the ones not in the party the "little people?"

vox

[peaccenicked]

I think you opened a thread on this and never replied to it. Then you opened a new thread to avoid this question.
Why did you not choose to defend your 'cut' and 'paste'
from Chomsky. Do you really find ''pissing" about so much fun''. Everybody on the site following that thread might feel a little disappointed with your abandonment Chomsky to ''power mad'' Leninists. You seem to be saying that Chomsky is right but you want to keep the 'memory hole' plugged up. Is not unfair to to insist that you are right about lenin and not to reply to the criticism of Chomsky then try to evade the dicussion of Chomsky by starting a new thread on a different aspect of Lenin.
You might be trying to piss me about but I think that extends beyond that to yourself. Here at least you have been successful. Learn to win.

[vox]

"I think you opened a thread on this and never replied to it. Then you opened a new thread to avoid this question."

If I'm avoiding, why have I responded?

I'm afraid that doesn't wash, peacenicked.

As for Chomsky, I like what he wrote, that's why I pasted it here. The difference between you and me is that I give credit and you seem to take credit.

Of course, I understand that need in you, for, left on your own, you write things like this: "You might be trying to piss me about but I think that extends beyond that to yourself."

Grammar, brother. Learn it, know it, love it.

vox

[peaccenicked]

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)