The "Tools" of Marxism

[redstar2000]

I use that phrase--the tools of Marxism--a good deal. What I mean by it is the ability to look at modern capitalist society "the way" Marx and Engels would do so if they were alive today.

I think their ideas are quite straightforward...even if it did take genius to think of those ideas in the period in which they lived. Thus, I think using the tools of Marxism is something anyone can do, if they wish.

One must concede that much of 20th century Marxism, especially that "Marxism" produced within the Leninist paradigm, was little more than the repetition of formulas or, worse, the invention of "Marxist-sounding" rhetoric to justify immediate political purposes that had nothing to do with Marxism at all.

It does not have to be that way, however, and even in the last century there was useful work done; work that remains underpublicized and often unknown. Perhaps over the next few decades, some of this will be recovered and put on line.

In the meantime, you, an aspiring young revolutionary, want to "think like Marx". What do you do?

1. You begin with materialism, of course. Whether you are looking at global society for the next century or something as "insignificant" as neighborhood development (in your neighborhood), you base your examination on the fact that material reality has material causes...and no others. When told that "Jesus rose from the dead", you conclude at once that his corpse was removed and disposed of by living humans, and you proceed to the question of who would benefit if it were widely thought that this poor country preacher had actually accomplished the impossible.

2. Marxist materialism is historical. That is, it is best applied in real situations with real and discoverable qualities. It is certainly possible to make some sweeping generalizations across broad historical epochs using Marxist tools, but they are best applied in specific situations, with as much detail as can be discovered.

3. Marxist historical materialism is based primarily on classes...the observable fact that different groups of humans in any society have different relationships to the means of production in that society and, consequently, to each other. It was further asserted by Marx and Engels that struggle between classes was something that took place constantly in every class society, often hidden behind the scenes, sometimes erupting openly and dramatically. A careful Marxist does not accept the superficial appearance of "class peace" but rather looks harder for the particular forms of class struggle that are taking place at that moment out of public view.

4. To Marx and Engels, change was the "constant" in human societies. Humans constantly innovate their "means of production" and there can be no such thing as a changeless human society. Despotisms can be remarkably stable, lasting for a thousand years or more, but even they crumble away eventually, to be replaced by more dynamic forms of class society. The casual assumption that "things will go on as before" is regarded as "least probable" and ultimately impossible by a Marxist.

5. Marxists assume that humans operate primarily from the motive of perceived material interest; they are indeed "selfish" by nature. Co-operation is practical only when it is in the perceived self-interest of the participants to do so...and only when material conditions make that possible.

6. Marxists take quite seriously the quip by Marx himself: "the ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling classes". Marxists do not take "ideas" at "face value" or as "interesting abstractions" but rather see them as reflections of class realities. Thus, Marxists are "critical" and "sceptical"--not in the sense necessarily of always being "negative", but in the sense of "looking deeper" into every question, probing for the underlying realities beneath "accepted" or "fashionable" "wisdom".

7. The "tools of Marxism" can be a "guide to action", to direct and informed participation in the class struggle...but they don't have to be. There are academic Marxists who write books (some of which are quite interesting) for other academics...and there's nothing "wrong" per se in that use. It's just a very "weak" use of a powerful tool; like installing a state-of-the-art personal computer to balance your checkbook and keep track of your grocery list.

8. And at the same time, the tools of Marxism are most powerful precisely in the "realm of ideas"--they can be used to directly challenge and defeat the entire "bourgeois paradigm" that rules our era. The bourgeoisie tell us from our first breath that "this is all there is and all there is ever going to be; adapt, submit, or die". The tools of Marxism allow us to say, truthfully, "No, things are going to be very different...and here's why."

So when you hear me say (as I often do), that the real task of communists is to furnish the working class with the "tools of Marxism" that they might emancipate themselves from wage slavery (instead of "us" "leading" them out of bondage)...this is what I'm talking about.

When the working class "thinks like Marx", the victory of communism is assured.

:cool:

[elijahcraig]

Great summary. I don't agree on the Leninist subject, but the general summary is fantastic.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

A good post, Comrade redstar2000.

[RED FIRE]

Great post,extremely beneficial and informative as all your posts are.I personally concur on all levels that you have stated.

[redstar2000]

Using the "tools" of Marxism--A Practical Example

First, go and read this thread in the Practice Forum...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=14&topic=582 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=14&topic=582)

How does a Marxist analyze a proposal like this one?

The reality is that the world does not look like it did when Marx was alive. There are far more people, The 'workers' in western states are far more prosperous, They have more apparent say in how their lives are controlled, the military weapons of state control are far more advanced, the weaponry available to put down socialism in foreign nations is far more advanced, the psychological control mechanisms are both far more advanced and far more deeply ingrained, there is a much deeper divide between the conditions of 'workers' in the first world and those in the third world.

Marx would not have been surprised to find that the world looked very different from that in which he lived--"change is a constant"--but he would find this "snapshot" unsatisfying, for there is no motion in it.

Workers in the first world in fact have a stake in capitalism. Indirectly they are all capitalist beneficiaries of third world exploitation. In other words they are all bourgeois or petit bourgeois themselves.

I daresay Marx would hardly have welcomed such a conclusion, but then he would want to know: if "first world" workers are now part of the bourgeoisie, why is it that they are still selling their labor power and still generating surplus value?

Even more curious: inspite of the ever more vigorous exploitation of the "third world", the living standards of this first world "worker-bourgeois" are stagnant or declining...and this has been the case for the last three decades.

The reason that there is an ever widening gap between the first-world worker's standard-of-living and the third-world worker's is that the third world standard is falling faster...and not that the first world worker's standard is rising.

But even that is too simple. If you compared a steel worker's wages in Indonesia with one in Indiana, I suspect that you'd find that the gap is getting smaller, not larger. The multi-national corporation that builds a plant in an undeveloped country pays higher wages than the local standard, outbids the local bourgeoisie for labor, and exerts a slight but measurable upward pressure on urban wages. The reason the overall gap between the first and third world continues to grow is (1) by definition, the third world is burdened by a huge and ever poorer peasantry; and (2) the fact that third world mineral resources are extorted by first world corporations at far below "free market prices", thanks to the military power that those corporations can count on if needed.

To put it crudely, the modern bourgeoisie have discovered that organized looting can be as profitable as ordinary commercial enterprises (Iraq, for example).

Simply put Marx’s crisis is not going to occur in such a way that workers will revolt against the ‘bourgeois bosses’ and win.

This expresses the weakness of the non-Marxist analysis that says "what is...is what will be". Things will go along pretty much as they do right now, hence, no crisis and no revolution. (By the way, if there is a "crisis", the author suggests fascism as the most probable outcome.)

Given the present material conditions, what does look plausible from a Marxist standpoint? In my view, the working class in the advanced capitalist countries will continue to see their standards decline, slowly or more rapidly as time passes. They will organize with increasing militance to stop or slow the decline (though I suspect the period in which actual gains for the working class are possible is over). They will become more "class conscious" and more "open" to communist ideas...especially as the "horrors" of 20th century communism fade from living memory.

They will also become more disaffected from another cause...the corpses in the body bags will be arriving on regularly scheduled flights as part of the "cost" of empire and garrison duty in the new "colonies", rich in both resources and resistance.

There is already wide-spread working class cynicism towards the bourgeois electoral political system; this will deepen towards outright contempt and hatred as things continue to get worse. Fewer people will vote; more people will protest. Active sabotage will appear. Workplace rage will become more common as well as spontaneous riots in the poorest neighborhoods. And so on.

The ruling class will become steadily more repressive as their other tools decline in utility. In addition, prison labor (slave labor) will become an ever more attractive investment opportunity...the chance to extract the maximum surplus value, at least for a little while.

