THE LENIN WAX MUSEUM V.2.0 - The International Socialist F

[redstar2000]

While the server was down (again!), this thread was deleted. So, I'm bringing back the original post...and we can start all over again.
------------------------------------

It is becoming rarer for people at Che-Lives to confront Leninism "face-to-face", so to speak. Many of the Leninists who used to post here have "moved upwards" (as they claim) to the International Socialist Front Forums. Even the ones that remain exhibit a marked timidity...they post in threads where their Leninism is not in question or, if they do attempt to defend their politics, they do so only briefly and then return to the ISP forums and complain bitterly about the poor reception for their views here.

As a public service, therefore, I have taken it upon myself to reproduce some of the more "sparkling" examples of the sort of cadaverous politics that goes on over there. Keep in mind that this thread is not about personalities...it's about the attempt to make the dead rise and talk again, as if it were still 1920 or 1930 or 1940.

Think of it as costume drama, the re-enactment of a once glorious but ultimately catastrophic era in working class history.

The Shape of Post-Capitalist Society

You do not need to instill fear to ensure homogeneity. Homogeneity arises through people having equal socialisation and material conditions. It is not an exact science; I am not talking about every individual wanting to have breakfast at the same time, but that everyone will work for the good of the whole of society, will adhere to social and moral guidelines and conventions, and have a feeling of duty and patriotic pride towards their society. -- Posted July 3, 2003, Death Match forum, "Marxism-Leninism" thread, page 1.

I have drastically changed my political opinion this year. I guess I'm at the point of my life where I start changing politically (I seem to be getting more and more authoritarian all the time, not that that's a bad thing). -- Posted July 6, 2003, etc.

Leninism has not been practised in a developed country, I do not know how to work it precisely either. But his ideas protect working class power and therefore to a large extent are essential. As I said I don't think there will be any chance of revolution without massive social change or some kind of coup, although that is hard to imagine that simply a coup would work. -- Posted July 6, 2003, etc.

A citizen with a bourgeois mind will never understand the beauty of communism. If they canot be re-educated then they simply will never understand. Unfortunately they must be executed. It is for the good of humanity. If this line is not taken, then all of our work will be in vain. You also must remember that this stage is only temporary. Once the bourgeois mentality is finally eliminated, there will be no need for executions. It may be primative, but it is correct and necessary. -- Posted July 10, 2003, etc.

I believe the Chairman and I see eye to eye on this one. What you must now understand is that no one expects everyone to be able to execute a subversionist. You obviously cannot and that is not a bad trait at all. As a matter of fact it is a very admirable, however you must be silent about it. Not agreeing with executions is hardly a counter-revolutionary ideal as long as you understand they are necessary and are willing to support the party by being quiet. -- Posted July 10, 2003, etc.

Compulsory Military Service

Any member of a particular nation should be willing to defend their country if under attack. -- Posted April 28, 2003, Death Match forum, "Conscription and Mandatory Military Service Terms" thread, page 1.

I believe that military service has positive effects on the social education of one as Enver Hoxha pointed out and thus 1 year military service as a basis for everyone capable. -- Posted April 28, 2003, etc.

. I also believe in a mandatory military service, whether on the front or behind the lines, for all male citizens (1-2 years). -- Posted May 1, 2003, etc.

. I also believe in a mandatory military service, whether on the front or behind the lines, for all male citizens (1-2 years). -- Posted May 4, 2003, etc.

True marxism places too much responsibility into the hands of the people. --Posted June 18, 2003, etc., page 2.

Leninism = Marxism

The authoritarian government is as much a part of Marxism as communism is the end of it. -- Posted April 18, 2003 in the Politics & Economics Forum, "To all the Authoritarian Marxists" thread, page 1.

I am against the death penalty because I believe that forcing these people to work for the rest of their lives is far more productive than wasting resources killing them. -- Posted April 20, 2003, etc.

If I recall correctly; rivers in the Soviet Union were created simply by the prison working force alone. Then again, there are pleanty of people that I think deserve a bullet to the brain. -- Posted April 20, 2003, etc.

I have actually grown to respect Authoritarians. When I first visited this board I was a little more closed minded, but I've learned to comprehend and understand the other side (or the same side with different views). -- Posted May 6, 2003, etc.

They did a lot of unusual methods of re-learning. For one person they hung ping-pong balls from them and slapped their cheeks with the little red book until their cheeks bled. -- Posted May 11, 2003, etc., page 2.

We can only hope that once the PRC becomes economically stable and powerful that it will turn aside from revisionism. The PLA remains loyal. -- Posted May 15, 2003, etc.

We respect and praise only the proletarian leader and execute only the reactionaries who stand in the way of the progression of humanity. -- Posted May 20, 2003, etc.

The existence of the notion of "libertarian marxist" force true Marxists to call themselves "authoritarian" in order to distinguish themselves from such revisionists. But when "libertarian marxism" will suffer a great defeat in the ideological battle with TRUE MARXISM, the term "authoritarian" will never be in use. -- Posted May 23, 2003, etc., page 3.

...if you destructively criticize Marxism - Leninism, then be sure you will be OPPRESSED BY THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT. -- Posted May 23, 2003, etc.

Lenin developed Marx's theory by making it conform to the reality of IMPERIALISM (as you know Marx didn't live during IMPERIALISM), also Lenin developed the theory of SOCIALISTIC REVOLUTION. Proceeding from IMPERIALISTIC REALITY of his time Lenin made the conclusion that SOCIALISM can take a decisive victory in one country, and this country not necessarily needs to be DEVELOPED, but it has to be the 'weak link' in the imperialistic chain. From the said above each intelligent person can conclude that Lenin creatively developed Marxism, and that is why we should call such a developed theory MARXISM- LENINISM. -- Posted May 23, 2003, etc.

You don’t recognize Lenin’s contribution to the Marxist theory and that is why there is a possibility of you becoming revisionist. You wouldn’t intentionally revise revolutionary theory, but you would probably make some serious mistakes in the result of your disrespect which you show regarding Leninist theoretical addition to Marxism. Such disrespect is potential revisionism. -- Posted on May 22, 2003, etc.

Constructive criticism is based on Marxism - Leninism, in other words it doesn’t contradict to the communist ideology. In contrary, destructive criticism always deform or revise Marxism - Leninism under the veil of development of the revolutionary theory. As long as you criticize the party’s policy constructively your name will not be placed on the blacklist. -- Posted on May 22, 2003, etc.

... it should be pretty clear that Lenin developed Marx’s theory, and therefore Leninism = Marxism. Soviet theoreticians defined Leninism as Marxism of the period of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. Thus, by denying Leninism you deny Marxism. -- Posted on May 22, 2003, etc.

Marxist.org is not created by communists. That site is the shame of Marxism; too much bullshit is over there. Obviously it doesn’t deserve to possess such an address. -- Posted on May 22, 2003, etc.

Lenin was Marxist and it is very silly to call his theory different to Marx’s one. It is also very harmful to make such distinction. Modern Marxism is Marxism - Leninism. -- Posted on May 22, 2003, etc.

... there can’t be 2 or 3 Marxist parties in one country, as there is usually 1 genuine communist party and the rest are the parties formed of traitors. -- Posted May 24, 2003, etc., page 4.

You leave the channels open for a long debate and you're allowing the sabotage of the moment and a procces that will lead to nowhere and ultimately will give the power back to the rulling class. -- Posted May 30, 2003, etc.

Giving one party such power can be bad, choose your leader carefully. -- Posted June 21, 2003, etc., page 5.

I doubt that any socialist leader would suddenly become corrupted as socialist leaders have a tendency to be intellectually evolved to a higher level than the masses. -- Posted June 21, 2003, etc.


Of course, this is very far from a complete sample, but you get the idea. I suspect Lenin himself would be a little embarrassed by this vulgarity; he was a communist, after all, if not a very good one.

The combination of ruthless (and random) brutality, the mindless repetition of formulas without understanding, the "ideal" of communism degraded to the level of an ants' nest...this is all that's left of the Leninist paradigm.

But such is often the fate of dead revolutionaries; it's not just their statues that get shit upon by pigeons.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

pffttt. I coulda done that


good post though

[Severian]

Pity the original was lost. I think I nailed your political syndrome pretty well. Can't be bothered to type it twice, though, not sure it was worth typing once.

[Cassius Clay]

Hmm perhaps you could bring back the other posts aswell and not just your own. But then again I'm sure if you could of you would of right redstar.

See yeah.

[redstar2000]

Pity the original was lost...Can't be bothered to type it twice, though, not sure it was worth typing once.

Agreement at last! :biggrin:

Hmm perhaps you could bring back the other posts as well and not just your own. But then again I'm sure if you could of you would of right redstar.

Quite right; I can't recover even the posts that I made in response. I saved the original for inclusion on my site, that's why I was able to re-post it again.

The Che-Lives server is approaching "melt-down" and if you write anything that you really like, better keep a copy on your hard drive.

Seriously.

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

'they post in threads where their Leninism is not in question or, if they do attempt to defend their politics, they do so only briefly and then return to the ISP forums and complain bitterly about the poor reception for their views here.'

I have never turned away from a debate with you or anyone here redstar2000, those such as Cassius, nateddi, Comrade Junichi etc. would not either.

You know as well as I that those such as Cassius, Mazdak, RAF, Junichi, thursday are intelligent individuals and its senseless to belittle them.

You have a included a number of quotes from me I see:

'They did a lot of unusual methods of re-learning. For one person they hung ping-pong balls from them and slapped their cheeks with the little red book until their cheeks bled.'

