Are we correct?

[R_P_A_S]

Is it arrogant for us on the left to argue that our politics, our theory and philosophy is "the correct one" and not just some emotionally driven rant?

Or that our politics are based mainly on materialism, the history of human civilizations and economics. as opposed to finger pointing and looking for cheap scape goats?

Is out theory justified and solid?

I would like to think it is. BUT is this just OUR opinion.... I don't want this to turn into a left vs left.. uh Trots vs Stalinist or some other anti-dialectics vs dialectics battle.

This is a discussion to compare the main ideology and philosophy of the left, against the conservative, capitalist and those proletariat like us who have no class consciousness.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well, we don't really have an 'opinion', we have an objective, and if they do not want to reach that objective, then we are on a higher level than them. It's not a matter of 'conservative versus socialist', but rather 'revolutionary versus reactionary'.

[bezdomni]

We have two things on our side that the right doesn't have:
1) Science
2) History

Also, the color red.

[black magick hustla]

Depends.

I believe that historical materialism, and materialism, are not only opinons, but objective reality.

However, socialism?

Communists come proclaiming the kingdom of god, as if it is the objective conclusion of historical trends. We cannot be sure this will happen, we can theorize to a certain extent but really, global socialism also requres a "leap of faith". becaise we cannot foresee the future.

However, it is us, dreamers, that have always changed society; us people with the ability to dream and trust in our own dreams. If you stop trying to reach the stars, you die.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:18 pm
Is it arrogant for us on the left to argue that our politics, our theory and philosophy is "the correct one" and not just some emotionally driven rant?

Or that our politics are based mainly on materialism, the history of human civilizations and economics. as opposed to finger pointing and looking for cheap scape goats?

Is out theory justified and solid?

I would like to think it is. BUT is this just OUR opinion.... I don't want this to turn into a left vs left.. uh Trots vs Stalinist or some other anti-dialectics vs dialectics battle.

This is a discussion to compare the main ideology and philosophy of the left, against the conservative, capitalist and those proletariat like us who have no class consciousness.
I don't see we cannot consider ourselves to be correct. We have science on our side, history on our side and how many do you know who think communism is a good idea but only works in theory? If we convinced those people our numbers would swell greatly.

And even if we aren't provably correct, we are definately correct when compared to the stagnating, archaic views of the far right, who still believe in "race" as if we the world was still in the 1850s.

[BobKKKindle$]

Suggesting that Marxism is somehow scientific and is based on objective analysis is somewhat problematic, because Marxism does not fulfill one of the most important conditions and criteria for any scientific theory - it cannot, in many respects, be shown to be false primarily because the primary hypothesis of Marxism - that revolution is inevitable as a result of the internal contradictions of Capitalism - cannot be disproven or refuted as Marxists are always able to 'modify' their theory to ensure that objective reality is still compatible with this hypothesis, for example through developing and expanding on the countervailing trends to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time.

I personally do not feel that Socialists need to prove that they are 'correct' in scientific terms - Socialism as a political ideology and a possible socio-economic system reflects the class interests of the proletariat, and fundamentally I feel that however much we may not want to admit it, the motivation of all socialists is based on an emotional drive and an appreciation of the values of justice and equality. That is not to say I am oppossed to rational theory and debate however, but I broadly am sceptical of all attempts to apply the scientific method to human societies..

[luxemburg89]

1) Science
2) History


I would be wary - although we know the Soviet Union was hardly a communist state as Marx intended - many people think it was. We have public opinion and people's innacurate view of history against us. Similarly Romantics, impressionists, surrealists and cubists (all puryeyors of the arts) have been, at least a fair number, loyal to the revolution. I would say that to an extent science is on our side, i.e. Social Darwinism being absolute bollocks, but also it's important to remember the extent to which art is on our side - and i would hope ours is a revolution led by artists and poets rather than by scientists.