Discontent will simmer, and then boil, and then explode in rage at the old order. The rank-and-file draftees and even the mercenaries will mutiny. The police will "melt away" when no one is looking. The prison camps will be opened. New public authorities will spontaneously arise, on the initiatives of tens of thousands of "leaders".

And nothing will ever be the same again.

I've left out and skipped over a lot here, but you get the idea.

All of history shows that lasting change tends to evolve, not to be ushered in one fell swoop.

Well, not exactly. Change in history is pretty complicated; sometimes it proceeds slowly and quietly "in the background", so to speak. Other times it explodes with sudden violence and centuries-old institutions, traditions, etc. disappear "overnight". When conditions have fully matured for a dramatic change...it can happen in "the blink of an eye" (for example the permanent abolition of the Russian landed aristocracy in a single year, 1917).

But the attempt to evolve an "evolutionary" path to socialism is an old one. People who support it do so because they think (1) revolution is "impossible", the ruling class is "too strong" and/or (2) revolution is frightening, they might lose some privilege that they personally value to the anger of the "lower orders".

If the evidence in support of the Marxist scenario for communist revolution in the advanced capitalist countries is very weak thus far (and it is), the evidence for the "evolutionary path to socialism" is nonexistent. While political parties that embraced this strategy have, from time to time, come to power in bourgeois elections, their attempts to introduce "socialist" measures have been ineffective or nonexistent.

Why? Because the bourgeois state machinery was designed as an organ of rule by the capitalist class and has evolved ever more closely to fit that purpose. A "socialist" party that attempts to use it to introduce socialist measures finds itself in the position of someone trying to use a car to go sailing. It's the wrong tool for the job.

Thus the irony of the criticism of communists and anarchists by those who embrace the "evolutionary path"--"You are impractical utopians," they cry--when nothing is more "utopian" than the strategy they propose.

Which won't stop them from trying, of course. People often learn best from personal experience, and participation in reformist politics can certainly be a "learning experience". I still remember, with a lingering sense of shame, a couple of years in my youth when I "bought into" the idea of "gradual change" and "working from within", etc. (Yes, it's true.) It didn't take long for me to find out what was really going on, the corruption, the careerism, the intrigue, etc. It disgusted me and I quit, never to return.

Come to think of it, it was around that time that I first started reading...Marx.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:28 am on July 15, 2003)

[sc4r]

Using the "tools" of Marxism—They can be inappropriately used

Part 1. Errors in methodology.
Part 2. Living standards
Part 3. Impractical ideas of Revolution
Part 4. Anecdotes

Errors in methodology

’Marx would not have been surprised to find that the world looked very different from that in which he lived--"change is a constant"--but he would find this "snapshot" unsatisfying, for there is no motion in it.’

This misses the point (largely because it is almost content free as far as explanation goes – it’s just a slogan). If the world looks very different than it did to Marx it is obviously because it has changed / moved. It moved on in ways Marx did not, possibly could not, foresee. For example: wages were not restricted to a bare minimum, they grew quite dramatically; Social changes did empower workers. All of this was change, or ‘motion’ if you prefer.

My ‘snapshot’ merely says this is how things look right now; it lists the things we now know, which Marx could not. This is what makes his perspective decidedly dodgy; because irrespective of whether he expected change to happen he had to have had his views of the likely direction and feasible extent of change grounded in what he knew. You might think of Marx as an infallible ‘Hari Seldon’ whose perceptions (contrary to his own ideas) were ungrounded in the material conditions he himself was surrounded by. I don’t.

That you are advancing intellectual sounding, but meaningless, criticism is highlighted if you look at your last 4-5 paragraphs. Your projections derive from snapshots too. When talking about the future it’s almost impossible to remain coherent and not express the current position as a starting point. In fact your comments about ‘motion’ seem ridiculous when you base all your conclusions so heavily on a 30 year ‘snapshot’ rather than looking at longer term trends.

If I were saying ‘and nothing will ever again change’ you would be right about that being dumb (you would not need to dress the objection up). But I’m not saying anything of the sort. The issue is not whether anything will change but how; More specifically it is about how we make the sorts of changes that we want to happen, happen.
.
.
.
’I daresay Marx would hardly have welcomed such a conclusion [That workers in the first world in fact have a stake in capitalism] but then he would want to know: if "first world" workers are now part of the bourgeoisie, why is it that they are still selling their labor power and still generating surplus value?’

Because they are a hybrid ‘class’ which Marx did not really foresee at all, although they are pretty close to what he called ‘petit bourgeois’. They benefit somewhat from the fact of ownership of foreign production by people of their nation but do not actually own this production themselves. Marx did not see how global corporatism would come to operate and become intrinsically, though very complexly linked with nations. In Marx’s day 1st world workers really did exist close to a precarious subsistence level. Are you really denying that workers in the first world benefit from consuming imported goods from the third world at prices which reflect that costs in the third world are much lower and that the third world has to accept this because it has no choice, or that first world workers exist way above subsistence level?
.
.
Living standards


’Even more curious: in spite of the ever more vigorous exploitation of the "third world", the living standards of this first world "worker-bourgeois" are stagnant or declining...and this has been the case for the last three decades’.

First off this is not really even true. Living standards have increased in many ways. Frankly to deny this is to deny obvious experience. In the early 70’s most factory workers in Britain went to work by Bus or Bike. Today they go by car. They holidayed not in Spain for a fortnight but Blackpool for a week. Few had colour TV’s, No-one had freezers or video recorders, or dishwashers, Double Glazing was almost unknown; A curry was a very rare treat, as was imported premium beer, or a Big Mac, or exotic fruit. Now you might argue that some of these are not ‘really’ improvements (about which I would agree), but the fact is that by the only objective measure we can use they are. They would be described as improvements by many, many people.

Secondly you entirely miss the point that fewer and fewer ‘workers’ in the first world are actually engaged directly in production. More and more of them are really administrators of some sort or another for work in the second and third worlds, or administrators of the first world internal systems. The mean wage in the first world has risen and what is purchasable by that wage has also improved. People are not dissatisfied in more than the general grumbling way that they always are.

But these people are available in numbers to crush movements by the type of ‘worker’ that Marx was talking of, the bottom of the pile worker now not to be found in the west. The production the west does specialise in is geared towards producing both economic and military weapons to be used against the rest of the world should they need to be. The disparity between the power of the weapons available to the first world capitalism and the third world is much, much greater than the difference in Marx’s time between the bourgeois or the aristocracy and the proletariat. Not only that but the physical separation of the two forces is much greater. In 1917 the Russian proletariat could physically invade and occupy the ‘capitalist space’, it is inconceivable that a 3rd world ‘peoples army’ could pull the same trick today in a revolution against America.

It is, of course, possible that you are concerned with not ‘all the people’ but only those you happen to define as ‘ genuine first world workers’. If this is true our perspectives will be vastly different and frankly I wont care much what you say; I’ll just focus on trying to make it clear that you are no part of any movement I belong to.
.
.
.
‘The reason that there is an ever widening gap between the first-world worker's standard-of-living and the third-world worker's…..…If you compared a steel worker's wages in Indonesia with one in Indiana, I suspect that you'd find that the gap is getting smaller, not larger………. by definition, the third world is burdened by a huge and ever poorer peasantry’

Which is it? I know it makes arguments much easier if you can alter your fundamental assumptions to support whatever point you want to make. But MY BS alarm goes off at volume 10 whenever I see someone do this.

The actual stats, based on research rather than on your perceptions, show very conclusively that real incomes in the west (my detailed stats are based on the UK) have increased fairly significantly over the last 10 years and even more so over the last 50 and 100 (I was unable to find anything that dealt with the last 30). This applies whether you look at total income or disposable income; and whether you look at the mean, the median, or at any income sector except the bottom 20% (where they have been stagnant, not downward, for the last 10-20).