I have to question as to why did you include this. This came up in a thread where we were both criticising and praising the GPCR. I criticised it greatly. This quote you have here is me simply stating a fact of what happened. I didn't suggest I supported this at all. Surely you read this in its context, so what point are you trying to make by including this in a criticism of ISF, are you criticisng us by saying we should not state and fact of history?

Much of these quotes I don't see much why you include. Such as many of the ones on 'Leninism = Marxism'. What are you trying to say by this, you know we are Marxist-Leninists.

In addition you have to consider who said these things and whether their views are representative of the whole. If we were to pick out some quotes to defame this site, in one week we could do far better than you have here. Though that is because this site has many more members.

[redstar2000]

I have never turned away from a debate with you or anyone here redstar2000, those such as Cassius, nateddi, Comrade Junichi etc. would not either.

I did not say that, CM. I suggested that Leninism was becoming rare on this board, which it is.

You know as well as I that those such as Cassius, Mazdak, RAF, Junichi, thursday are intelligent individuals and its senseless to belittle them.

I said, right at the beginning of the thread, that this was not about personalities. If anyone feels "belittled" by their own words, I think that's clearly their own fault.

This quote you have here is me simply stating a fact of what happened. I didn't suggest I supported this at all.

No? I just went back to that thread a couple of minutes ago to see what you did say; you said that you were unsure of "what worked" and "what didn't".

The general tone (or context) of that portion of the thread was one in which people debated the "merits" of summary execution vs. forced labor vs. lengthy imprisonment for "counter-revolutionaries"...at no point was any effort made to seriously discuss exactly what a counter-revolutionary was, except perhaps someone guilty of "unconstructive criticism" (like me).

You may indeed not "approve" of torture, CM, but the fellow you admire sufficiently to name yourself after him didn't seem to have a problem with it.

Does that suggest anything to you?

On the one hand, you say...

Much of these quotes I don't see much why you include. Such as many of the ones on 'Leninism = Marxism'. What are you trying to say by this, you know we are Marxist-Leninists.

and then, on the other hand, you say...

In addition you have to consider who said these things and whether their views are representative of the whole. If we were to pick out some quotes to defame this site, in one week we could do far better than you have here.

You can't have it both ways, CM, not even "dialectically". If your complaint is that it's meaningless to quote the Leninist views that you uphold, how is that "defaming" the site? If your complaint is that the views I quote are "unrepresentative" of the site, then why do folks there make such a fuss about being "serious" as opposed to the "unserious" people here?

Of course, there are a few non-Leninists at ISF, just as there are a few Leninists here. I think it's fair--or "representative"--to quote Leninists from ISF, just as if you were to quote anti-Leninists from this board.

But this is not about boards...it's about political ideas and whether they are "good" ideas or "bad" ideas.

And that, I suggest, is where nearly all you guys are "letting down the side".

Confronted directly with the core assumption that Lenin made--that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the dictatorship of a vanguard party and especially its leader--you take it as a "given" on the ISF board (among yourselves) but weasel when you have to defend it here. (Exceptions: Mazdak before he was banned; and Comrade RAF, whose blunt honesty is as refreshing as his actual political views are utterly reprehensible.)

So to give a fair picture of contemporary Leninist views, I went to a Leninist message board. I picked out the stuff that I thought was most revealing of what you people really think.

Perhaps there is something in all those words that is misleading...but I honestly don't think so.

And I "know" it irritates you no end, but I still want to know: why should you guys be boss?

And, of course, I'm always willing to hear replies to my other question: why should we let those guys be boss?

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

I suppose Leninism is becoming rarer on this board. Because many have left or very early on were banned. e.g. Che Guevara was banned, nateddi left, lots of other examples.

I am not saying that they would feel belittled by their own words, but that your comments on it simply being a 'Lenin wax Museum' suggest we are not capable of any reasonable and logicla debate. And I am saying that you know we are, we are intelligent individuals.

'No? I just went back to that thread a couple of minutes ago to see what you did say; you said that you were unsure of "what worked" and "what didn't".'

Yes, I did say I do not know what worked and what didn't, but that doesn't suggest I though that this particular practice would work.

I did criticise it quite openly you will see as I said:
'The problem with the cultural revolution is perhaps the political intrigue surrounding it. The fact that the leadership was not particularly cohesive, and some manipulated Mao in his old age. Certain ideas of the cultural revolution were correct. However, some were wrongly persecuted and in the end it failed'

My main criticism of it is that the goal of the GPCR was never clear as Mao had intended it to be, since Mao had little role in it.

I am sure you know the political intrigue surrounding the GPCR and Mao's role in it. Also, why do you say Mao enjoyed tortue? I certainly don't...


The most annoying thing you have said here is this:
'Confronted directly with the core assumption that Lenin made--that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the dictatorship of a vanguard party and especially its leader--you take it as a "given" on the ISF board (among yourselves) but weasel when you have to defend it here. (Exceptions: Mazdak before he was banned; and Comrade RAF, whose blunt honesty is as refreshing as his actual political views are utterly reprehensible.)'

I have defended a vangaud party and its leader as a dictator to form the DoP here as strongly as I have done on ISF.

You and I even had a debate about it here, where you compared a quote from Kim Jong Il from a concept expounded in Leviathan. I certainlt don't 'weasal' out of defending it here.

Most of the quotes you included are quotes I agree with and like very much. But some, are from Leninists, but don't necessarily represent some kind of single collective view. Amongst us Leninists we do disagree somewhat.

'And I "know" it irritates you no end, but I still want to know: why should you guys be boss?'

We are not some kind of small and irrelevant ideological group. I think you will notice that I and all others who call themselves M-L on ISF, except CC, support almost every socialist society that has existed. That doesn't give us the right to be boss. But unsurprisingly we think our ideas are right and at the same time can effectively argue them as you can yours.

I also "know" that you must get irritated visiting our site and looking at our views same as I do over your views and many other here on this site.

One last thing, on the quote you gave from ISF about marxists.org
Is it that you say this site was created by Marxsists? maybe but theres an awful lot of writers included that oppose each other. In addition, they do criticise the Soviet Union very much saying it is totalitarian, but at the same time praise it as offering a system of society superior to capitalism.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 6:37 pm on July 14, 2003)

[RedComrade]

Ick, I think I can taste some vomit in the back of my throat! They otta rename themselves Pol Pot lives. Leninism is a totalitarian sore on the back of an otherwise respectable political movement and theory. Communists of the here and now have a duty to cleanse themselves from the filth of those murderers who have tarnished our name in the course of history.

One thing positive I will say is Comrade RAF, Chairman Mao, Cassius, and Thursday have never shied from a debate and are all highly educated individuals. I am confident that such intelligent comrades will come around eventually to the historical and theoretical flaws of their theories and how they conflict with orthodox Marxism. As an ideology that is supposed to revolve around historical materialism we cannot use outdated methods to solve what is very clearly a different material situation. Just as the burgeois's methods of dismantling feudalism are no longer applicable to a non-feudalist society so to our leninist methods outdated for todays changing material conditions.

However, I must say in all fairness that Che Lives is little better than ISF, what we quite thankfully lack in fanatical extemism we make up for with stupidity and lack of education and even familiarity with the most basic concepts of leftist theory. Too often I see shit like "fuck capitalism man" and "yo did you see the size of that bong", oh well though we all gotta start somewhere I guess.

(Edited by RedComrade at 6:50 pm on July 14, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

To bad. I had a good post in there mocking Redstar2000. I can't be bothered with commenting on RS's whiny little tirade again so I will stick again with simply advising him he is a complete hack.

[canikickit]

Too bad, I had a post in here advising RAF to look up "bonobo" in a dictionary.
I even provided him with a link (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm).

[redstar2000]

...so I will stick again with simply advising him he is a complete hack.

Comrade RAF is on to my "secret"; clearly he has somehow discovered or deduced the fact that I do have an extensive background in anti-capitalist and underground journalism...though how he found or figured this out, I have no idea.

So be it, I am indeed an "old newspaper hack"...I hope the rest of you won't hold it against me.

That doesn't give us the right to be boss. But unsurprisingly we think our ideas are right and at the same time can effectively argue them as you can yours.

In other words, you think you should be boss because "your ideas are right". That, at least, is a clear answer.

But are your ideas "right"? Most Leninist parties have never made a revolution. The ones that were successful have all reverted to capitalism except for North Korea, a "forbidden kingdom" if there ever was one. (Vietnam is in the process of building up its private sector and Cuba's revolution did not involve a Leninist party at all.)

In the advanced capitalist countries, the Leninist parties have pretty much unanimously embraced vulgar reformism...much like the Social Democrats after World War I. They spend their energies in playing at bourgeois electoral schemes of one sort or another, or trying to take over the "leadership" of some reformist group, etc., etc. I concede there may be occasional exceptions to this...but, in general, Leninist parties in the west are of even less political significance (in a revolutionary sense) than anarchists.

Thus, "bad ideas". Thus, continuous decline in political significance. Thus, no right to be boss.

And it never even occurs to you--which really does irritate me--that bosses are not necessary. You cannot grasp the fact that if you were successful, all that you would accomplish would be to cut your own throats as communists. You would inevitably destroy what you sought to make your revolution accomplish.

Putting you in the "best possible light", you aspire to the position of "benevolent despot"...ruling the working class "for its own good" and looking out "for its best interests". And you have the monumental gall to call this arrangement a "dictatorship of the proletariat"...when on its own face and by your own words it is nothing of the sort.