To clarify, Marx was not a scientist and Marxism is not scientific. In his youth Marx was a Byronic poet and is widely considered to be the last Romantic, and the romantics were CERTAINLY not scientists. Just because he no longer wrote in verse form does not make his work any less poetic:

"A spectre is hanging over europe" - Romantic imagery of ghosts
"Worker's of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains" - Romantic Imagery of chains.
"Man becomes an appendage of the machine" - Romantic rebellion against the Bourgeois system of production.

Perhaps a fairer assessment is that it is a scientific method of analysis presented and exercised in a poetic way.

[bezdomni]

I was referring to Historical Materialism, the scientific analysis of history and class.

Whoever said science and poetics are mutually exclusive? That's rubbish. Art and science are complementary, not at odds.

[Anarchovampire]

When you think in general, it is very arrogant for any party to think they are the right party... but each party/group/ideology does. We think we are right fundamentally because we believe it ourselves.

But in the end, I believe when an outsider looks into the different politicking here, they will see us as the 'correct' theory for several reasons:

First - We are a popular (as in populist) movement, the voice of the people versus the voice of the rulers

Second - Anarchism and true communism promote true equality amongst the masses no matter the race/religion/creed of any human being as long as they contribute to the greater society

Third - We do all of this with little thought to an unjustified enemy. Our enemy is those who directly offend us, the rich ruling class. Take Nazism: Jews, communists, thinkers in general become a scape goat, not a real enemy. This is what makes them a 'wrong' ideology.

Fourth - Our final goal is a peaceful society based on coopertation, not competion. Our entire drive is to bring people together as one, not divide them apart

On these four levels, I believe (of instance) an alien with no idea of politics would pick us as the 'correct' form of government because we instill morales for the greater good and not just personal gain.

[Idola Mentis]

There's a myriad of ways to arrange the infrastructure so that human beings can survive in it. The many ways proposed by socialism is just a few of the imagined and unimagined possibilities. Many variations on capitalism works too, but they work by accumulating power and resources in a way that is not sustainable, and inflicts immense and unnecessary suffering in the process.

I think that even if an infrastructure built in a truly free society turns out to inflict even more suffering, it will be worth it, because at least then the suffering will be our own damn fault, and for us to do something about. That is why we are justified in saying that the ideologies of the left are the better choices.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Are 'we' right? No. There is no such thing as being "right" in politics(the affiliation doesn't matter). Just different forms of thought and what is "right". Politics are alot like morals and religion. Everyone has an opinion, no ones' right but no one is wrong either.


Edit: It does not "promote equality", it forces it. True equality comes when everyone accepts everyone elses' differneces. That's not going to happen...ever, because there's always going to be bigots and such.

[luxemburg89]

The way I see it, if the revolution is to be successful we must always act on the idea that we are correct in our theory. We must constantly ask ourselves questions about it so as to re-affirm our beliefs, and we must retain individuality, I don't want a revolution led by robots.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:18 pm
Is it arrogant for us on the left to argue that our politics, our theory and philosophy is "the correct one" and not just some emotionally driven rant?
Yes, it is right.
Perhaps arrogant as well, but that's okay.
It's right because when parting from a common premise which must necessarily be established in every political discourse between writer and audience and in our case is democracy and universal freedom, communism defends freedom and the alternatives don't. Therefore you can rest assured that we're right and they're wrong. If not wrong, they're parting from outdated and authoritarian principles. The obvious answer is the latter. They may not assume this fact, but it's true. The three pillars of liberalism: liberty equality and fraternity are not actually acquirable through liberalism and yes through communism. The difference between us and them is that we believe in these things and they've long abandoned them.