The distribution curve of wealth has been shifting so that an increasing proportion of wealth lies in fewer and fewer hands. This is a bad thing of course, if I did not think so I’d hardly be a socialist; but is not what you are claiming.

In the third world the reverse is true, all real living standards (measured directly, but more subjectively, as living standards this time because figures for income as such are not available or are very unreliable) have steeply declined and set to decline still further for everyone except the upper 20%. The distribution has altered as in the west but more pronouncedly.

Which leaves you hoping (expecting?) that people who can see that they have a much better standard of life than most others will generate enough resentment that they organise ‘themselves’ to overthrow the very system that creates this better standard.

It’s not going to happen. If you went into the average factory or building site and declared ‘Brothers although we are doing better than the 3rd world we could ultimately all be better off, study Marxist tools carefully and will become obvious to you, as it is to me’ at the same time as a Neo Fascist entered it and said ‘Its immigrants that cause the problems, and our jobs being shifted to Africa, vote for us and we will sort it out’; there’s not a shadow of a doubt who would gain the most support. In fact your ‘policy’ of education can only work at all in times when there is no great passion to sort out dramatic problems quickly. Because in other circumstances an easy solution will always be preferred whether it is a good one or not; no-one will follow something which seems passive and difficult to understand at such times.

Impractical ideas of Revolution

‘To put it crudely, the modern bourgeoisie have discovered that organized looting can be as profitable as ordinary commercial enterprises (Iraq, for example).’

Quite, but as this is what I’m saying too I fail to see its relevance to this argument except to support my contention that the third world is getting exploited far more than the first. Using the word ‘looting’ implies it is a one time theft of course, which it largely is not.

’This {Marx’s crisis is not going to occur in such a way that workers will revolt against the ‘bourgeois bosses’ and win} expresses the weakness of the non-Marxist analysis that says "what is...is what will be". Things will go along pretty much as they do right now, hence, no crisis and no revolution. (By the way, if there is a "crisis", the author suggests fascism as the most probable outcome.)’

My sentence just flat does not say any such thing, as you yourself acknowledge in the bracketed reference to what I actually do say. It says ‘not as Marx and you predict’ not ‘no change’.
.
.
.
The only genuine fact you point to is the continuing decline in voting numbers. I find it rather bizarre that you interpret this as a definite protest. It is not, such things rarely are. The most common reason for people not to vote on something is that they are comfortable in an apathetic grudging way. Non-democratic participation is also, by the way, a Capitalist tenet. These people seem to be behaving in a pretty capitalist way, not a socialist way. What they are actually doing is saying ‘heck we are OK’ish, its getting ahead within the system we need to focus on, not politics, who gives a shit about that’.

And just suppose that, in fact, all these non-voters actually are registering a protest (I don’t believe this for a second, but lets suppose it is true) – just what exactly is your opposition to putting up socialist candidates for whom they can vote and who may be able to achieve something? For that matter even if we cannot organise a consolidated candidate just exactly why are these people not voting for at least one of the Marxist candidates available to them? It’s a much clearer protest, and according to you these people are on the brink of becoming Marxists. It just does not make sense to interpret this your way.
.
.
.
‘There is already wide-spread working class cynicism towards the bourgeois electoral political system; this will deepen towards outright contempt and hatred as things continue to get worse. Fewer people will vote; more people will protest. Active sabotage will appear. Workplace rage will become more common as well as spontaneous riots in the poorest neighborhoods. And so on.’

But we see no real sign of anything like this. There is far less worker protest now than there was 30 years ago. And if it does happen this is no guarantee that the resolution will be socialism or communism (still less the sort of moral communism you advocate).
.
.
.
’The ruling class will become steadily more repressive as their other tools decline in utility. In addition, prison labor (slave labor) will become an ever more attractive investment opportunity...the chance to extract the maximum surplus value, at least for a little while.

Discontent will simmer, and then boil, and then explode in rage at the old order. The rank-and-file draftees and even the mercenaries will mutiny. The police will "melt away" when no one is looking. The prison camps will be opened. New public authorities will spontaneously arise, on the initiatives of tens of thousands of "leaders".

And nothing will ever be the same again.

I've left out and skipped over a lot here, but you get the idea’

Indeed I do, I get the idea that you would substitute dramatic images of a glorious revolution against a class for some reason oblivious to its impending destruction, for any analysis of exactly why this should occur.
.
.
.
Well, not exactly {in response to ‘lasting change tends to evolve, not to be ushered in at one fell swoop’.} Change in history is pretty complicated

No shit, is it really?
.
.
.
If the evidence in support of the Marxist scenario for communist revolution in the advanced capitalist countries is very weak thus far (and it is), the evidence for the "evolutionary path to socialism" is nonexistent. While political parties that embraced this strategy have, from time to time, come to power in bourgeois elections, their attempts to introduce "socialist" measures have been ineffective or nonexistent.

This is not true. The evidence for revolution producing sustainable change in a socialist direction is not so much weak as almost non-existent. Take a convenient ‘snapshot’ and it might appear that revolution works. But I thought you were opposed to snapshots (as one should be in this situation).

I probably should add that what evidence there is of revolutions succeeding even for a time, is based upon those focused around leaders with a strong organisation and sense of hierarchy. Exactly the sort of thing you are viciously opposed to.

On the other hand evidence for effective gradual change is overwhelming. Living standards have increased; social barriers have eroded, Social spending has increased, more people are enfranchised, etc. etc. etc. Of course a ‘snapshot’ situation where all of this has crystallised into full socialism is unavailable yet. But I thought you saw ‘snapshot’ analysis as rather poor methodology.

Even those revolutions that seemed to have achieved anything did not occur in the last 30 years (your preferred timescale) but in the far less recent past. You seem to forget that I acknowledge that revolution was more feasible then, and your failure to actually address this point is a telling indication that you have ignored, or failed to understand, what I am actually saying.

I am not saying that the gap between social democracy and socialism can be jumped without any defining moments or events. Or that there is no danger that Social democracy will lapse. Indeed I’m suggesting ways to bridge enough of the gap that the jump will become feasible. And I would imagine others could suggest more if they were allowed out of the straightjacket of slogans like ‘the workers will unite and institute a glorious communism’.
.
.
.
’Why? Because the bourgeois state machinery was designed as an organ of rule by the capitalist class and has evolved ever more closely to fit that purpose. A "socialist" party that attempts to use it to introduce socialist measures finds itself in the position of someone trying to use a car to go sailing. It's the wrong tool for the job. ‘

Which a) ignores the fairly important point that what I’m suggesting is not this in isolation; B) again uses nice simple snapshot imagery to convey an idea which sounds attractive but which is false – the bourgeois state machinery was not designed by anybody, it has evolved in response to many competing dynamics; and c) contains nothing much more than you stating what you believe to be the case. I can just as easily say that if a car is the only thing available and I want to go sailing I’d be well advised to try and modify the car before I do.
.
.
.
Anecdotes

’Which won't stop them from trying, of course. People often learn best from personal experience, and participation in reformist politics can certainly be a "learning experience". I still remember, with a lingering sense of shame, a couple of years in my youth when I "bought into" the idea of "gradual change" and "working from within", etc. (Yes, it's true.) It didn't take long for me to find out what was really going on, the corruption, the careerism, the intrigue, etc. It disgusted me and I quit, never to return.’

There is always going to be intrigue within any group, and people are going to try and progress their ‘careers’. The trick is to set things up so that this does not result in ideals being subverted. It’s difficult admittedly, but ignoring the problem of organisation as anarchists (and you) do solves nothing. Do you seriously imagine that your spontaneous workers revolution is going to happen without organisation? Can you really imagine the actions and decisions of hundreds of millions co-ordinating without hierarchy and advance planning? Assuming you do see that an organisation is needed just why is your vanguard cadre immune to exactly the things you seem to say are inevitable?
.
.
.
’Come to think of it, it was around that time that I first started reading...Marx.’