You can only make yourself into a new ruling class...whether it takes one generation or two or three, that's what happens. Your "good intentions" mean nothing in any contest with material reality; if you control and manage the means of production, the Marxist prediction is that you will inevitably acquire the habits, the ideas, and the practices of a ruling class...in our era, of course, that means a new capitalist class.

And that's exactly what happened, isn't it?

:cool:



(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:32 pm on July 14, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

I'm not sure about the Leninist issue. What do you think of the argument that some make, that they all went back to capitalism because the revolutions all occured in feudalistic societies?

[redstar2000]

I'm not sure about the Leninist issue. What do you think of the argument that some make, that they all went back to capitalism because the revolutions all occured in feudalistic societies?

I think the argument is correct; I've made it many times myself. In the final analysis, Leninism in pre-capitalist societies is just a way to make a bourgeois revolution without calling it that.

But keep in mind that the Leninists have always upheld those revolutions (and still do) as "proof" that Lenin was "right". And they blame the restoration of capitalism on "traitors"...people who rose up through the ranks of the vanguard party and, when they reached the "top", suddenly and without apparent cause became "counter-revolutionaries"...perhaps as a consequence of "original sin", who knows?

Thus, as I've said elsewhere, I don't think Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky or Mao were "devils" or simply motivated by a "blood-thirsty lust for power"...they all thought they were doing the "right thing", laying the foundations for communist society. They were wrong and their main error was the un-Marxist (idealist) view that social orders can be changed by willpower without regard for material conditions.

This doesn't say all that much about modern Leninists in the advanced capitalist countries--who have very different problems. But they continually bring that old stuff up to "justify" their views...and it does no such thing.

But that doesn't stop them from trying.

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

'So be it, I am indeed an "old newspaper hack"...I hope the rest of you won't hold it against me.'

I thought your writing style always resembled that of a journalist. I have also noticed that a user known as 'antieverything' has a very similar if less competent style.

'In other words, you think you should be boss because "your ideas are right". That, at least, is a clear answer.'

Looking at things from the historical perspective of a Marxist. Yes, the working class and the ideas that they develope with the progression of society is right. I view your ideas as wrong because I see them as tainted by the ideals of the bourgeoisie. Similarly you think my ideals incorporate the same societal strucutre as bourgeois society.

'But are your ideas "right"? Most Leninist parties have never made a revolution. The ones that were successful have all reverted to capitalism except for North Korea, a "forbidden kingdom" if there ever was one. (Vietnam is in the process of building up its private sector and Cuba's revolution did not involve a Leninist party at all.)'

There have been many Marxist-Leninist revolutions; Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Korea, Cuba etc.
Anyway, I view them as having been defeated by Imperialism. Not that they destroyed themselves, but they fought the class struggle but ultimately lost.

'And it never even occurs to you--which really does irritate me--that bosses are not necessary. You cannot grasp the fact that if you were successful, all that you would accomplish would be to cut your own throats as communists. You would inevitably destroy what you sought to make your revolution accomplish.'

Ha! Again, I cannot believe how you are twisting my ideology. I most profoundly and absolutely agree bosses are not necessary. Why have you said such a thing, you can imagine how much this irritates me.

'Putting you in the "best possible light", you aspire to the position of "benevolent despot"...ruling the working class "for its own good" and looking out "for its best interests". And you have the monumental gall to call this arrangement a "dictatorship of the proletariat"...when on its own face and by your own words it is nothing of the sort.'

This heirarchical power structure exists inside a system that is known as the ditatorship of the proletariat by the fact that it is the dictatorship of proletarian ideas and that the system of society removes the economic conditions that created the subjugation and expropriation of our labour that created the class system. The class system is not based on the fact that a political elite holds power, but that an economic elite holds political power.

'You can only make yourself into a new ruling class...whether it takes one generation or two or three, that's what happens. Your "good intentions" mean nothing in any contest with material reality; if you control and manage the means of production, the Marxist prediction is that you will inevitably acquire the habits, the ideas, and the practices of a ruling class...in our era, of course, that means a new capitalist class.'

If our set of ideas control the means of production we will can alter the economic structure of society. That it becomes that ownership of the means of production does not facilitate economic subjugation. We propose a a centralised, planned economy. Where ownership, exchange and distribution is done in a political arena rather than private individuals. We wish to bring the masses of society material equality by taking production away from the forces of the market and putting it in a public, political arena that is dominated by working-class theory.

And ultimately through this we wish to create a society where all correct social behaviour is so internalised that we no longer have any need for bosses. I agree that bosses are not desirable, but that they do not negate the existence of a socialist society. That although a new class will be created, that is the state. It is not a class defined by its economic disposition, but defined by its political disposition. It is necessary though to create the conditions in society for a new revolution that will lead to a communist society where there are no bosses.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 1:52 pm on July 15, 2003)

[redstar2000]

I view your ideas as wrong because I see them as tainted by the ideals of the bourgeoisie.

In what way? Where is the bourgeois "influence"? If you think that someone's ideas are a reflection of a bourgeois ideological influence, that's fair enough...but you have to show why you think that's true.

For example, Leninism asserts that the working class "needs" a vanguard party to "lead" it to victory over the bourgeoisie. Is this not a reflection of the prejudices of all ruling classes in history? Ordinary people are "incapable" of "great deeds"...only the "inspired leadership" of "great men" can "lift" ordinary people from their normal depths of mediocrity.

And when the old ruling class is overthrown, "great men" are still required to construct a new social order...left to themselves, ordinary people would just fuck up or fuck off.

True, Leninists claim that after a hundred years or a thousand, all will be raised to the ranks of the "great" and classless society will finally emerge...but meanwhile, what has changed? An old elite (or ruling class) has been replaced by a new one. And all the blood and suffering that went into making the revolution??? Meaningless.

Anyway, I view them as having been defeated by Imperialism. Not that they destroyed themselves, but they fought the class struggle but ultimately lost.

Well, there's no disgrace in defeat, if you go down fighting. But that didn't happen. The USSR and China and eastern Europe didn't succumb to an overwhelming military defeat at the hands of the imperialists. They surrendered without a shot being fired. Further, the same people, more or less, remained in power after the counter-revolutions...they just removed their "communist" suits and put on their hand-tailored capitalist suits. To say they were "defeated" suggests that a struggle took place...but there wasn't one. The Leninist vanguard leadership evolved into a new capitalist ruling class. The reason it was called a "velvet revolution" is because there was no real revolution (in the Marxist sense of the word) at all!

I most profoundly and absolutely agree bosses are not necessary.

Then you contradict the core assumption of your chosen ideology. Leninism says flatly that bosses are necessary for the transition from capitalism to communism (though it doesn't use that odious word, of course).

If you now choose to dispute that, then other Leninists are really going to start giving you a hard time.

This hierarchical power structure exists inside a system that is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat by the fact that it is the dictatorship of proletarian ideas...

What kind of "Marxism" is this? A dictatorship of ideas? That sounds like the kind of nutball idea that Hegel would have come up with...on a bad day.

Hierarchical power is exercised by living human beings situated in a specific historical moment; regardless of what ideas they may consciously seek to implement, their behavior is shaped by the material conditions in which they live. If you own and manage the means of production and hire wage labor, you will sooner or later "think like a capitalist". You can't help it.

...the system of society removes the economic conditions that created the subjugation and expropriation of our labour that created the class system. The class system is not based on the fact that a political elite holds power, but that an economic elite holds political power.

It does not remove those conditions; it simply alters them, re-arranges them. Instead of working for a private employer, you work for a state-own enterprise. But you still go to work, you still carry out instructions, you still get a paycheck which is still worth less than the value of your labor, you still have no significant input into the political processes of society, etc., etc., etc.

In the early years of Leninist revolutions, there was some mass participation, input, and even limited decision-making powers. Within a decade, for the most part, all that stuff was history.

We know that in real life people disagree with each other all the time; but were you to look at back issues of newspapers and magazines from any Leninist country--hell, any Leninist party--what would you find?

The sad fact of the matter is that there was more public controversy in the 13th century Catholic Church than in the 20th century Leninist movement...and the public played a bigger role.

we wish to create a society where all correct social behaviour is so internalised that we no longer have any need for bosses.

"All correct social behavior"? Should I laugh or weep?

A world "without sin" is called "Heaven" and doesn't exist. Who defines "correct social behavior"? And where does Marx ever suggest the "social insects" as a model for communist society?

That although a new class will be created, that is the state. It is not a class defined by its economic disposition, but defined by its political disposition.

That is what it claims...but Marxists know better. You may claim all the purely "political" motives you wish; the Marxist always looks behind the scenery to see who is getting paid to say what. The "political class" that runs the economic show is going to very quickly understand what is really to be gained...and will act accordingly.

It [the new class] is necessary though to create the conditions in society for a new revolution that will lead to a communist society where there are no bosses.

This appears unclear to me and may get you in further trouble with your orthodox associates. You appear to be suggesting that there are two proletarian revolutions required; the first to set up a "revolutionary dictatorship", and the second to overthrow it and finally establish communist society.

Can we just skip the first one?

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

'In what way? Where is the bourgeois "influence"? If you think that someone's ideas are a reflection of a bourgeois ideological influence, that's fair enough...but you have to show why you think that's true.'

I think your ideas are bourgeois for these reasons. The bourgeoisie has this great idea of social freedom and civil liberties etc. They deny any existence of a class struggle. You, in one of your comments suggested that in a post capitalist society people would 'gravitate towards work' and that decisions by political bodies would only be advisory and not compulsory. I believe you think these things beneficial because you have the same ideas as the bourgeoisie over individuals being free from all constraints a structured society places on them. But I believe that in reality there are constraints that will limit the freedom of certain bourgeois ideas and practices so that we can destroy them. This having been done we will see true liberty and freedom in that progressive ideas and progressive practices will rule.