[Concept]

i've often thought about this myself but then remember what the left is all about, equality
i have yet to see true equality under capitalism and realize the only way is the alternative

history has not been kind to us and we have quite an uphill battle in convincing the masses but it can be done
an example...whenever i'm reading communist literature at work, they say y r u reading that...then i explain a little of what i know about it (still a newb when it comes to the doctrine or ideology or whatever) and their response is then oh i don't know much about politics
ppl r either too lazy or too complacent with how things r run to read about any alternatives

just keep on believing and educating whoever u can about the truths of communism and other leftist ideology
if not we can always go :ph34r: :D

[People's Councillor]

Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 01, 2007 04:03 pm
Edit: It does not "promote equality", it forces it. True equality comes when everyone accepts everyone elses' differneces. That's not going to happen...ever, because there's always going to be bigots and such.
I have some problems with this. First, equality does not come from tolerance of differences. That is a decidedly liberal position. Equality comes about when people realize that certain differences, such as race or gender, don't really exist, and when the actual material differences in property have been done away with.

Second, "there will always be bigots" is a tremendous cop-out. What we must realize is that people are bigots because of what they've been told. Nobody is born hating blacks, gays, women, jews, or anybody else. They learn that hate. It is possible to unlearn it, and it is possible to prevent the learning. What we must do is make it possible for bigots to unlearn the hate, and we must do all in our power to prevent the next generation, which will hopefully be born under socialism, to never learn it.

Way to repeat yourself, me.

In addition, nobody is born a socialist, no matter how much we may flatter ourselves. We came about it somehow, through music, through reading, through an accidental click on wikipedia, however. And we liked it, and it attracted us. Were we socialists before then? No. Is a bigot a bigot before his/her mother makes him/her dance around a flourescent swastika taped to the floor? No. It's a learning process.

That's all for now.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 01, 2007 01:03 pm
when everyone accepts everyone elses' differneces. That's not going to happen...ever, because there's always going to be bigots and such.
This sounds like a great step towards surrendering the process of ending prejudice through education. Typical mindset of the Southern US, where they want you to tolerate their own and other peoples' racism, sexism, nationalism, and homophobia.

[People's Councillor]

echo...echo...echo...echo...

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+June 05, 2007 11:03 pm--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ June 05, 2007 11:03 pm)
Friedrich [email protected] 01, 2007 01:03 pm
when everyone accepts everyone elses' differneces. That's not going to happen...ever, because there's always going to be bigots and such.
This sounds like a great step towards surrendering the process of ending prejudice through education. Typical mindset of the Southern US, where they want you to tolerate their own and other peoples' racism, sexism, nationalism, and homophobia. [/b]
Eh, yes and no. I do live in that wretched part of the country, but that's the budding psychiatrist in me. There are many reasons for alot of the world's bigotry, and most of them can be traced back to instinct and childhood. Example:



Racism/homophobia/things such as that(short of sexism): This stems from our inherent way of "grouping" all things from our first encounters with them. Let's just say the first time primitive man saw a Sabre Toothed Tiger, he gave it a chance to be friends with it. Then, the cat kills him and his family watches in horror. They go back to their group, speak of this horrid creature, and all ofthem assume all Sabre Toothed Tigers are out to kill them. IF we did not assume that, we would all be dead. Things that are radically different from us, we give a chance too on our first encounters.

Example: When the Europeans found the Black man, they were intriqued(sp?). They saw something that looked..basically like them, a few differences. But, they were obviously far less advanced in knowledge. So, they quickly come to the conclusion of "Inferior". Some of them feel like they should exterminate them, others feel like they ought to bring them the gift of their knowledge, others still want them as slaves. Guess who won?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What an utterly unmaterialistic view of history.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 06, 2007 01:01 am
[QUOTE=Friedrich Nietzsche,June 01, 2007 01:03 pm]
Example: When the Europeans found the Black man, they were intriqued(sp?). They saw something that looked..basically like them, a few differences. But, they were obviously far less advanced in knowledge. So, they quickly come to the conclusion of "Inferior". Some of them feel like they should exterminate them, others feel like they ought to bring them the gift of their knowledge, others still want them as slaves. Guess who won?
When they found the black man... they were far less advance in knowledge??? are you fucking kidding me. :blink:

It has nothing to do with being stupid and smarter.

[hajduk]

WITH LOT OF OPINION YOU CAN MAKE ONE GOD CORRECT OPINION