Good for you. Now if you could tone down your quasi religious admiration for your toolkit and yourself you might do something useful with your reading. It’s a shame, you clearly do have mastery over some useful tools but you don’t realise that these particular tools are inappropriate for some jobs.

[redstar2000]

Well, there you have it, a very sharp and clear distinction between a Marxist analysis of current reality and a non-Marxist one.

A few points not touched upon in my previous post...

If you went into the average factory or building site and declared ‘Brothers although we are doing better than the 3rd world we could ultimately all be better off, study Marxist tools carefully and will become obvious to you, as it is to me’ at the same time as a Neo Fascist entered it and said ‘Its immigrants that cause the problems, and our jobs being shifted to Africa, vote for us and we will sort it out’; there’s not a shadow of a doubt who would gain the most support. In fact your ‘policy’ of education can only work at all in times when there is no great passion to sort out dramatic problems quickly. Because in other circumstances an easy solution will always be preferred whether it is a good one or not; no-one will follow something which seems passive and difficult to understand at such times.

A very useful bit of bourgeois mythology is that workers are both "reactionary racists at heart" and rather "simple-minded" as well. Its purpose is to discourage people from advocating communism; better to advocate some slight "reform" that the "backward" masses can "understand".

...just what exactly is your opposition to putting up socialist candidates for whom they can vote and who may be able to achieve something? For that matter even if we cannot organise a consolidated candidate just exactly why are these people not voting for at least one of the Marxist candidates available to them?

Those "socialist" candidates will achieve nothing except possibly adding a tiny degree of legitimacy to an illigitimate political process.

And those "Marxist" candidates are an obvious joke; would you or any sensible person vote for a party that openly says it wants to establish a dictatorship?

On the other hand evidence for effective gradual change is overwhelming. Living standards have increased; social barriers have eroded, Social spending has increased, more people are enfranchised, etc. etc. etc.

This is quite clever: suggesting that progressive changes in capitalism (even if accurately summarized), are somehow "steps" on the road to "socialism".

The reformist "in decay" completely forgets the fact that socialism once meant a change in which class rules. Now, an increase in the National Health Service budget is, presumably, "a step towards socialism".

There is far less worker protest now than there was 30 years ago. And if it does happen this is no guarantee that the resolution will be socialism or communism...

There are no guarantees. The scenario I propose could be one that doesn't materialize until the middle of the next century or even the one after that.

IF, as you contend, Marx was wrong, then it won't happen that way. I'm not worried about that; why are you?

What do you stand to gain by telling people that revolution is "impossible" and that we should "therefore" concern ourselves with modest improvements, gradually implemented, as a "result" of participation in the bourgeois electoral spectacle?

If your views are indeed correct, then revolutionaries will never be more than a few malcontents or cranks on the fringes of society, listened to by no one except each other. There are probably tens of thousands and maybe even hundreds of thousands of people in the U.K. who agree with you right now and who would think I was a nutball.

So what is your real purpose here...to nip that "revolution" crap in the bud, to keep anyone from hearing it or possibly taking it seriously?

I am not saying that the gap between social democracy and socialism can be jumped without any defining moments or events. Or that there is no danger that Social democracy will lapse. Indeed I’m suggesting ways to bridge enough of the gap that the jump will become feasible. And I would imagine others could suggest more if they were allowed out of the straightjacket of slogans like ‘the workers will unite and institute a glorious communism’.

In other words, we revolutionaries have put straightjackets on people's minds and are thus "holding back" the struggle for reforms.

All three of us?!

Do you seriously imagine that your spontaneous workers revolution is going to happen without organisation? Can you really imagine the actions and decisions of hundreds of millions co-ordinating without hierarchy and advance planning?

Yeah.

I’ll just focus on trying to make it clear that you are no part of any movement I belong to.

Likewise.

:cool:

PS: I feel a little remiss about not responding to the detailed statistical arguments that were raised; frankly, I have not the time to research the matter thoroughly...and to allow for the inevitable distortions in official statistics. In the unlikely event that there is a good Marxist economist in the house, now is the time for her/him to step forward. Meanwhile, I'll keep an eye out for recent numbers and, if some turn up, I'll get back to you. Sorry.

[sc4r]

A very useful bit of bourgeois mythology is that workers are both "reactionary racists at heart" and rather "simple-minded" as well.

Its purpose is to discourage people from advocating communism; better to advocate some slight "reform" that the "backward" masses can "understand".

If you read it ALL, without your red light blinkers on, you would see that what it actually says is that workers (or almost anyone else, but we are only talking about workers) if faced with a problem will go with a solution which is immediate, clear, and if possible has an easily defined enemy who can be hurt. What non intellectuals (a term you seem to think I invariably use as a mark of superiority and in admiration, although I consider you an intellectual) are not likely to do is reach for the books and start cogitating. How do you think Hitler came to power?

Bottom line - when I say 'Many of the guys actually would behave like this today' it is not some sort of vague guess. Its observable, many do behave like it. Deny it by all means; but many who actually work in factories or building sites will confirm it.

They will also confirm that anybody loudly advocating what looks like paedophile friendly legislation as part of their package (whether they intend it this way or not) will not merely be ignored but will be lucky to escape with all their bits intact. Forget having a week to construct a defence and explain, as you got here. You’d have 5 seconds to have it on your toes, if you were lucky.

There is also a major difference between what I actually said : ‘If two particular solutions are proffered XYZ will be preferred even though it contains what are actually racist messages’; and me saying anyone at all is a simple minded reactionary racist. I’m not commonly so insulting about people. What would cause XYZ to be selected is the utter futility they would see in your alternative (in which they would not by my lights be being simple at all, because I would concur in their rejection of it).
.
.
Those "socialist" candidates will achieve nothing except possibly adding a tiny degree of legitimacy to an illigitimate political process.

This is what passes as 'analysis' using your tools? It isn’t, it is merely argumentative. What exactly do you contend is illegitimate about the process itself rather than about how it is used and manipulated? Not what is less than ideal - what is illegitimate?
.
.
And those "Marxist" candidates are an obvious joke; would you or any sensible person vote for a party that openly says it wants to establish a dictatorship?

Nope I would not. But few of them do say this, openly or otherwise. And if they did, there are other non dictatorial, but equally unelectable, candidates; for whom a clear protest vote could be registered if you were right about this burning desire to protest capitalism. A desire which or some inexplicable reason manifests according to you only as apathy and capitalist behaviour.

Set up your own party. Put no effort into it, call it the ‘Anarcho-Communist Protest Vote; even if elected we will do absolutely nothing’ party. If you fail to lose your deposit I’ll stand corrected and look a complete fool, wont I. And you will have performed a useful service to Marxism, you will have drawn attention to it and planted the idea in a few heads to maybe educate themselves.
.
.
This {evidence for effective gradual change is overwhelming. Living standards have increased; social barriers have eroded, Social spending has increased, more people are enfranchised, etc. etc.} is quite clever: suggesting that progressive changes in capitalism (even if accurately summarized), are somehow "steps" on the road to "socialism".

The reformist "in decay" completely forgets the fact that socialism once meant a change in which class rules. Now, an increase in the National Health Service budget is, presumably, "a step towards socialism".

And obsessive Marxist scholars with insulting phrases forget that long before that time it did not; and still does not to many people. The same scholars would be well advised to get their terminology correct when they argue such narrow points: the changes are in liberalism not capitalism.