I know you desire a classless society, but how do you suggest we achieve it. How do you suggest we fight the class struggle. My view is that in this respect also you are willing to compromise the liberties the bourgeoisie currently enjoy so that we can create a classless society. This is because you value the same things that the bourgeoisie does.

'True, Leninists claim that after a hundred years or a thousand, all will be raised to the ranks of the "great" and classless society will finally emerge...but meanwhile, what has changed? An old elite (or ruling class) has been replaced by a new one. And all the blood and suffering that went into making the revolution??? Meaningless.'

No, because this elite is one that is a political elite. It is a political elite that makes political strides, unparralelled in their magnitude previously in society, towards removing the conditions that allow for private ownership and upward economic mobility in society. They change the very structure of society so that the class that was economically subjugated is no longer subjugated. The working class, politically, still are organised as to have a political leadership. But this leadership previously was made up of the bourgeoisie, rich men with great economic influence who were only interested in their bourgeois class and perpetuating a divisive and unequal society.

This political leadership is required to create an organised class that can fight the class struggle. Once the class struggle has been won its existence is no longer required, but without it what exists is anarchy in a class society; the very anti-thesis of socialism.

How do you suggest we should shape human nature and create a mass of people who have all the conventions of a progressive society so inbuilt that they do not require any heirarchical structure of organisation and guidance?

How do you propose that the class system should be destroyed and we create a communist society? How can you do this without years to do it? And, without and kind of organised force to dictate the formation of a society that will cultivate the material conditions for a classless society, and to advance humanity to the stage where it will be able to live in a communist society.

'Hierarchical power is exercised by living human beings situated in a specific historical moment; regardless of what ideas they may consciously seek to implement, their behavior is shaped by the material conditions in which they live. If you own and manage the means of production and hire wage labor, you will sooner or later "think like a capitalist". You can't help it.'

A private individual would think like this. But I do not want to create a society in which private individuals exist. I wish to create a society in which a state exists that does not afford anyone the freedom of the accumulation of capital. All capital goes to the central body of the state and is distributed by a public beaurocracy as opposed to by a free market enterprise.

My criticism of your views of what makes my view of socialism unworkable is that you have an animal view of human nature. You seem to view human nature as so underdeveloped that humans will automatically want to revert to a capitalist society and behave in the same archaic way capitalists do; valueing only the self. The role of a socialist society is to create a highly organised and disciplines state that fights the class struggle to remove the material conditions that perpetuated this outmoded model of human nature. You seem to think that we must first prescribe almost communist-like conditions before human nature will begin to change slightly. Yet, you suggest a society, an almost direct leap into communism that would require very highly developed humans in terms of their ability to self-govern themselves and to see and thus reject the ills of capitalist society.

'Then you contradict the core assumption of your chosen ideology. Leninism says flatly that bosses are necessary for the transition from capitalism to communism (though it doesn't use that odious word, of course).

If you now choose to dispute that, then other Leninists are really going to start giving you a hard time.'

This concept that bosses are unneccesary implies to communist society; obviously not to socialist society. Bosses ultimately are not necessary.

I am going to skip over all your other points because if I'm honest I cannot be bothered to write much more currently, nor do I have the time. But there is one last thing I would like to address:

'This appears unclear to me and may get you in further trouble with your orthodox associates. You appear to be suggesting that there are two proletarian revolutions required; the first to set up a "revolutionary dictatorship", and the second to overthrow it and finally establish communist society.

Can we just skip the first one?'

My associates would have a problem with this? I don't think so. Firstly, you are very familar with Marx and so you know the Marxian interpretation of history. And you know Marx did talk of a second, but peaceful, proletarian revolution. In addition, I know you support the dictatorship of the proletariat, and so how can you suggest skipping the revolution that will create the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[redstar2000]

I think your ideas are bourgeois for these reasons. The bourgeoisie has this great idea of social freedom and civil liberties etc. They deny any existence of a class struggle.

Yes, that's true. But you certainly can't quote me as suggesting in any way that class struggle does not exist, nor can you quote me as ever suggesting that the "ideal" of "civil liberties" is, in fact, practiced by the bourgeoisie...except under extraordinary pressure from a rebellious working class. "Civil liberties" may be on the cover of capitalism's law books; savage repression of the working class is the content.

You, in one of your comments suggested that in a post capitalist society people would 'gravitate towards work' and that decisions by political bodies would only be advisory and not compulsory. I believe you think these things beneficial because you have the same ideas as the bourgeoisie over individuals being free from all constraints a structured society places on them.

Yes, among themselves, the bourgeoisie do believe in maximum liberty for themselves. Is that belief "not good enough" for the working class? If we have overthrown the old ruling class, is it somehow "wrong" for us to immediately claim for ourselves those liberties that have hither-to been the privilige of old ruling class?

But I believe that in reality there are constraints that will limit the freedom of certain bourgeois ideas and practices so that we can destroy them.

Fair enough, depending on what you really mean by bourgeois "ideas and practices". If you wish to prohibit the hiring of wage labor and the extraction of surplus value, do you imagine that I am going to "defend" that most-precious-of-all "bourgeois liberty"? Do you think any class-conscious worker would "defend" that?

So obviously, you have other things in mind. Be specific; what do you want to stop people from doing that they do now? And what is your justification for calling those things "bourgeois"?

I know you desire a classless society, but how do you suggest we achieve it. How do you suggest we fight the class struggle. My view is that in this respect also you are willing to compromise the liberties the bourgeoisie currently enjoy so that we can create a classless society. This is because you value the same things that the bourgeoisie does.

This is incoherent...but if I roughly understand it, you're saying that it would "hurt" the class struggle in some fashion and "delay" the achievement of communism if workers had real "civil liberties"--those that the bourgeoisie praise in words and deny in practice.

If I've understood you correctly, then, yes, you've nailed me. A revolutionary movement and a revolutionary society must be hyper-democratic and rich in all kinds of "civil liberties" and "social freedoms" for the working class and not for the old ruling class.

Otherwise, we'd just be trading the bosses we have now for you guys...and what's the point in that?

Thus, I concede you have a point; I am taking the most progressive ideas that the bourgeoisie had about freedom (say from 1789 to 1865 or thereabouts) but which were never extended in substance to the working class and saying yes, let us help ourselves to a generous portion of what has always been denied us.

Tell me what's wrong with that?

This political leadership is required to create an organised class that can fight the class struggle.

That's just repeating Lenin while using different words. The question remains: does the working class need a special political leadership (bosses) in order to fight the class struggle?

Marx said no; Lenin said yes. Who was right?

How do you suggest we should shape human nature...?

The "quick" answer is that it can't be done by an elite...except over many centuries. "Human nature" is a product of historical circumstances; if the working class spends several decades organizing itself to make communist revolution, then it will have already transformed itself into a class that is "ready" for self-rule.

On the other hand, if a Leninist party were to actually succeed in organizing the working class to "follow its leadership" in overthrowing capitalism, you'd still have a passive and servile working class with heads full of capitalist ideas...just one that had changed bosses. And long before you'd have the chance to "shape human nature", you yourselves would have degenerated into a new ruling class.

How do you propose that the class system should be destroyed and we create a communist society? How can you do this without years to do it? And, without any kind of organised force to dictate the formation of a society that will cultivate the material conditions for a classless society, and to advance humanity to the stage where it will be able to live in a communist society.

That last phrase is important: "to advance humanity to the stage where, etc., etc." What I assert is that a working class that is capable of genuine communist revolution and proceeds to do it is, by definition, already "advanced" enough to institute communism.

You can't do it for them.

My criticism of your views of what makes my view of socialism unworkable is that you have an animal view of human nature. You seem to view human nature as so underdeveloped that humans will automatically want to revert to a capitalist society and behave in the same archaic way capitalists do; valuing only the self.

This is also incoherent; what do you mean "animal"? And why do you assume that people, being free, will only value themselves? They may, if they wish, of course...but since no one will permit themselves to be exploited by another, what difference would it make?

If people freely co-operate with one another because they see that it's in their own best interest to do so (valuing self) or because they believe that co-operation is "nobler" or "more moral" than competition...the practical outcome is co-operation in either event.

I do think, over decades and centuries of classless society, that real "old-fashioned selfishness" would come to be seen as barbaric, a sign of backwardness, etc. But in the early decades, I think workers will appeal to one another for co-operation on the basis of clearly perceived mutual self-interest...and I don't have a problem with that.

Leninists, on the other hand, would command people to co-operate...thus

The role of a socialist society is to create a highly organised and disciplined state...

A state of new bosses.

You seem to think that we must first prescribe almost communist-like conditions before human nature will begin to change slightly. Yet, you suggest a society, an almost direct leap into communism that would require very highly developed humans in terms of their ability to self-govern themselves and to see and thus reject the ills of capitalist society.

That's pretty good and very close to what I actually think. A real communist movement of the working class would, internally, strongly resemble the communist society to come...non-hierarchial, egalitarian, disputacious, etc. When it grew to overwhelming proportions, and actually overthrew the capitalist class, it would "transfer" the habits and practices that it had already developed into the new social order.

The working class would already know what to do; it would not need a special "political leadership" to "command" it to do the "right thing".

And you know Marx did talk of a second, but peaceful, proletarian revolution.

No, in all honesty, I've never heard of such a thing. The revolution that overthrows capitalism and establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat is the same revolution that begins at once to establish a classless society, the withering away of the state, etc. The idea of some kind of "intermediate" stage between capitalism and communism is not Marxist; it's social democratic and/or Leninist.

And the idea that this "intermediate stage" is peacefully overthrown by a "second proletarian revolution" is yours.

You may want to reconsider it.

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:26 am on July 17, 2003)

[commie kg]

Once again Redstar, you've blown my mind. Every time I read one of your posts my IQ raises a few points.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from canikickit on 2:02 am on July 15, 2003
Too bad, I had a post in here advising RAF to look up "bonobo" in a dictionary.
I even provided him with a link (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm).


Cani why are you attempting to bust my balls without know what you are talking about? Why?

Pygme Chimpanzee is the laymans name for BONOBO APE. Many animals have layman's names.

The bonobo is a member of the great ape family LIKE the chimpanzee. It is a COUSIN of the CHIMPANZEE. NOT AN ACTUAL FUCKING CHIMPANZEE.

Why did people refer to the bonobo ape as "PYGME CHIMPANZEE Cani?
Because they look like small fucking chimps that walk upright.

Done. That's it. Nothing else.

Should you have bothered to actually research this animal before breaking my fucking balls over this? YES.

Since we are now throwing links around here you go.

http://www.bonobo.org/whatisabonobo.html


Redstar you are still a fucking useless hack.



(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 8:28 am on July 17, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

’I know you desire a classless society, but how do you suggest we achieve it. How do you suggest we fight the class struggle. My view is that in this respect also you are willing to compromise the liberties the bourgeoisie currently enjoy so that we can create a classless society. This is because you value the same things that the bourgeoisie does.’

’This is incoherent...but if I roughly understand it, you're saying that it would "hurt" the class struggle in some fashion and "delay" the achievement of communism if workers had real "civil liberties"--those that the bourgeoisie praise in words and deny in practice.

Sorry, yes, that was a type error, you got the general idea of it anyway.

’That's just repeating Lenin while using different words. The question remains: does the working class need a special political leadership (bosses) in order to fight the class struggle?’

Marx said no; Lenin said yes. Who was right?

In my interpretation, Marx did not address this question as conclusively as Lenin. I would not suggest that Marx was wrong, only that Lenin expounded his ideas so they could be practically applied. Most of what Lenin wrote was on the basis of Marx’s theories.

’ The "quick" answer is that it can't be done by an elite...except over many centuries. "Human nature" is a product of historical circumstances; if the working class spends several decades organizing itself to make communist revolution, then it will have already transformed itself into a class that is "ready" for self-rule.

On the other hand, if a Leninist party were to actually succeed in organizing the working class to "follow its leadership" in overthrowing capitalism, you'd still have a passive and servile working class with heads full of capitalist ideas...just one that had changed bosses. And long before you'd have the chance to "shape human nature", you yourselves would have degenerated into a new ruling class.’

The Leninist vanguard party is not divorced from the working classes. It’s a working class party as much as Labour is a party for the bourgeois class in the UK and the Republican’s are a political group entrusted with the bourgeois values in the U.S.

A revolution does require the participation of the masses. It is only the masses who will shape history, and the masses will create a vanguard party and it will be used to overthrow the bourgeoisie.


’ Leninists, on the other hand, would command people to co-operate...thus

[I]’The role of a socialist society is to create a highly organised and disciplined state...[‘I]

A state of new bosses.’

Well, as I said, bosses are necessary in socialism, but not in communism.

’ No, in all honesty, I've never heard of such a thing. The revolution that overthrows capitalism and establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat is the same revolution that begins at once to establish a classless society, the withering away of the state, etc. The idea of some kind of "intermediate" stage between capitalism and communism is not Marxist; it's social democratic and/or Leninist.

And the idea that this "intermediate stage" is peacefully overthrown by a "second proletarian revolution" is yours.

You may want to reconsider it.’

I don’t believe this is simply my idea. Maybe I worded it wrong. Lenin talked of the ‘withering away of the state’, this is the second peaceful revolution. The first revolution of course being a violent revolution. We cannot predict the nature and form of the second revolution precisely as we are so far away from it.

Anyway, I didn’t answer most of your points individually, because I can see our argument coming to and end. I agree with many of the aspects of human nature you talked about and its development. Fundamentally I think we disagree as to how communism should be achieved. I don’t believe we will resolve our difference of opinion on this issue. The original point of this discussion though was you talking about ISF being a Lenin Wax Museum. Lenin is as old and dead as Marx is, but nonetheless their theories are the most progressive political theory of the modern world. Capitalism is based on concepts that while still alive and dominating much of our societies we have in the last century, begun to construct a criticism of it and develop new, more progressive, theories.

I believe that at ISF we are capable or creating and criticising old and new ideas, and that we are capable of logical, objective and valuable debate. And because of this, calling us the Lenin Wax Museum is tantamount to suggesting you posses Karl Marx in wax. Both are false accusations.

[Capitalist Killer]

Revolution is the only way, stupid liberals.

[abstractmentality]

"and the masses will create a vanguard party" - Chairman Mao

Im curious as to where you get the idea that the masses will create a vanguard party.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 4:38 pm on July 17, 2003
"and the masses will create a vanguard party" - Chairman Mao

Im curious as to where you get the idea that the masses will create a vanguard party.

Well, I am not going to talk about anything around this question, i'll just answer it simply for you.

-Kim Il Sung

I better add something to that actually... he never talked of a vangaurd party. but he did say the masses would create the communist party. In the DPRK they created a mass party because it has such high membership from the 30's. But that party does have a vanguard in terms of its leadership. And essentially, it has exactly the same function as the vanguard party. Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung never said a vangaurd party was wrong and a party of the masses right but that the specific social-historical conditions of Korea produced a mass-party.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 5:15 pm on July 17, 2003)

[abstractmentality]

You are also speaking from an extremely narrow perspective of North Korea when you wrote that. As i have written before, the actual membership of the communist party in north korea is actually low on an absolute scale, with only 13.63% of the population a member of it (im using your numbers).

Why do the masses need a "vanguard in terms of its leadership"? i mean, they have enough power and knowledge to want to overthrow the system of capitalism, cant they lead their revolution?

I will now use a quote as well:
"I am not a labor leader, I don't want you to follow me or anyone else. If you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of capitalist wilderness you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into this promise land if I could, because if I could lead you in, someone else would lead you out." - Eugene Debs

(Edited by abstractmentality at 11:05 am on July 17, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 7:03 pm on July 17, 2003
You are also speaking from an extremely narrow perspective of North Korea when you wrote that. As i have written before, the actual membership of the communist party in north korea is actually low on an absolute scale, with only 13.63% of the population a member of it (im using your numbers).

Why do the masses need a "vanguard in terms of its leadership"? i mean, they have enough power and knowledge to want to overthrow the system of capitalism, cant they lead their revolution?

I will now use a quote as well:
"I am not a labor leader, I don't want you to follow me or anyone else. If you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of capitalist wilderness you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into this promise land if I could, because if I could lead you in, someone else would lead you out." - Eugene Debs

(Edited by abstractmentality at 11:05 am on July 17, 2003)


Low? its higher than any other socialist nation ever. Other socialist nations had a membership of something like 3-4% or the population. And certainly all socialist nations have had higher party membership than any capitalist nation. Your idea of low is comparing it with the maximum possible - 100% which would only happen if everyone were forced into the party from birth. Not that I would be against that.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 7:33 pm on July 17, 2003)

[abstractmentality]

i also qualified my statement with the phrase "on an absolute scale..."

If the masses do not will it, then it is useless. they are a numerical minority, but have complete political power, which is reminiscing of that great beacon of democracy America with the numerical minority controlling things....

also, something that caught my eye when reading through the ISF thread that some of this was pulled from was this quote that you quoted:

‘The reactionary bourgeois ruling class tolerates progressive ideas to some extent, to make capitalist society seem democratic; but when they are considered the slightest threat to its ruling system, it mercilessly oppresses them.’

So then, it is reactionary when the capitalist government wants to seem democratic by allowing for some progressive ideas to come out, yet you wish to silence all opposition by "forc[ing] [people] into the party from birth." its ok for you to do it, but "reactionary" and "mercilessly oppress[ive]" when they do it. interesting...

(Edited by abstractmentality at 1:25 pm on July 17, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 8:10 pm on July 17, 2003
i also qualified my statement with the phrase "on an absolute scale..."

If the masses do not will it, then it is useless. they are a numerical minority, but have complete political power, which is reminiscing of capitalist society with the numerical minority controlling things....

also, something that caught my eye when reading through the ISF thread that some of this was pulled from was this quote that you quoted:

‘The reactionary bourgeois ruling class tolerates progressive ideas to some extent, to make capitalist society seem democratic; but when they are considered the slightest threat to its ruling system, it mercilessly oppresses them.’

So then, it is reactionary when the capitalist government wants to seem democratic by allowing for some progressive ideas to come out, yet you wish to silence all opposition by "forc[ing] [people] into the party from birth." its ok for you to do it, but "reactionary" and "mercilessly oppress[ive]" when they do it. interesting...

Ok, I only read your statement once so I missed the 'absolute scale bit.

Anyway, yes I think I can consider destroying reactionary ideas and giving absolute freedom to progressive ideas progressive in its sum total.

Though, if you were to view my ideas as reactionary, yes you're right, I would be very reactionary in doing that.

But to say that simply suppressing reactionary ideas is reactionary well...

[elijahcraig]

RedStar, you sound like Michael Albert.

Have you ever read "Towards a Revolutionary Socialist Party", a defense of Leninism?