You seem to forget here that what is being presented is evidence that gradual change towards a society less biased towards owners and aristos can be achieved. However, as a matter of fact I would say that social appropriation of profits for use in social projects is a step closer to socialism. There is little difference between a 100% tax on profits coupled with legislation about pay and conditions and ‘common ownership’, even 20% is clearly a step closer than 10%. This doesn’t mean I’m content to leave this as the only avenue of progress; I gave half a dozen suggestions, of which this isn’t even explicitly one, which I expressly said I thought would combine to be far more effective than any one in isolation.

Most importantly you seem oblivious to the fact that as defined by you it is impossible to observe gradual change towards socialism because you actually define it as an all or nothing affair. In essence you say that at 99% it isn’t socialism at all (and tack on a few requirements for your support, such as modifications to the penal code which I would see as having nothing to do with it). This means that the transition in your terms would have to be a clearly defined event; it does not mean that a revolution is needed to bring about that defining event.

Let me be clear, in case I have not already been. I would see the organisation of a mass Marxist movement among people (workers) who are almost complete non-participants in the wealth and social affairs of ‘their’ society, and who are thrown together in situations which provide opportunities and motivation for creating unity against a common ‘enemy’ as being the quickest route to a Marxist society. But in the 1st world that situation does not now exist. We bypassed it and so missed the opportunity. I can see no way to roll the clock back, and I have no special desire to do so anyway because: a) the opportunity could be missed again, and probably would be, since this time any halfway sentient enemy would be on the look-out; B) it would take an inordinately long time (you suggest another 150 years); c) it would negate for a considerable period the material advantages that have been gained, with all the attendant misery this would cause (worse this time because if you never miss what you never had, you most definitely do miss what you did have).

IF, as you contend, Marx was wrong, then it won't happen that way. I'm not worried about that; why are you?

What do you stand to gain by telling people that revolution is "impossible" and that we should "therefore" concern ourselves with modest improvements, gradually implemented, as a "result" of participation in the bourgeois electoral spectacle?

So what is your real purpose here...to nip that "revolution" crap in the bud, to keep anyone from hearing it or possibly taking it seriously?

Because I don’t believe Marx was wrong about what would be a much better social order and I would like to see it happen as fast as possible. I don’t a flying fart how we get there, and while I’ll acknowledge Marx’s contribution to progress planning I won’t be bound to it. If you gave me any plan for anything which was 150 years old I’d assume that it was most unlikely that it was still really valid, let alone a plan for defeating an enemy which the enemy had been able to study for that entire period.

My purpose is as described in the original post, the purpose I have referred to in almost every exchange with you. The same one in fact that you acknowledge one paragraph further down in your reply. It is to prevent your ultra passive message (you are not actually advocating revolution, you are advocating waiting for revolution to happen, let’s not forget) persuading potentially useful people from frittering away their time with loud declarations about the glorious revolution, while quite pointedly avoiding anything which might bring progress about. It does not matter for this part of the discussion whether I am actually correct about the futility of your ideas, it is still my purpose.

PS: I feel a little remiss about not responding to the detailed statistical arguments that were raised; frankly, I have not the time to research the matter thoroughly...and to allow for the inevitable distortions in official statistics. In the unlikely event that there is a good Marxist economist in the house, now is the time for her/him to step forward. Meanwhile, I'll keep an eye out for recent numbers and, if some turn up, I'll get back to you. Sorry

Which seems to equate to you saying that the truth, or otherwise, about ‘facts’ that you stated so definitively as a core part of your ‘analysis’ is entirely unknown to you. It appears that you are determined that the facts should conform to your analysis not that your analysis conforms to fact. The facts have possibly misbehaved it would appear. Naughty facts; apologise to Redstar.

I’ll just focus on trying to make it clear that you are no part of any movement I belong to.

Likewise

There was an IF attached to my comment, which (in order to provoke hostility?) you have conveniently ignored. Suppose you answer the question attached to that IF - Are you for people? or are you for 1st world workers? and how exactly do you define a 'worker' if so.

[Invader Zim]

Revolution is doomed to failure, the massive revolution talked about by RS2000 will never come to pass. Simply because people in the west are relatively happy. As SC4R pointed out living standards are at an all time high in countries such as the UK, USA, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc, etc. Why would people have a revolution against a system which they may not actually like but accept? In the Feudal societies of the third world it is different people are really oppressed, however even in those countries the support and recourses for such organisations which attempt to bring about a revolution do not gain massive support because they are not funded well enough, are disorganised and split. Such organisations do not gain support from anybody. When looking at Marx it is obvious that his ideals were flawed, if he was correct then the feudalistic nations of the west in the 1800's would have reverted to socialism. They did not, they converted to capitalistic liberalism, which appeases the masses, even if not actually making them like the system. Marx obviously did not foresee this, how could he? Of course his ideas were followed by some nations, these nations became socialist, however the fear of the capitalists was such that a very hostile political climate built up, sanctions were imposed on trade and wars were started. All of this causes economic slow down and drops etc. In such conditions a gap for dictators opens and authoritarianism is bred, hence the reason why those nations which did start from revolution have nearly all collapsed under oppression. This leads to the conclusion that any nation which has its beginnings in violence only has a small life before a return to capitalism. However such revolution will not take place agin because as I said earlier the political climate has changed since the late 1800's and 1900. The only remaining way to gain socialism is to allow futher liberalistic reform until liberalism reforms to socialism, just as feudalism reformed to modern capitalism. History has shown us this on many occasions.

[redstar2000]

You seem to forget here that what is being presented is evidence that gradual change towards a society less biased towards owners and aristos can be achieved. However, as a matter of fact I would say that social appropriation of profits for use in social projects is a step closer to socialism.

And there you are. That's what reformism actually means now. You can like that or not...but that's what's in the package.

AK47 likes it...

The only remaining way to gain socialism is to allow futher liberalistic reform until liberalism reforms to socialism, just as feudalism reformed to modern capitalism. History has shown us this on many occasions.

What "history has shown us" is where your path goes...New Labour.

Have a nice trip.

:cool:

[sc4r]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:05 pm on July 17, 2003
You seem to forget here that what is being presented is evidence that gradual change towards a society less biased towards owners and aristos can be achieved. However, as a matter of fact I would say that social appropriation of profits for use in social projects is a step closer to socialism.

And there you are. That's what reformism actually means now. You can like that or not...but that's what's in the package.

AK47 likes it...

The only remaining way to gain socialism is to allow futher liberalistic reform until liberalism reforms to socialism, just as feudalism reformed to modern capitalism. History has shown us this on many occasions.

What "history has shown us" is where your path goes...New Labour.

Have a nice trip.



And how does what it is called affect what it is evidence for? Why would I object to it being called reformism, or anything else. My arguments are not based on whether I think the words have a nice sound or a pretty shape.

But lets go further and ask what it was that I described, Reformism? or some of the results of reformism? Quite nice results these ones I would say. It is not academic to ask that you try to address the ideas raised not the ones you would find it simplest to answer.

Whether AK47 likes reformism or not is to put it mildly irrelevent since a) that is not actually what I'm advocating (it is a package deal, remember? Calling even a part of it reformism - let alone 'reformism in decay' is contentious given the specifics of what I describe); and B) the more people who like the package or even parts of it (provided they dont obstruct the rest of it) the better.

As far I can tell The only sins AK47 has committed are :

a) to disagree with you (a bonus as far as I'm concerned);

B) To have supported the 21 day war ( for good reasons, albeit ones I disagree with). As far as socialism goes whether a large capitalist nation attacks a small quasi-Fascist one or not is pretty irrelevant.

In point of fact I would say that people who actually took AK47s position for the reasons he did are the closest of all us to have actually got it right. The worst immediate problems we feared did not manifest themselves and Sadam has indeed gone.

I still feel right to have opposed it vociferously because I feel it probable that some of the worst did not occur precisely because of the objections. And I certainly dont feel it likely that the US crews wildly wonderful notions about every Iraqi is going to be scoffing steak pie and eggs over easy for dinner every day while luxuriating in new found prosperity are going to come true; but neithjer do I actually believe Iraqi's are genuinely likey to have it much worse. The people who WILL get hurt are Americans if a reaction sets in. Funnily enough I cant find it in me to shed few tears for them.