I think a lot of your criticism of Leninism is off, like you say that the Bolsheviks took it upon themselves to rule, etc., but you know why they did that don't you? The country was in mass upheaval, cannibalism, starvation, the working class was destroyed, the total population was destroyed, so the Bolsheviks had to govern. I don't blame this on Leninists, I blame this on the 14 imperialist nations who invaded. The Bolsheviks, with mass participation, were doing great before that.

Here's a link to the essay by Duncan Hallas I mentioned if you haven't read it:

http://www.marxists.de/party/hallas/party.htm

[redstar2000]

I confess ignorance of Michael Albert or the book you mentioned; but I did follow your link and read the 1970 essay by Duncan Hallas.

It is an interesting historical document and, in fact, had I read it in 1970, I would have found it especially appealing as I was moving away from the "Stalinist" camp in that period.

The fallacy, as I see it, is that Hallas at the time was still convinced that the modern working class needed some entity (a centralized revolutionary party) to "give it direction", to "channel its energies" in the "best direction", etc.

The assumption is that a relatively small number of people can accurately determine "the best direction" ahead of time...an assumption unsupported by experience and theoretically dubious, to put it mildly. Hallas even uses the word "generals" to describe this small group...as if the working class was an "army" that needed only correct leadership to win.

I see nothing wrong and much to be gained by communists organizing themselves into groups...as long as it's clearly understood that these are not groups of present or future "leaders". We do not and should not seek "power"--we should seek enlightenment of our class that it should become "a class for itself".

It might not even be a bad idea that should a member of such a communist group accept a leadership position in some other working class organization, s/he has to resign her/his membership in the communist group. That would drive the point home that our goal is not power for ourselves but power for our class.

I am not against organization per se. But I do think it should arise from the needs of the class itself and not be imposed by people operating according to a "revolutionary model" that was questionable in its own time and has been utterly discredited over the last 80 years.

I don't see that there is much to be gained through speculation about "what would have happened if" in regard to the Russian revolution; e.g., if conditions had been more favorable, if the imperialists hadn't invaded, if Trotsky had become the "great leader" instead of Stalin, etc. Early communist parties in Europe and the United States were not under any direct pressure from Stalin and "fell into line" anyway...any of them could have stood up during the 1920s and said no! and none of them did. I don't see how one could mimimize the concept of "democratic centralism" in explaining this outcome...those folks believed in "top-down" rule even when it ran directly against their own interests.

Hallas clearly wanted to see the emergence of a genuinely democratic Leninist party; and I suppose it's always possible that such a thing might indeed happen. But, to me, it has the character of a groundhog growing wings...a very unlikely bird indeed.

:cool:

[canikickit]

Cani why are you attempting to bust my balls without know what you are talking about? Why?

It says "chimp" in the dictionary under "bonobo" - that, RAF, is good enough for me. The reason I bust your balls, was because I thought it was quite stupid that you suggested that redstar doesn't know what he is talking about just because he is unaware of the correct scientific definition of what exactly a bonobo is. It's just getting yourself involved in semantics to argue that a pygmy chimpanzee is not a "chimp".

I would rather if you addressed what redstar's expressed as his political opinions rather than blather on about how he made a mistake in defining something to do with nature.

I was also trying to suggest that with humour, if that went over your head, too bad, I apologise, I've no problem with you.

p.s. I think bold letters are more effective than capital letters.

Done. That's it. Nothing else.

[elijahcraig]

I confess ignorance of Michael Albert or the book you mentioned;

Michael Albert is the man who developed the PareCon economics system. He is the editor of ZNet, and has written several books on this. He says that Marxism is not really for the working class at all, but produces a way for a third class, which he calls the "coordinator class," to take power. He had a debate with ISO member, and Socialist Worker journalist, Alan Maass.

Here's a link to PareCon: http://parecon.org/

Here's one for his magazine: http://zmag.org/

Here's one on the Maass/Albert debate: http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/Ma...arxDebate.shtml (http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/MarxDebate.shtml)

I didn't name a book, that was the name of the Duncan Hallas essay.


The fallacy, as I see it, is that Hallas at the time was still convinced that the modern working class needed some entity (a centralized revolutionary party) to "give it direction", to "channel its energies" in the "best direction", etc.

Now, I disagree about this. I feel the working class is not prepared on its own to make a choice like this. I've always thought the centralized party was to be made up of the most militant workers, how it was originally intended. Not as a floor for "intellectuals" as some say.

The assumption is that a relatively small number of people can accurately determine "the best direction" ahead of time...an assumption unsupported by experience and theoretically dubious, to put it mildly. Hallas even uses the word "generals" to describe this small group...as if the working class was an "army" that needed only correct leadership to win.

I don't think this would be done as an intellectual/coordinator like thing. I see it as the workers who are most militant and class concious being able to push the others into their militant way, meaning most of the working class is not militant the way they should be, and it would help if someone more militant helped them.

I see nothing wrong and much to be gained by communists organizing themselves into groups...as long as it's clearly understood that these are not groups of present or future "leaders". We do not and should not seek "power"--we should seek enlightenment of our class that it should become "a class for itself".

Now, I agree that we should not have some sort of part-driven power want, but I don't exactly see it like that. I feel that, contrary to criticisms against centralization or party elections, the reason for the rise of Stalin was not Leninism, but the Imperialist nations (14) which invaded. Mass starvation, cannibalism, civil war, etc etc etc. The Bolsheviks took control when the working class was no longer to participate. Meaning the militants took control in a time of great need. What would have happened without the party existing? The country would have been overrun by imperialists.

It might not even be a bad idea that should a member of such a communist group accept a leadership position in some other working class organization, s/he has to resign her/his membership in the communist group. That would drive the point home that our goal is not power for ourselves but power for our class.


I'm not sure about that. Just because s/he has power in the organization or party does not necessarily mean s/he is corrupt or power hungry.

I am not against organization per se. But I do think it should arise from the needs of the class itself and not be imposed by people operating according to a "revolutionary model" that was questionable in its own time and has been utterly discredited over the last 80 years.

Once again, I disagree. Nothing has been discredited. Had the Party not been in place the revolution would have turned into Tsarism all over again. The Bolsheviks made extremely good headway right before the imperialists invaded. They gave women the right to vote and run for office, and repealed all anti-homosexual laws (this is 1917!). They made racism punishable by death. They also introduced many forms of workers' power. They paid party officials the same as everyone else, they lived in the same state as in housing basically, and they were recallable at any time.

I don't see that there is much to be gained through speculation about "what would have happened if" in regard to the Russian revolution; e.g., if conditions had been more favorable, if the imperialists hadn't invaded, if Trotsky had become the "great leader" instead of Stalin, etc. Early communist parties in Europe and the United States were not under any direct pressure from Stalin and "fell into line" anyway...any of them could have stood up during the 1920s and said no! and none of them did. I don't see how one could mimimize the concept of "democratic centralism" in explaining this outcome...those folks believed in "top-down" rule even when it ran directly against their own interests.


I think you must look at these things. The Bolsheviks made massive headway towards genuine socialism before the invasions broke out. That is the only reason, as far as I am concerned, that the revolution failed in the end. I guess you'd also have to count the failure of the German revolution of course.

[redstar2000]

Now that you mention it, yes, I have read some ParaCon material...but as it seemed yet another variant of market-oriented reformism, I didn't read too much of it and sort of lost interest. If the market-oriented theorists are right, then the kind of social order that I want to see would be impossible. So I proceed on the assumption that they are wrong and go from there,

I feel the working class is not prepared on its own to make a choice like this. I've always thought the centralized party was to be made up of the most militant workers, how it was originally intended. Not as a floor for "intellectuals" as some say.

Well, things haven't worked out that way at all, either in Lenin's time or since. Some of that, perhaps even a lot of that, is due to the class-bias that exists in all bourgeois educational systems...there is a subtle (sometimes not so subtle) message to all working-class kids that serious ideas are "not for the likes of you"...thus when it comes time to organize a Leninist party, the pool of potential recruits is dominated by "middle-class intellectuals" and a small handful of exceptionally bright workers, who ignored the message and educated themselves anyway.

On the other hand, working people derive an "education" from their own life experiences...they often have a pretty keen insight into what is hurting them and what might possibly help them.

The distinction that I try to draw is between transfering the knowledge that we have gained in one way or another to the rest of our class--that they might see things more clearly and make better decisions or actually stepping forward to make decisions for them without necessarily taking their opinions or even their direct interests into consideration.

Even under circumstances where the leadership of the Leninist party has originated directly from within the working class, that by no means guarantees that the party's decisions will be the same as the ones the class as a whole would make. Joseph Stalin's father was a shoe-maker and all of his grandparents were serfs.

When you are part of the leadership of a vanguard party, the position brings with it "perks" and "privileges". If the party is very small and weak, those perks and privileges are very small (a tiny rent-free apartment perhaps; a small weekly cash allowance sufficient to allow the leader to live--in austere circumstances--without having to have a regular job; perhaps a used car, etc.). As the party grows (if it does), those perks and privileges become more generous...I have no doubt that the leaders of "mass" Leninist parties like the "Communist" Party of France or the old "Communist" Party of Italy lived far above the standards of ordinary workers and even minor officials in such parties received a generous slice of the pie.

It's pretty obvious how such an environment would generate material corruption...but the political effect would be--and has been--to abandon any revolutionary intentions whatsoever, lest the inevitable capitalist repression disturb the desired cash flow.

Can the working class as a whole make "correct" decisions? Obviously, there are many obstacles to this. Bourgeois ideology is "in the air we breathe"...there's no escaping it. Workers are divided into hundreds of thousands or millions of workplaces, each generating a slightly (sometimes greatly) different version of "class consciousness". Not to mention that some workers are actually more intelliegent than others and understand things more clearly...or are old enough to bring lessons of personal experience in class struggle to bear on any controversy.