(Edited by sc4r at 2:20 pm on July 17, 2003)

[redstar2000]

...To have supported the 21 day war ( for good reasons, albeit ones I disagree with). As far as socialism goes whether a large capitalist nation attacks a small quasi-Fascist one or not is pretty irrelevant.

In point of fact I would say that people who actually took AK47s position for the reasons he did are the closest of all us to have actually got it right. The worst immediate problems we feared did not manifest themselves and Saddam has indeed gone.

The fortress of world reaction dethrones a petty dictator and conquers a new oil-rich province while murdering 6,000-8,000 civilians and reducing the survivors to an even greater misery than they already endured..."is irrelevant to socialism".

And those who supported the "21-day war" (what a great name...it sounds so innocent), like AK47, "got it right".

Does the phrase "shameless lackey of U.S. imperialism" ring a bell?

:cool:

[elijahcraig]

Are you people actually supporting the Iraq War? Good god, I thought I wouldn't find anyone that stupid on this board.

If you think this war is to "liberate", you are sadly mistaken. You can trace this to 1953 when the US and Great Britain overthrew a democratically elected government (and also a Iranian hero...Mossadeq), and placed in rule the most brutal dictator in modern times...The Shah! His murderous rule was termed by Amnesty International as "beyond belief." The CIA trained his SAVAK, a secret police force. This led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, supported by the majority since the Shah was so bad. This led to the Iran-Iraq war, when we gave Saddam the weapons for which we now "search". Why did we overthrow the most popular government in the history of Iran? Because Great Britain was pissed off that they didn't get their oil for free or near that. Mossadeq nationalized the oil companies, he was a great hero.

Here's a link:

http://www.geocities.com/USBackedTyrants/theshah.htm

[sc4r]

Does the phrase 'completely up your own wotsit' ring your bell RS ?

So far up it you can probably tickle your tonsils from the floorside.

1. Motives are not the issue here as far as I'm concerned. I doubt they are for AK47, although obviously I don’t know that for sure. I have no doubt that US motives had nothing to do with anything except oil and strategy.

2. But irrespective of motive the effect was to eliminate a very nasty dictator who by all accounts was causing a huge amount of human misery.

3. It makes little difference to me in this evaluation that Sadddam was orginally a US puppet or that this puts the US in an even worse light. That says something about the USA (that it is oppressive) not about what the overall effects of GW2 are.

4. The cost of the action in terms of human suffering to Iraqi's, both short and long term, is high on an absolute scale but not anywhere near as high as most of us opposed to it thought it was going to be.

5.Nor did any of the more catastrophic predictions about incidental effects materialise.

6.I don’t really give a rats arse about those long term effects that are bad for the USA. If one was arguing against the war before it happened it was valid to point out to the yanks that they too would suffer. But this was an argument advanced to affect their decision, not because it mattered to me as such. I don’t care about them all that much.

7.The fact is that it is difficult to see how Iraqi’s are overall going to be all that much worse off than they were before, even taking into account the obviously dramatic short term negatives. They wont be much better off either in my view, as I said.

All of which makes people Like AK47 as closer to being right than almost anybody else. I (and you I presume) thought the conflict could be much worse than it was. Bush and Blair supporters are misguided in what will now happen I believe (and were of course also wrong about WMD's); AK47 appears as far as I can tell to have been wrong (and this not proven) only about exactly how much good it will do.

To me this puts your whole hopelessly confused position in general into perspective. You make grand claims about all the mashing and social crisis that will usher in your ideals (you even explicitly at one stage tell me about the wars we are going to see). You appear to want this (in fact given that you say it is the only way Marxism will come about. not to want it is not to want what you claim you do want).

Then when you actually see a crisis with a relatively small amount of carnage you immediately become holier than thou.

Which is exactly why I say you (and anarchists in general) are impractical idealists. You believe in what I see as an impractical ideal, issued in by what I see as unlikely circumstances, which you don’t even seem to want.

You look like a believer in magical transformations in my view; or perhaps just very slipshod and lazy in your analysis.

Put another way you dont have your views connected to reality. You are happy to describe abstract conflict between 'the forces of capitalism' and glorify it; but heavan forbid this should ever get translated into actual people killing each other; then you would express horror. That is 'nicey nicey land' alright.

Oh! You are good with insulting slogans (I’m an imperial lackey now am I indeed) but that seems to be about it.

If you can explain what it is about the phrase '21 day war' that is so innocent sounding go ahead. It was a war, it lasted 21 days, apparently it communicated exactly what I was talking about with no ambiguity.



(Edited by sc4r at 5:43 pm on July 18, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

What an idiot.

Imperialist.

[elijahcraig]

1. Motives are not the issue here as far as I'm concerned. I doubt they are for AK47, although obviously I don’t know that for sure. I have no doubt that US motives had nothing to do with anything except oil and strategy.

Motives don't matter? That's a nonsensical statement.

2. But irrespective of motive the effect was to eliminate a very nasty dictator who by all accounts was causing a huge amount of human misery.

You don't care that every time the US goes in (in the history of their imperialistic life), they ALWAYS set up another dictatorship. The US caused this, they are capitalist imperialists, they cannot solve it.

3. It makes little difference to me in this evaluation that Sadddam was orginally a US puppet or that this puts the US in an even worse light. That says something about the USA (that it is oppressive) not about what the overall effects of GW2 are.

Well, I see a pattern, and you should too if you aren't a moron.

4. The cost of the action in terms of human suffering to Iraqi's, both short and long term, is high on an absolute scale but not anywhere near as high as most of us opposed to it thought it was going to be.

My guess was about right, and it's not anywhere close to over yet.

5.Nor did any of the more catastrophic predictions about incidental effects materialise.

Some did. But that doesn't matter.

6.I don’t really give a rats arse about those long term effects that are bad for the USA. If one was arguing against the war before it happened it was valid to point out to the yanks that they too would suffer. But this was an argument advanced to affect their decision, not because it mattered to me as such. I don’t care about them all that much.

Well, I don't care about the US as much as what it is doing to other nations. You really should read up on US Imperialism. "Killing Hope" by William Blum is a great book on that subject.

7.The fact is that it is difficult to see how Iraqi’s are overall going to be all that much worse off than they were before, even taking into account the obviously dramatic short term negatives. They wont be much better off either in my view, as I said.


<>

All of which makes people Like AK47 as closer to being right than almost anybody else. I (and you I presume) thought the conflict could be much worse than it was. Bush and Blair supporters are misguided in what will now happen I believe (and were of course also wrong about WMD's); AK47 appears as far as I can tell to have been wrong (and this not proven) only about exactly how much good it will do.

I really can't believe you're such a reactionary to foreign policy, it's idiotic.

To me this puts your whole hopelessly confused position in general into perspective. You make grand claims about all the mashing and social crisis that will usher in your ideals (you even explicitly at one stage tell me about the wars we are going to see). You appear to want this (in fact given that you say it is the only way Marxism will come about. not to want it is not to want what you claim you do want).

We don't want imperialistic wars which hurt the working class, we do want wars which will emancipate the working class. Actually, we would avoid war as long as possible, we don't really want it.

Then when you actually see a crisis with a relatively small amount of carnage you immediately become holier than thou.

You need to add up the math man, US Imperialism's death toll is in the higher millions.

Which is exactly why I say you (and anarchists in general) are impractical idealists. You believe in what I see as an impractical ideal, issued in by what I see as unlikely circumstances, which you don’t even seem to want.

I'm no anarchist, and you're no communist (I don't know what you claim to be), if you support imperialistic wars.


Put another way you dont have your views connected to reality. You are happy to describe abstract conflict between 'the forces of capitalism' and glorify it; but heavan forbid this should ever get translated into actual people killing each other; then you would express horror. That is 'nicey nicey land' alright.

How does working class emancipation have anything to do with an imperialist nation invading another nation?

Oh! You are good with insulting slogans (I’m an imperial lackey now am I indeed) but that seems to be about it.


You are good at making a fool of yourself, we don't even need insults, your words do that for us.

[sc4r]

I'm going to try and stay patient with you (I have already completely lost patience with RS, there is nothing I can do about that).

Before you call someone an idiot and a lackey, or whatever, you might wish to see if you are totally misreading what is being said. The fault may be mine for not being clear enough, or yours for being so obsessive about opposition to something that you start opposing words not ideas.

I did not say, and I did not mean, that motives do not matter. They do, sometimes immensely. But they only matter when you are deciding what to do or what will happen. They are completely irrelevent when examining what already is.

I thought I did in fact, make it very clear that I do regard US motives as very very bad ones. This led me to believe that their supposed justifications for the war were lies, and that they would be perfectly prepared to brainwash people into being supportive in order to get it. So although I accept that some of the things they cited as justifications really existed , I still did not support the war. Thatwas because the justifications I saw as real did not balance what I saw as the likely costs.

But the fact is that what I saw as the likely costs were not the true costs as it turned out.

This does not excuse the USA. They seemed to concur with my judgement on many of the costs, and as some of them (many of them) were actually risks, not definite ones, it can be viewed as mere happenstance that they did not come about. I dont applaud people for making bad decisions even when everything turns out Ok (some lunatic who gets into his car having drunk 1/2 bottle of whisky, is not going to get my approval for having done so just because he is fortunate enough to get home without killing someone).

Nor am I going to applaud the USA for what I think they are going to do in Iraq. The fact that (maybe) thnings are not going to be as bad for Iraqi's as they might have been, does not alter the fact that they are still going to be exploited (A chap who drinks 1/4 bottle of whisky does not get applauded because the other guy drank a half bottle. But if I had to choose to prevent only one of them driving, I'd prevent the half bottler).

If you cannot see the analogy of the whisky situation to Iraq then try harder until you do.

I did not and do not support imperial wars. It is not impossible that I might support some imperial war, but I did not support this one. I do not base my support on what a thing is called, or who is doing it, but on what it will achieve. To do otherwise is dogmatic; in fact it is what dogmatic means.

As far as I can tell AK47 pretty much agreed with me on the motives behind the war; he pretty much agreed on the likely benefits (he may see them as higher if he thinks enough pressure can be out upon the USA to do the right thing); but rather crucially as I understand it he saw the costs to iraq as being much lower. I assume (though again I do not know) that he saw the costs to americans as being just about as high as me; but like me saw this as forming no part in his real judgement.

This definitely makes him more correct than me.

It makes him more correct than most on the left; because most saw the costs pretty much as I did; and some see the benefits as being higher than I do

It makes him more correct than most on the right; because most of them saw the costs to Iraq not all that differently from me, but saw the benefits as being much higher (they accept the stated motives as being true). I personally see them as being very wrong, because I think they have additionally got the costs to them selves very wrong.

If you got both costs and benefits about right then you are about equal with AK47 in this contest (you may be in the lead at the moment if his assessment of the future benefits actually is higher than mine and mine is correct). But I would question, if this is true, whether you should have opposed the war. Saddam is gone, I assume you do not deny that he did indeed do a great deal of evil. It has cost 5000 odd lives, plus a fair number of ongoing problems for Iraqis. It is subjective whether this is a cost worth paying, but in my subjective opinion it probably would have been.

The only significant group who, I suspect, got it even more right than AK47 is the US government. Not what they said; that definitely is not right; but what they really thought.

Please please please realise that the word 'right' can mean mathematically correct rathe than ethically correct. The US Government in my view was defimnitely not ethically right.

To sum up you have quite fundamentally misunderstood my position; either that or you actually do base your judgements only on dogma of the worst sort. I am assuming it was the former.

Now please quit it with this 'imperialist lackey' and other shit. It is insulting and misplaced when applied to me, and also to AK47 as far as I can see. Intellectuals can be as insulting as they like to each other; they are not really concerned with achieving anything. THEY dont in fact need solidarity. But if you are one of us who actually wants socialism in a practical sense then you do need solidarity. Again I'm assuming you do, but for all I know you may not. I you call me those sorts of names again I will assume that you do not; and I am an enemy of those who oppose or maliciously weaken socialism from within.

P.S. I am a socialist not a communist. If you are a communist you should realise that you cannot get direct to where you want to be from where we are now. Wishing you could wont make it so, nor will supporting theorists like RS who makes truth conform to theory in his mind; ot theory to truth ( this is not merely what I think. iI is what he has as good as admitted , even boasted of elsewhere).

for now best wishes.



(Edited by sc4r at 7:52 pm on July 18, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Here is one I have not seen before: a "cost-benefit" analysis of imperialist war from a "leftist".

Sc4r suggests that he did not support the "21-day war" (still love that innocent name) because of the possibility of catastrophic casualties among Iraqi civilians. Evidently, sc4r's "catastrophe threshold" was not reached...and therefore the war was...marginally justified? Had sc4r known this in advance, would he have been neutral?

Of course, sc4r takes no account of the historical circumstances of that war--which I will refer to as "The War of Aggression Against Iraq" as a more accurate designation--or, in fact, of the very existence of U.S. imperialism. Once again, note the "snapshot" version of reality. To express the matter in terms of his own metaphor, we are not simply speaking of someone who has consumed an excess amount of alcohol on this particular occasion...we are talking about a habitual drunk.

Now please quit it with this 'imperialist lackey' and other shit. It is insulting and misplaced when applied to me, and also to AK47 as far as I can see.

It is definitely accurate with regard to AK47; go look up his thread on the British Empire in the History Forum...he called it "nasty but necessary". He really is a "Colonel Blimp" who identifies with imperial adventurers and, if I'm not mistaken, actually tried to have someone banned from Che-Lives for applauding the deaths of the invaders (one of his relatives is, I think, a British mercenary in Iraq).

By indicating that there might be some circumstances in which sc4r would support an imperialist war, he has started down a very dangerous path...and no one is likely to be interested in how much he "supports socialism".

And when sc4r suggests that Marxists "want" imperialist war because we observe that phenomenon as an inevitable characteristic of late capitalism is truly ludicrious...rather on the order of suggesting that doctors really "want" people to get sick so they'll have a chance to practice their trade.

:cool:

[Moskitto]

It is definitely accurate with regard to AK47; go look up his thread on the British Empire in the History Forum...he called it "nasty but necessary". He really is a "Colonel Blimp" who identifies with imperial adventurers and, if I'm not mistaken, actually tried to have someone banned from Che-Lives for applauding the deaths of the invaders (one of his relatives is, I think, a British mercenary in Iraq).

WOW, his cousin is a helicopter technician who works fixing the helicopters used to deliver food aid to the people of Iraq who actually need it, do you want the Iraqis to die?

actually, you'll find he wanted someone banned for saying "BOOM, bye bye AK47 cousin."

Stab Stab, bye bye Redstar2000 parents.

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:25 am on July 19, 2003)

[redstar2000]

WOW, his cousin is a helicopter technician who works fixing the helicopters used to deliver food aid to the people of Iraq who actually need it, do you want the Iraqis to die?

Aawwwww...that's soooo sweet. Maybe AK47 can nominate his "noble" cousin for a "Nobel Peace Prize".

actually, you'll find he wanted someone banned for saying "BOOM, bye bye AK47 cousin."

Stab Stab, bye bye Redstar2000 parents.

You could have already accomplished your deadly mission and I would have no way of knowing, one way or the other. I haven't had any contact with either one of them for more than 40 years, by my own choice.

You never did, by the way, back up your mate RAM's proposal that my mother should have aborted me...now that would hurt. :cheesy:

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:22 am on July 19, 2003)

[Moskitto]

You never did, by the way, back up your mate RAM's proposal that my mother should have aborted me...now that would hurt. :cheesy:

No I wouldn't back up such a proposal as I do not agree with abortion, however because I believe in the choice to have an abortion or not have an abortion, I would back up your mother's choice whatever it may be.

Considering today I discovered someone was saying something about me which is likely to get me killed/arrested, I think i'm remarkably relaxed in this conversation i'm having with you.

[sc4r]

Here is one I have not seen before: a "cost-benefit" analysis of imperialist war from a "leftist".


And how else would you suggest evaluating anything except by weighing up the pro's and cons?

If you have not seen such things done before then you need to leave your ivory tower more often.

The rest of this is rather long I'm afraid. Its unfortunate that it is in the nature of criticisms of dogma such as RS's that they often are ; because I have to try and explain properly, whereas Dogma can get away with not doing so.


Sc4r suggests that he did not support the "21-day war" .Evidently, sc4r's "catastrophe threshold" was not reached...and therefore the war was...marginally justified? Had sc4r known this in advance, would he have been neutral?


Yes, of course I would have been. Neutral towards the war; not neutral towards America, or neutral about plans for Iraq after the war. Are you really so stupid that you cannot see that you can approve the totality of a thing on balance without approving all of its parts?

I like football, I approve of it, but I do wish they would change the offside rule, which I don’t approve of.


sc4r takes no account of the historical circumstances of that war--which I will refer to as "The War of Aggression Against Iraq" as a more accurate designation--or, in fact, of the very existence of U.S. imperialism. Once again, note the "snapshot" version of reality.


Just saying I have a snapshot view of reality (whatever the shit that even means) dont make it so. One takes past actions into account in order to help judge what future ones are going to be. And I did. In other words I very definitely did take the historical circumstances into account.

What I did not do, unlike you it seems, is just evaluate the agent of action rather than the action itself. You obviously don’t realise it. But to be consistent your stance should be the same on American aid to Iraq; you should oppose it

But you don’t care about consistency do you? You issue blind dogmatic statements which because they are only dogma can be as disjointed and contradictory as you care to make them.

'The war of aggression against Iraq' might sound more accurate to you but its nowhere near as useful and of course actually no more accurate than ‘the 21 day war’. It describes different things is all, but it falls down rather badly in its choice of what to describe because there are rather a lot of wars its terms might be describing.


By indicating that there might be some circumstances in which sc4r would support an imperialist war, he has started down a very dangerous path...and no one is likely to be interested in how much he "supports socialism".


In this context a safe path means one where there is no chance of anyone stepping outside the dogma line. One where the total acceptance of anything RS says is to be mandatory and conformance is to be absolute.

I have walked dangerous paths all my life chum. Anyone who wants to arrive anywhere interesting or new has to. But the only danger here is that I will come to see that us socialists are wrong. It won’t happen, because we are not, but I will accept whatever is correct and true not whatever your dogma says should be.

In fact rather a lot of people have been interested in how much I support Socialism. Quite a few people who were very sceptical indeed about it, or who had misconceptions about it, have altered their minds as a consequence of listening to me.

The last sentence of yours is revealing. I suspect that this is pretty much what matters to you; that people think you support ‘socialism’. While it matters to me somewhat, since I do not wish the enmity of those I have common cause with, it matters much less to me than that people are interested in whether they should support socialism. I have an ego, but compared to yours it is as a molehill to mount Everest.


And when sc4r suggests that Marxists "want" imperialist war because we observe that phenomenon as an inevitable characteristic of late capitalism is truly ludicrious...rather on the order of suggesting that doctors really "want" people to get sick so they'll have a chance to practice their trade.


I don’t want imperialist war. My ‘plan’ can come to fruition without it. So it is not the case that Marxists want it. But your plan cannot, or at least not without a great deal of other conflict of an essentially similar nature (that’s according to you, not me).

Which leaves you basically in the position either of not wanting to see Socialism implemented particularly or wanting such conflict. I suppose you could, just about, have the notion that what you ideally want is for someone else to come up with an alternative plan. But I can’t say that you show much enthusiasm for constructive discussion about any such suggestions.

The ‘doctor’ analogy is false. We are both saying that the patient already is sick. You are in the position of a doctor who observes a fairly sick man and says that if uncured the man will get steadily worse and eventually die a nasty death, But your doctor says if it so happens that his immune system can be shocked into hyperactivity by a raging fever he may be cured. In such circumstances he definitely does want the fever to occur because if it does not the patient will die.

Only if you see Capitalism as not being already harmful and likely to get far more so can you not want the ‘imperialist wars’ etc. which would lead to your cure. Because without them in your view socialism (or communism) cannot implement the cure. You are (I assume) supporting the lesser of two evils.

Which is rather neat really. Since it is precisely for supporting what we see as the lesser of two evils that you criticise AK47 and myself.

Contradictions like this abound in your views. Because they are not based on reality, but on Dogma which does nothing to resolve them.

[redstar2000]

...you need to leave your ivory tower more often.

Are you really so stupid that you cannot see that you can approve the totality of a thing on balance without approving all of its parts?

But you don’t care about consistency do you? You issue blind dogmatic statements which because they are only dogma can be as disjointed and contradictory as you care to make them.

...a safe path means one where there is no chance of anyone stepping outside the dogma line. One where the total acceptance of anything RS says is to be mandatory and conformance is to be absolute.

I have an ego, but compared to yours it is as a molehill to mount Everest.

Contradictions like this abound in your views. Because they are not based on reality, but on Dogma which does nothing to resolve them.

I suppose this is what passes for rational discourse in reformist, non-Marxist circles these days. Since there is no possible reply to irrational abuse--how would one "prove" that one is not a "dogmatist"?--I leave the reader to decide whether I am guilty of "sin" or not.

But I will not "repent".

:cool:

[sc4r]

well that Ok then you could try to reply to the 90% of the post that was not irrational abuse.

In fact I'd be perfectly happy to cut the abuse (whether rational or not) out altogether. It would mean you would have to quit it with the 'piss off', 'nobody cares', 'you are an imperial lackey', shit that started this feud in the first place though.

I dont think you'll be able to do that. Because 90% of your refutations to what I say involve you implying something of the sort. You might not phrase it as a direct ad hominem but you still do it. Theres no essential difference between my saying that what you post is Dogma and saying that you are dogmatic, just as there is no essential difference in you saying that my views are 'imperialistic' or 'non marxist' and saying I am.

It would mean (for example) that when I ask 'How would u evaluate...' you would have to answer that, or leave it.

It would mean that when I say 'ownership.....' you'd probably have to come up with something better than saying 'I would use a different word for owner'.

When I ask 'how exactly are you going to co-ordinate millions of people in their opposition to a very organised enemy without hiereachy ?' you are going to have to answer with something more convincing than 'It is possible'.

In short you are going to have to debate substance rather than rhetoric. I'd be happy to do so, because I'm convinced that in substance your position is so flimsy it could be knocked over with a light breeze of actual debate. It is glued together strongly only by dogma, tale that away and it will crumble.

But by all means lets see. The worst I can be is wrong. I'll live with that.

PS. I ought to add that you do have a saving grace. You do not pursue a line of argument which you have clearly lost by changing your tack completely for a while before returning to the original one, or by making a totally ludicrous interpretation of what has been said.

This implies very strongly that you can reason properly and fairly, which I'll admit does set you well apart from the dogmatics on the right.

(Edited by sc4r at 2:47 pm on July 20, 2003)