So, it will be difficult and chancy...yet I am convinced that the outcome of these millions of small struggles over policy, strategy, tactics, etc. will, in the end, have the highest probability of being "right" about the broad direction of the revolutionary movement; much higher, in fact, than the chance association of a small number of like-minded intellectuals, even with a militant worker or two thrown into the mix.

As I've had occasion to note in many threads, history offers no guarantees. But that doesn't mean we can't bet "the best odds" that we can find.

I see it as the workers who are most militant and class concious being able to push the others into their militant way, meaning most of the working class is not militant the way they should be, and it would help if someone more militant helped them.

It seems to me that this happens all the time anyway. Every workplace (that I've ever been in) has those who struggle against the boss, those who kiss the boss's arse, and the majority in the middle, swayed one way or another by argument, personality, circumstances, etc.

In a climate of approaching revolution and sharp workplace struggles, why would a Leninist party help matters any? There's certainly no guarantee that the party members would be the "most militant"...there are plenty of past occasions when the Leninist party has been to the right of the massive majority of the working class.

I feel that, contrary to criticisms against centralization or party elections, the reason for the rise of Stalin was not Leninism, but the Imperialist nations (14) which invaded. Mass starvation, cannibalism, civil war, etc etc etc. The Bolsheviks took control when the working class was no longer to participate. Meaning the militants took control in a time of great need. What would have happened without the party existing? The country would have been overrun by imperialists.

I don't think you can "salvage" Leninism in the murky waters of speculation. We have no way of knowing what the outcome of events would have been had conditions been dramatically different.

But you can't attribute the servile behavior of the Communist Party USA in the late 1920s towards Stalin to a civil war thousands of miles away that had been over for more than five years. The link of "cause-and-effect" won't stretch that far. I don't see how you can avoid going directly to Lenin's idea of a centralized and disciplined "revolutionary" organization creating the kind of political climate that elevated obedience to the leader above all other concerns, even material ones.

The parties that were members of the Comintern could have stood up to Stalin and defied him to his face (without worrying about being shot or imprisoned, etc.)...and none of them did that...ever.

How is that to be explained without regard to the habits of obedience that are always characteristic of centralized, disciplined organizations?

Just because s/he has power in the organization or party does not necessarily mean s/he is corrupt or power hungry.

True enough...but what are the odds?

:cool:

[elijahcraig]

Well, we can look at it those two ways. Either could be right. I'm not too sure. I think there should at least be some leadership of the working class, and I don't think that the masses today would go along with one another that easily. There is always the chance of corruption, but then again there is always the chance of the working class becoming stagnant and useless the way it has in America over the past few years, at least it has moved away from militancy anyway. I think there probably would need to be some "guiding force", if that is a good way to put it. But it'd have to be mass participation, and all that of course.

[elijahcraig]

Here's a link to an article (which may be of interest, maybe not):
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/023.html

I agree on PareCon. Though he does seem to make similar points to you on "coordinatorism" of Marxism, as compared with your criticisms of Leninism.

[sc4r]

(Edited by sc4r at 6:29 pm on July 18, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

It would be great if we had a world where "communists" didn't support Imperialist wars. I can't take what you say seriously ever again, you are a reformist imperialist fool.

[sc4r]

I assume that's a response to the post I deleted because I felt on reflection it was serving no real purpose in this thread.

To anyone who may read this Elijahs first sentence is not a strange disjoimted thought. It makes sense in the context of what he was replying to.

I would say it would be great if communists had no reason or need to support wars, and that whether they are 'imperial or not makes little difference if any. You support the cost benefit case for a war if you support it at all; you dont decide on the basis of a label.

Well I can see how you can call me a reformist; its slightly inappropriate but not massively off. If used to summarise some of my views I would not even object (but you are trying to be insulting, no?).

But 'Imperialist' ? that is nothing but insult pure and simple. What does 'imperialism' mean to you :

Someone who wishes to see an end to national identies?
Someone who would treat all people everywhere as precisely equal?
Someone who would institute common ownership tomorrow if he could?
Someone who would replace representative democracy with direct democracy to the maximum possible?
Someone who is labeled a 'US Hater' in many places?
Someone who advocates the elimination of all third world debt?
Someone who says that it is immoral for a nation to allow businesses based inside it to offer inferior conditions outside it?

Go ahead explain this strange notion of imperialist.

What it means to you of course is 'boo hoo he did not agree to back me up when I passed judgement on someone, he had the cheek to disagree with me'. Now that is foolish.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from canikickit on 2:17 am on July 18, 2003

Cani why are you attempting to bust my balls without know what you are talking about? Why?

It says "chimp" in the dictionary under "bonobo" - that, RAF, is good enough for me. The reason I bust your balls, was because I thought it was quite stupid that you suggested that redstar doesn't know what he is talking about just because he is unaware of the correct scientific definition of what exactly a bonobo is. It's just getting yourself involved in semantics to argue that a pygmy chimpanzee is not a "chimp".

I would rather if you addressed what redstar's expressed as his political opinions rather than blather on about how he made a mistake in defining something to do with nature.

I was also trying to suggest that with humour, if that went over your head, too bad, I apologise, I've no problem with you.

p.s. I think bold letters are more effective than capital letters.

Done. That's it. Nothing else.



I did not go over my head comrade, I could have taken it two ways..The way of humour or the way of mocking rhetorically. I chose the latter.

IBold...italic...underlined...caps...blah...same nonsense. Did you read the whole post cani? This has nothing to do with semantics. A bonobo is not a chimp. Period. They are a different species of primate, that is fact.

To reiterate for you comrade, the name pygmy chimpanzee was given to the ape prior to actually discovering what the animal was (the discovery was very recent) once it was discovered that the animal was a different species of ape, the name bonobo was given to them. You see brutha it ain't semantics at all.

Do you really think I am busting Redstar's balls because he still will not admit to making this small error even after being corrected twice in another thread on the subject? Forgetaboutit. I'm busting his balls because he is a hack, plain and simple. I am disappointed with many folks for taking his rhetoric as gospel.

Yes the dictionary says "pygmy chimpanzee" as the entire definition of Bonobo. This in no way relates to wha the species is as "pygmy chimpanzee" is a proper noun accosiated with the animal...For example;

The Koala Bear is not a bear, it is a marsupial. Could you then assume it is logical to say it is indeed a "bear" just because of it's namesake? Not at all comrade Canikickit 'cos that would be silly you dig?

I ain't trying to start a scrap with you mate, I just wanted to clarify for you what a Bonobo was as you cited incorrect information.

Blame Guiness and Mr. Jim Beam for the caps. I had quite a night prior to coming back to the gaf to rabbit on in the forums.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 3:03 am on July 19, 2003)

[the SovieT]

will you all just shut the fuck up?

Che-lives and ISF should be united...
not arguing and jumpng at each others troaths ike this..

so i beg you, stop insulting each other.. i even dare to say grow up!

i am geting really tired of all this.. even though you may not like ISF or Che-lives keep the critics constructive, dont bash each other like that..
remember those who are in both boards..
(and they arent as few as that)
so please stop..

[commie kg]

I agree whole-hartedly.

[redstar2000]

will you all just shut the fuck up?

No.

Che-lives and ISF should be united...
not arguing and jumpng at each others troaths ike this..

This has been primarily a thread about Leninist political ideas...no one has "jumped at anyone's throat".

Requests for merging boards should be directed to the administrators.

so i beg you, stop insulting each other.. i even dare to say grow up!

What "insults" are you objecting to?

What exactly is "immature" about vigorously arguing political ideas...especially Leninist ones?

i am geting really tired of all this.. even though you may not like ISF or Che-lives keep the critics constructive, dont bash each other like that..

I have not noticed any "bashing" and board identity has been barely mentioned in this thread; I explicitly said that it was not about boards.

If you are "tired" of a thread, quit reading it; there are plenty of others.

remember those who are in both boards..
(and they arent as few as that)
so please stop..

In the very first post to this thread, I said it was not about personalities. Anyone who feels "personally offended" by this discussion...has a problem.

And like all threads, it will stop when people grow tired of this context and want to use another...because the controversies about Leninism in general and the Leninist party in particular are not going to go away.

Sorry about that.

:cool:

[Xvall]

Sorry. I'm not getting it? I mean; I see the quotes, but what are you trying to express? Hell, some of them are even mine, and I'm not even a Leninist! And Redstar. Not to sound like I'm arguing against you, but all he did was suggest that everyone cool down and respect each other. There was not need to jump on him like that.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 9:15 pm on July 19, 2003)

[Xvall]

Revolution is the only way, stupid liberals.

Thank you for your well thought out response. Maybe you should wait until we actually start a thread about 'revolution' before you start writing these lengthy rebuttals of yours.

[canikickit]

Sorry. I'm not getting it? I mean; I see the quotes, but what are you trying to express?

I think this is the gist of what redstar was saying: "the combination of ruthless (and random) brutality, the mindless repetition of formulas without understanding, the "ideal" of communism degraded to the level of an ants' nest...this is all that's left of the Leninist paradigm".

There was absolutely no ISF bashing in redstar's initial post, he mereely quoted some things people said which he believes are wrong.

It's not about personalities, it's not about ISF vs. Che-Lives, it's not about insults, or growing up, it's about ideas.


Anyone who feels "personally offended" by this discussion...has a problem.


I have no choice but to agree.

[redstar2000]

And Redstar. Not to sound like I'm arguing against you, but all he did was suggest that everyone cool down and respect each other. There was no need to jump on him like that.

Well, Drake, when someone begins a post "will you all just shut the fuck up", that doesn't sound to me like a comradely request to "cool down". In fact, it sounds to me like an effort to "inflame" matters, to stir things up.

I respect people's ideas enough to try to argue them in a serious way, to draw out the implications and the consequences. It would be easy to reply to every Leninist or reformist or pro-capitalist post on this board with "Fuck you! You eat shit! blah, blah, blah." There's too much of that on the internet, in my view.

Both Marx and Lenin, whatever their other shortcomings, "played fair" in the realm of ideological struggle; they quoted extensively from ideas they disagreed with and then criticized those ideas in detail.

That seems to me the right way to do it.

:cool:

[Vinny Rafarino]

He was not bashing the board. He was bashing it's members.

[Xvall]

Yes. He attacked the board members. And seeing as I am one of them, I will respond. If he thinks the quotes that I said were wrong, then I am curious as to why. I will adress mine. (Or at least the ones that I remember posting) Also keep in mind that some of these quotes you listed may be from Terbexian Vir, who is a very extreme authoritarian that even many of the Marxist-Leninists disagree with. Onward, nonetheless.

"Any member of a particular nation should be willing to defend their country if under attack. -- Posted April 28, 2003, Death Match forum, "Conscription and Mandatory Military Service Terms" thread, page 1."

Alright. I think I said that one. Like I said, a lot of these are old so it is hard to remember. I said something like that along the line of conscerning a 'communist/socialist' nation. I never said that people should be drafed or forced to join the military; I simply stated that the people should attempt to defend the nation if it were under attack. I see no problem with that. If your town is invaded, I doubt you would just want to sit around and let soldiers declare martial law.

"I am against the death penalty because I believe that forcing these people to work for the rest of their lives is far more productive than wasting resources killing them."

I know that one is mine for sure. And I still stand by it. I believe that criminals should not be executed, instead the should be kept in prison and do something productive, rather than just be killed. If you disagree, I am curious as to why.

"If I recall correctly; rivers in the Soviet Union were created simply by the prison working force alone."

No clue why you would disagree with that. All I did was state an entirely true historical fact.

"Then again, there are pleanty of people that I think deserve a bullet to the brain."

Yep. I stand by that to, as do half the members of this board. I have seen countless times people posting about how they would like to kill all of the Nazis/Racists/Bush Administration/Fascists/Etc. I do believe that some people deserve(d) a bullet to the brain. Hitler was one of them. So was Mussolini.

I just wanted to point those things out. Also keep in mind that I was arguing against a lot of those quote you brought up.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 10:49 pm on July 20, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Any member of a particular nation should be willing to defend their country if under attack.

Why? I don't see that communists owe any general or universal obligation to defend any particular nation-state just because they happen to live there.

Perhaps you were referring to a "socialist" state, like the USSR. But in fact, the USSR and all such countries were class societies...one might or might not "defend" such countries depending on the political circumstances.

It seems to me that communists "have no country", and should not desire one.

I am against the death penalty because I believe that forcing these people to work for the rest of their lives is far more productive than wasting resources killing them.

I might be in favor of the death penalty under certain circumstances; I'm definitely against slave labor...because of the effect it has on us. If you are going to use slave labor, then you require guards and overseers...what does it do to them to engage in this kind of "work"...not to mention the people in the requisite administrative apparatus?

And, of course, prison labor is "for life"...once you do that to somebody, you've made a permanent enemy of them and their families and friends; however long it takes, they will have their revenge on you and your "socialism". In the USSR, China, and eastern Europe, they did.

If I recall correctly; rivers in the Soviet Union were created simply by the prison working force alone.

You appeared to cite this historical fact approvingly...see my response to the previous quote.

Then again, there are plenty of people that I think deserve a bullet to the brain.

I daresay there are and certainly there'd be wide agreement on this board, depending on your nominations for the "honor".

But I quoted this because I thought it suggested something of the "atmosphere" of that discussion. I don't think it's "healthy" for communists to engage in fantasies of revenge...there are really more important things to do. If such attitudes became wide-spread, by the time there was a revolution people would be thinking more of a massive blood-letting than of the new social order they wished to construct.

The first priority of the post-revolutionary era is building communism; dealing with individuals who prove to be serious obstacles is a very, very distant second place.

:cool:

[Saint-Just]

This is my opinion of course as to the meaning of nation but:

A nation is defined by it being a society. A society is a group of people living together, defined by its history, culture and socio-political bodies. In a society we are responsible to one another. Societies and nations are convenient ways of living.

Politics and technology have grown out of the way these societies have organised themselves.

A specific class system and economic system exists in any individual society. We all want the entire world to live in communism. But due to what we share in individual societies it is far more convenient to organise socialism in our own societies than to organise a revolution transnationally when the conditions of another society are different.

We should indeed, as communists, have universal respect for people's of all societies. But we should not do this at the expense of abandoning what defines our own society.

I have a responsibility to people of other nations. But, my society has its own culture, history and way of life. We have our own economic system attempting to provide for our people. At the moment it is controlled by the bourgeoisie. I want to emancipate the working-class in my own country because we have many different values and responsibilities than other nations that only we understand. We are proud as a group of people and what we have achieved in our history and what we hope to achieve in the future.

There are many bourgeois aspects shaping our nationality currently. But there are working-class aspects to it as well. The U.S. is an imperialist power that seeks to dominate other countries, including my own. The working-class in the U.S. has many of the same aspirations as the working-class here, but I would not rest the fate of this nation on the success of the working-class in the U.S. rather I seek to pay damage to the U.S. imperialists by way of a socialist revolution in my own country to reject their imperialism.

[elijahcraig]

"Defending" a country, let's say the US, is useless. You are not defending the actual country, you are defending the interests of the ruling class. War is the product of capitalism, fighting wars for the ruling class is becoming a pawn in their game.

[Xvall]

Why? I don't see that communists owe any general or universal obligation to defend any particular nation-state just because they happen to live there.

What I mean by that is that if your neighborhood is under attack you should probably try to prevent it. Not for your government's sake, but for your own.

I am against the death penalty because I believe that forcing these people to work for the rest of their lives is far more productive than wasting resources killing them.

I might be in favor of the death penalty under certain circumstances; I'm definitely against slave labor...because of the effect it has on us. If you are going to use slave labor, then you require guards and overseers...what does it do to them to engage in this kind of "work"...not to mention the people in the requisite administrative apparatus?

I am against slave labor as well. I don't know why when I say 'work' people assume it is 'slave labor'. I think it's a good idea to have prisoners do something 'productive', like producing clothing or goods, instead of just sitting in their cells all day, working out, folding their linen, etc. I never suggested working them to death.

And, of course, prison labor is "for life"...once you do that to somebody, you've made a permanent enemy of them and their families and friends; however long it takes, they will have their revenge on you and your "socialism". In the USSR, China, and eastern Europe, they did.

I never suggested prison labor for life for just anyone. I stated that it should be used in place of the death penalty. This, in my opinion, would solve a lot of problems. One that comes to mind is the occasional 'Oops! We accidentally put an innocent man to death!' scenario, as if they are found innocent they can be let out as a free person, rather than in a body bag.

I daresay there are and certainly there'd be wide agreement on this board, depending on your nominations for the "honor".

Yes. I'm not an 'authoritarian' so I never suggested imprisoning or killing dissentful citizens. I don't think many people deserve the honor, except when it comes to certain cases of mass murder, genocide, etc.

But I quoted this because I thought it suggested something of the "atmosphere" of that discussion. I don't think it's "healthy" for communists to engage in fantasies of revenge...there are really more important things to do. If such attitudes became wide-spread, by the time there was a revolution people would be thinking more of a massive blood-letting than of the new social order they wished to construct.

The first priority of the post-revolutionary era is building communism; dealing with individuals who prove to be serious obstacles is a very, very distant second place.

:cool:

Gotcha. I understand, I just wanted to clarify things, so you wouldn't think that I'm some raving bloodthirsty lunatic. Pleasant day.

(Sorry about the horrible format I posted this in. I'll buy you a new pair of eyes, don't worry.)

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 4:04 am on July 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

What I mean by that is that if your neighborhood is under attack you should probably try to prevent it. Not for your government's sake, but for your own.

Perhaps. Or perhaps I'll welcome the "attackers" as liberators. Or perhaps I'll just leave...or ignore the whole thing. I have no profound attachment to any particular part of this planet or to any particular group of people.

But when someone suggests that I have an "obligation" to defend this or that, I grow highly suspicious...it often means that I have an "obligation" to defend them...their wealth, status, privileges, etc.

No, I won't do that.

I am against slave labor as well. I don't know why when I say 'work' people assume it is 'slave labor'.

It may have something to do with your seemingly approving remark about prisoners in the old USSR re-directing rivers. The death rate on those projects was pretty high, by all accounts.

I never suggested working them to death.

But that's what happened.

I never suggested prison labor for life for just anyone. I stated that it should be used in place of the death penalty.

That's a misunderstanding. What I was suggesting is that once you put someone in a "labor camp", you have "lost them" for life, along with (most likely) their relatives and friends. It's not something that one is likely to "forgive and forget".

I am in favor of humane and relatively brief confinement ("coddling" if you wish to call it that) for most people guilty of most crimes...and the death penalty for the real bastards. Exactly what constitutes being "a real bastard" who deserves execution can be debated and, no doubt, will be one of the major controversies of the immediate post-revolutionary era.

But lengthy prison sentences and "hard labor" are, in my view, detremental to our overall purposes and should be avoided.

:cool: