Leftist Ethics: Abortion, Stalinism and you [Archive]

Dros

12th June 2008, 01:55

I know this is going to explode, there's no hope for it. At least I'm starting in OI. Anyway...

Fair 'nuff

There is the argument that no communists oppose abortion because communism supports rights for all people.

That's not the argument. The argument is that all people have the right to control their bodies. An unwanted pregnancy is using a woman's body without her consent. We oppose rape and assault for the same reasons. All people have the right to control their bodies.

I utterly fail to see this. A large part of revolutionary socialism is about killing or imprisoning people because of their economic affiliations. Many of the heroes of various versions of leftism killed millions of people.

So? Those people were executed for certain reasons. Sometimes, those executions were correct. Sometimes, they were wrong. What's the significance.

If the left can't accept a universal declaration of human rights thats totally rejects murder and oppression as political tools, how can you expect all leftists to agree the rights of a specific minority, be it fetus or female?

You do realize that more than half of the population of the planet is female, right? How the fuck can you call them a minority? This is the kind of gender chauvinism that drove women away from most Communist organizations for a long time, especially during the sixties. Women are not minorities and any revolution that does not give them full rights over their bodies, like men have, will not happen and even if it did it would never be able to get to socialism.

Basically, those who plot bloody revolution and re-education camps have no business getting upset about the oppression of women or the death of fetuses.

I'm not upset about fetuses.

I am upset about the oppression of women! And how is this even an argument? Revolutionaries who imprisoned reactionaries are somehow incapable of fighting for gender equality? WTF?!:confused:

===

What does this have to do with Stalinism btw?

12th June 2008, 02:03

I know this is going to explode, there's no hope for it. At least I'm starting in OI. Anyway...

There is the argument that no communists oppose abortion because communism supports rights for all people. I utterly fail to see this. A large part of revolutionary socialism is about killing or imprisoning people because of their economic affiliations. Many of the heroes of various versions of leftism killed millions of people. If the left can't accept a universal declaration of human rights thats totally rejects murder and oppression as political tools, how can you expect all leftists to agree the rights of a specific minority, be it fetus or female?

Basically, those who plot bloody revolution and re-education camps have no business getting upset about the oppression of women or the death of fetuses.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I AM PRESENTING, AS A SUMMARY OF VARIOUS VIEWPOINTS, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

You seem to conflate the objective, systemic violence of oppressive systems, with each individual subjectively violent act. This catagorical distinction has political and ideological implications. Communists oppose all systems of oppression; we support subjective acts of violence when they serve to break down those systems and this is a consistent position because violence is objectively inherent in the systems themselves.

To kill an armed soldier in a war before he pulls a trigger aimed at another's head is no more violent then failing to do so; the violence is already present either way, it is merely a question of where its directed. This is the same is true in revolution; the mechanisms of state repression are latent violence as real and more violent then the revolutionary outburts of violence that disrupt them. The violation of rights in such a scenario is again, inherent in the system, inaction in the face of oppression is objectively violation of the individual.

Communism is not liberalism, it does not seek to place itself above politics in a universal regard for each person equally regardless of their relationship to the social system as a whole. Communists instead make a deliberate, ideological choice to put themselves on the side of the oppressed against the oppressors and recognize that failure to see this conflict of mutually exclusive interests is itself a way of facilitating oppression.

Sam_b

12th June 2008, 02:07

There's already a thread on abortion, isn't there? Is this yet another?

RGacky3

12th June 2008, 02:23

Some so-called communists don't even believe in human rights, saying they are a bourgouis idea, if thats the case where do you get a womans right to her body?

Bluetongue

12th June 2008, 06:47

That's not the argument. The argument is that all people have the right to control their bodies. An unwanted pregnancy is using a woman's body without her consent. We oppose rape and assault for the same reasons. All people have the right to control their bodies.

Thus I have the right not to be shot through the head for being an imperialist. Or a Ukranian.

So? Those people were executed for certain reasons. Sometimes, those executions were correct. Sometimes, they were wrong. What's the significance.
Most of them were executed because they held certain beliefs, belonged to certain ethnicities or expressed freedom in an oppressive system

You do realize that more than half of the population of the planet is female, right? How the fuck can you call them a minority? This is the kind of gender chauvinism that drove women away from most Communist organizations for a long time, especially during the sixties. Women are not minorities and any revolution that does not give them full rights over their bodies, like men have, will not happen and even if it did it would never be able to get to socialism.

Yes, human lives don't matter, but women do. Purges, wars, executions, re-education camps, deprivation, that's all good. Making a woman live through a pregnancy isn't. Would you rather be pregnant and have a baby or spend the rest of your life in gulag?

Communism should focus on social justice and basic rights for all human beings, not the definition of "human".

careyprice31

12th June 2008, 11:48

Jazzratt

12th June 2008, 15:14

Some so-called communists don't even believe in human rights, saying they are a bourgouis idea, if thats the case where do you get a womans right to her body?

Are you sure you're talking about the same communists in both cases, because taking the views of two different propenents (or set of proponents) of an idea and presenting these as the views of all that are supportive of that idea is, y'know, fallacious.

Bluetongue:

Communism should focus on social justice and basic rights for all human beings, not the definition of "human".

You must be taking the piss right? If you don't define "human" how do you coherently suppot "rights for all human beings".

pusher robot

12th June 2008, 15:18

Demogorgon

12th June 2008, 15:40

The problem is that the communists here are trying to enforce lower order principles when they have not yet sorted out the higher order principles. Rgacky is right, there is no general agreement as to the existence or source of "human rights." Yet the existence and specific application of those rights is - in certain circumstances - treated as absolute orthodoxy.

You are forgetting that under Revleft dogma, abortion is the Holiest of sacraments.

Sarcasm aside, the Revleft obsession with abortion has been out of control for some time now and makes discussing the issue difficult because simply trying to take an objective stand on it brings immediate calls for restriction. Nonetheless I will put up with that to try and make a sensible attempt at analysing the issue.

I have argued strongly here a number of times that while a consistent application of Communism's values should lead to a pro-choice position, a pro-life Communist is still a Communist. To be honest I am more troubled by the people here who are simply pro-Abortion rather than pro-choice, showing open contempt for women who have babies rather than aborting and claiming to be unconcerned about forced abortion.

Anyway your point about a consistent ethical framework is correct. I will argue here that I do not believe that we can come up with any kind of moral values in the abstract and that there are no Universal rights or moral in that sense. There is a clear difference between right and wrong however, but it is entirely dependent on circumstances. I believe we should adopt a consequentialist moral outlook. Focussing on maximising such things as human emancipation, equality, democracy, human happiness and so on, probably tempered with a secular version of Situational Ethics. From that we can judge what should be done in any given situation. From that I believe it is generally preferable to allow abortion. Simply the consequences of banning it are undesirable.

Dean

12th June 2008, 15:54

Any--ANY support of subjective acts of violence is nonobjective terrorism. And your contention that violence is in any nonspecific system is idiotic.

TomK, I agree with TragicClown, except that I think Communism is more altruistic that simply being about class war. It is about a wider restructuring of society to help and enrich all people.

But I disagree with you that violence is necessarily bad. On a certain level, it is bad, but that is an extremely basic, unanalytical level. It is subjective to justify violence, because there is always a victim, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support it. On the abortion issue specifically, it is important to understand the lack of real cognizance in foetuses, and it is really silly to speak of welcoming entities into human life. Should we not masturbate, therefore? I agree that the issue is more complicated, but the direction you are going refuses to acknowledge the real complications.

Killfacer

12th June 2008, 16:47

not being funny but this is like the 800th discussion an abortion.

To start of with human rights dont apply to a feotus, thefor the applying universal HUMAN rights is not applicable, as the feotus is not human.

Bud Struggle

12th June 2008, 18:12

TomK, I agree with TragicClown, except that I think Communism is more altruistic that simply being about class war. It is about a wider restructuring of society to help and enrich all people.

But I disagree with you that violence is necessarily bad. On a certain level, it is bad, but that is an extremely basic, unanalytical level. It is subjective to justify violence, because there is always a victim, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support it. On the abortion issue specifically, it is important to understand the lack of real cognizance in foetuses, and it is really silly to speak of welcoming entities into human life. Should we not masturbate, therefore? I agree that the issue is more complicated, but the direction you are going refuses to acknowledge the real complications.

Violence is ALWAYS bad. Violence ALWAYS signfies that might makes right--which is rarely the case.

I find it hard to accept a blissful future where violence can EVER be the norm in anyway for anything. And yet you take from an act of love between two people--a creation of a creature of violence--doing harm to a woman? I don't see it.

As I said before: I don't know where human life begins. But I will give it EVERY CHANCE, I'll give anything that smacks of humanity the chance to be human--and thus be respected and loved.

If 200 years ago I would have said: a Balck man is a human, really and truly--it's just our incomplete understanding of science and the brotherhood of man that stands in the way of us all believeing it--What side would you be on?

Red October

12th June 2008, 18:18

Fetuses are class enemies

Kwisatz Haderach

12th June 2008, 18:22

The problem is that the communists here are trying to enforce lower order principles when they have not yet sorted out the higher order principles. Rgacky is right, there is no general agreement as to the existence or source of "human rights." Yet the existence and specific application of those rights is - in certain circumstances - treated as absolute orthodoxy.
That is correct, and a real problem, but it is also inevitable given the nature of this forum. Revleft is a forum for people who believe in class struggle, a workers' revolution, and the replacement of capitalism with... well, with something else. We have different views on what that "something else" should be, although we agree on some of its fundamental principles (no private property over the means of production, for example).

Now, none of the things I listed - none of the things that define the views of people on this forum - are axiomatic. They must all be derived from other, higher-level principles. And I think it's safe to say those higher-level principles are vastly different for different people. Class struggle is absolute orthodoxy - it has to be, otherwise this forum would be pointless - but I don't think we can all agree on why class struggle should be pursued.

As far as abortion is concerned, Demogorgon is right. Yes, yes, a consistent application of communist principles results in a pro-choice position. But let's not delude ourselves: Most people on revleft do not follow an absolute, 100% consistent application of communist principles. Nor should they be expected to.

Kwisatz Haderach

12th June 2008, 18:32

Violence is ALWAYS bad. Violence ALWAYS signfies that might makes right--which is rarely the case.
Ok, first of all, as far as the material world is concerned, might does make right. The strongest class, or, more broadly, the strongest faction in any human group, will use its might to impose its rules and its morality on everyone else. This is not a question of "should." Perhaps you believe it shouldn't happen. I agree. But it WILL happen, every time, and we must take this reality into account.

If you have a conception of morality and you want a moral world, you must organize a faction and become powerful enough to impose your conception of morality on those who reject it. If you believe evil exists, then you must fight evil - using violence if necessary. It is the only way. To do otherwise would be to let evil triumph through your own stupidity.

I find it hard to accept a blissful future where violence can EVER be the norm in anyway for anything.
Define "violence." If you mean physically harming people, then of course it is possible to imagine a world without it. If you mean forcing some people to do things against their will, then no, we can never have a society without it.

Kwisatz Haderach

12th June 2008, 18:38

And finally...

A large part of revolutionary socialism is about killing or imprisoning people because of their economic affiliations.
Wrong. We might imprison or kill people, true, but not because they are capitalists. We would imprison or kill people if they try to imprison or kill us. That's all there is to it. We will defend ourselves. If the capitalists surrender peacefully, wonderful! But if - as is more likely - they start shooting at us, we will have to shoot back.

Omi

12th June 2008, 19:09

Some capitalists here fail to see that the whole capitalist system is based on violently safeguard the property of the rich. If capitalism is so peacefull, how can it be that it is impossible to just take the means of production?
Your whole juridical system is based upon violence, force, imprisonment and the possibility of execution.
Your beloved system even uses extensive mechanized killing to gain more capital and profit. This is called war!

And further, ''when does life start? at conception, or birth?''
well, to me, life started a couple of billion years ago. It's a contuous proces!

I can't believe how some capitalists here say they are against opression, and ofcourse see communism as a form of opression, and still are against the choice of women to govern their own bodies!:confused: Forcing people to have babies, is a very intense form of opession!

Demogorgon

12th June 2008, 19:18

Violence is ALWAYS bad. Violence ALWAYS signfies that might makes right--which is rarely the case.

The trouble with this statement is that it is correct in the abstract but when you are thrown into a situation where violence already exists, it is not necessarily right to use no force at all. If some maniac is attempting to shoot up a class full of kids. Is it right to use force to stop him?

Bud Struggle

12th June 2008, 19:35

But let's not delude ourselves: Most people on revleft do not follow an absolute, 100% consistent application of communist principles. Nor should they be expected to.

Then please say: "I have my doubts about abortion" and five seconds later you will join us as a restricted member of OI.

I must say from a Capitalistic-OI perspective, abortion is the one instance that Revleft turns fascist-dogmatic in it's ownership of a particular creedo.

If all things aren't up for continual discussion and review--then NO things are up for discussion and review. Either we are Communist in the full extent of the word--openess--discussion--opionins--disagreements--agreements, and who knows what else? Or we are not.

Communism done correctly is PERMANENT REVOLUTION. Always rethink. Always revise. Always change and reconfigure. Permanant revolution.

I'm a Capitalist and I'm taking your procedures for my own ends. I believe in what you have to say more than you do.

Sigh. Enjoy.

Tom

pusher robot

12th June 2008, 19:41

And finally...

Wrong. We might imprison or kill people, true, but not because they are capitalists. We would imprison or kill people if they try to imprison or kill us. That's all there is to it. We will defend ourselves. If the capitalists surrender peacefully, wonderful! But if - as is more likely - they start shooting at us, we will have to shoot back.

Those aren't the only scenarioes. In fact, maybe the most likely scenario in a real revolution is simple nonviolent noncooperation. They will not try to hurt you, but they will not cooperate with you either. They may not help you in any way, they may take advantage of every loophole of the new governing structures to their own benefit, they may exploit every weakness to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt, they may distribute reactionary literature and preach counter-revolutionary ideals.

Demogorgon

12th June 2008, 19:43

Then please say: "I have my doubts about abortion" and five seconds later you will join us as a restricted member of OI.

I must say from a Capitalistic-OI perspective, abortion is the one instance that Revleft turns fascist-dogmatic in it's ownership of a particular creedo.

If all things aren't up for continual discussion and review--then NO things are up for discussion and review. Either we are Communist in the full extent of the word--openess--discussion--opionins--disagreements--agreements, and who knows what else? Or we are not.

Communism done correctly is PERMANENT REVOLUTION. Always rethink. Always revise. Always change and reconfigure. Permanant revolution.

I'm a Capitalist and I'm taking your procedures for my own ends. I believe in what you have to say more than you do.

Sigh. Enjoy.

Tom
I agree with you. For that reason I have openly opposed the Revleft line of abortion for a long time and always vote against restricting pro-lifers. I should emphasise that I am pro-choice in my personal views but I cannot accept that it is the central issue of Communism as some of the board seems to think.

I must point out though that the utter obsession with abortion on this board is a problem with Revleft, not Communism in general.

Bud Struggle

12th June 2008, 20:41

I agree with you. For that reason I have openly opposed the Revleft line of abortion for a long time and always vote against restricting pro-lifers. I should emphasise that I am pro-choice in my personal views but I cannot accept that it is the central issue of Communism as some of the board seems to think.

I must point out though that the utter obsession with abortion on this board is a problem with Revleft, not Communism in general.

With all due respect--I nailed down the Fascism lurking in the heart or RevLeft. Change it, loose it and become Communist--so that I as a Capitalist can have a meaningful dialogue about the future with you.

Kwisatz Haderach

12th June 2008, 20:55

Those aren't the only scenarioes. In fact, maybe the most likely scenario in a real revolution is simple nonviolent noncooperation. They will not try to hurt you, but they will not cooperate with you either. They may not help you in any way, they may take advantage of every loophole of the new governing structures to their own benefit, they may exploit every weakness to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt, they may distribute reactionary literature and preach counter-revolutionary ideals.
It would be useful to have someone openly trying to exploit loopholes in the new governing structure and being very vocal about it - it would help us identify mistakes and errors, which are bound to exist in any new social structure, and correct them. So no action should be taken against these people, except monitoring their loophole activities so that we may discover and close the loopholes in question.

As for distributing reactionary literature and preaching counter-revolutionary ideals, the attitude to that sort of thing would have to depend on the stability of the new socialist system. For the first few years it would probably be necessary to outlaw reactionary propaganda; the laws on this should have a clear expiry date, though, and the punishment for the dissemination of reactionary propaganda should be imprisonment until, say, 2 years after that expiry date. After the expiry date all forms of political discourse should be tolerated. After all, capitalists have no need to forcibly suppress pro-feudalist propaganda any more, do they? But there was a need to do so in the beginning.

Imprisonment for those guilty of disseminating reactionary propaganda should be in extremely good conditions. The sole purpose of keeping them locked up in the first place is to prevent them speaking and publishing, not to punish them. If anything, punishing them would be counter-productive, since it would turn them into our sworn and bitter enemies for the rest of their lives. This must be avoided at all costs, as it was precisely this kind of bitter dissidents who were guilty for the disaster in Eastern Europe. They must be treated well and we should offer them incentives to join us instead.

Dean

12th June 2008, 21:15

Violence is ALWAYS bad. Violence ALWAYS signfies that might makes right--which is rarely the case.

I find it hard to accept a blissful future where violence can EVER be the norm in anyway for anything. And yet you take from an act of love between two people--a creation of a creature of violence--doing harm to a woman? I don't see it.

As I said before: I don't know where human life begins. But I will give it EVERY CHANCE, I'll give anything that smacks of humanity the chance to be human--and thus be respected and loved.

If 200 years ago I would have said: a Balck man is a human, really and truly--it's just our incomplete understanding of science and the brotherhood of man that stands in the way of us all believeing it--What side would you be on?

I understand what you're saying but I already addressed this. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.

The issue of violence is inapplicable to a fetus, because it exists in such a state that it is not sentient, and even tests which indicate some level of sentience display a very limited, primitive form which can be said to be lacking in sapience or cognizance.

Violence often serves a purpose, but as I pointed out before it is ugly. It is in its direction and achievements with which it can be rational. I don't think you would disagree that self-defense is violent, yet perfectly acceptable.

As for the issue of the black man's rights, I could go a step further (as I did to make a point) and say that since a sperm or an egg can grow into a human, than it should be recognized. How far can we go? Objectively, blacks are clearly on the same level as other humans. But sperm, eggs and fetuses are distinctly different in the things which make human life, as well as those things which make humans deserving of moral consideration.

Robert

12th June 2008, 21:36

exploit loopholes in the new governing structure and being very vocal about it - it would help us identify mistakes and errorsIt will also have the advantage of helping "us" identify counterrevolutionaries, who will then be kept, let's see ...

Imprisonment for those guilty of disseminating reactionary propaganda should be in extremely good conditions. The sole purpose of keeping them locked up in the first place is to prevent them speaking and publishing, not to punish them.Extremely good conditions. Locked up, that is. Extremely. You don't mention how long we will need to keep this running dogs locked up. What would you say? Until they apologize for dissenting and promise never to print another pamphlet? What if they insist they're right? They stay in forever?

I do not believe that any sane person genuinely wants to live under such a regime.

Baconator

12th June 2008, 22:26

Imprisonment for those guilty of disseminating reactionary propaganda should be in extremely good conditions. The sole purpose of keeping them locked up in the first place is to prevent them speaking and publishing, not to punish them.

I think this is an active denial of the sacred 'historical materialism' that Marx believed in and in which many Marxists still do. So... how are you supposed to get a synthesis if you don't let the thesis and antithesis do their thing? Why are you trying to stamp out the antithesis? Clearly if Marx's historical materialism was correct, then a final synthesis ( communism) would have no 'force of contradiction' because there would be no class division anymore so then why are we talking about silencing the 'force of contradiction?'

:rolleyes:

Bluetongue

12th June 2008, 22:40

This is going fairly well, despite a few attempts at derailment.

It has been illustrated that many revolutionaries favor imprisonment or censure for political adversaries. Once again, how does forcing someone to spend his life in a gulag compare to forcing a woman to bear a child?

In those gulags, will you have safe, state funded abortions for the female prisoners who have been raped by their guards?

(ME=DEVIL'S ADVOCATE)

Jazzratt

12th June 2008, 22:53

It has been illustrated that many revolutionaries favor imprisonment or censure for political adversaries.

(Emphasis mine)

Why in the blue fuck have you compared imprisoning someone with disapproving of them?

Once again, how does forcing someone to spend his life in a gulag compare to forcing a woman to bear a child?

Why are they being compared, is it an either/or situation or are you creating insane false dichotomies?

In those gulags, will you have safe, state funded abortions for the female prisoners who have been raped by their guards?

Presumably those that support building interment camps would probably not only support this but wish to introduce some kind of discipline system for the guards (if I support such camps, for example, I would support the hanging of any guard found to be raping or murdering prisoners, while those found to be maltreating prisoners would be immediately stripped of their rank and forced into civilian life as an inmate at the camp.). Of course I don't support camps (I favour reason for those who are reasonably and violence for those who are violent [counter-insurgents for example]) so maybe they are actually psychotic enough to support prisons where guards go unpunished for rape.

If I was the devil I would be arguing for the entire case to be thrown out of court thanks to the incompetence of my advocate.

Hyacinth

12th June 2008, 23:05

As I said before: I don't know where human life begins. But I will give it EVERY CHANCE, I'll give anything that smacks of humanity the chance to be human--and thus be respected and loved.

If 200 years ago I would have said: a Balck man is a human, really and truly--it's just our incomplete understanding of science and the brotherhood of man that stands in the way of us all believeing it--What side would you be on?
Depending on how you define a human, and let us use a genetic definition here, then sure, a fetus is indeed a human. After all, it shares our genetic makeup.

But so what? The relevant question isn’t whether or not it is human, it is whether or not it is a person. A fetus born without a brain, for example, wouldn’t qualify as a person, since it lacks the relevant cognitive capacities for such.

Likewise, a bundle of a few cells (i.e. a fetus) also lacks the relevant cognitive capacities to qualify for personhood. In fact, most great apes has more of a mental life than a newborn.

If we are going to prohibit abortion consistency demands that we likewise bad the killing of almost all animals, since, after all, what are the relevant differences between a human fetus and say a dog fetus? (it isn’t until quite a while into the pregnancy before distinguishing features start appearing that allow us to tell the one from the other)

In fact, it is scientific understanding of cognition and the development thereof that permits us to say, with confidence, that a fetus is not a person.

This doesn’t mean that it has no moral standing, it might well have some, nevertheless, the question is does it have enough moral standing in order to prohibit abortion. I would say no. In fact, it is very difficult to argue that it is does without generalizing to the point where any killing of a living creature is prohibited.

Hyacinth

12th June 2008, 23:09

The issue of violence is inapplicable to a fetus, because it exists in such a state that it is not sentient, and even tests which indicate some level of sentience display a very limited, primitive form which can be said to be lacking in sapience or cognizance.
Exactly! (I didn’t notice your post when I felt compelled to response to TomK’s argument)

Bluetongue

12th June 2008, 23:22

Why are they being compared, is it an either/or situation or are you creating insane false dichotomies?The comparison exists to illustrate the falsity of communism's support of human rights. Those who embrace human rights do not kill or imprison others based on politics or religion. MANY people in this forum support exactly that. On the other paw, anti-abortionists say that once pregnant, a woman should be forced to bear her child. This position is denounced roundly as anti-human rights. The position is similar to the anti-apartied sentiment in the West in the '90s - which ignored that there are many nations that oppress ALL of their citizens much worse than blacks were oppressed in South Africa. That is to say, it is important because it happens to women. When worse happens to people who oppose communism, that's okay.

So, why doesn't communism focus on human rights issues where people are being starved, murdered and/or enslaved? By the time we deal with that, the idea of what may or may not be human will be *much* more interesting.

What is the difference between personal and important?

PS - the whole "violence to a fetus" bit is irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing human rights vs women's rights. (or, for that matter, gay rights, disabled rights, etc)

Hyacinth

12th June 2008, 23:46

The comparison exists to illustrate the falsity of communism's support of human rights.
I wasn’t aware communists embraced “human rights”.

Firstly, rights existing within a particular historical context, and under a particular economic system, and are designed, under a class society, to further the interests of a ruling class. They are not some mystical inalienable things which exist in Plato’s realm of forms, and they are not natural, but rather social.

General human rights have not to date existed. The present bourgeoisie system of rights serves two purposes: the first is to protect the rights of the bourgeoisie (e.g. properly rights, etc.), and the second is to create the illusion that these rights are equitable. The bourgeoisie have never really paid attention to the human rights rhetoric which they spout.

We might be able to speak of general human rights applicable to all in the context of a classless society, but in a class society rights will always be integrally tied to class rule.

That being said, I don’t see the issue of abortion as one of rights, it is rather a question of reaction vs. revolution. Opposition to abortion is reactionary, plain and simple. And I see no reason for communists to accept a reactionary position. Not that I advocate sending anyone who advocates reactionary views to a “corrective labour camp” or anything like that, but at the same time I’m not obliged to provide them with the necessary means to spread their reactionary views.

Bluetongue

13th June 2008, 01:19

I wasn’t aware communists embraced “human rights”.

Firstly, rights existing within a particular historical context, and under a particular economic system, and are designed, under a class society, to further the interests of a ruling class. They are not some mystical inalienable things which exist in Plato’s realm of forms, and they are not natural, but rather social.

General human rights have not to date existed. The present bourgeoisie system of rights serves two purposes: the first is to protect the rights of the bourgeoisie (e.g. properly rights, etc.), and the second is to create the illusion that these rights are equitable. The bourgeoisie have never really paid attention to the human rights rhetoric which they spout.

The context is global culture in the 21st century. The subject is universal human rights. I am aware that these things are social and not sui generis. That such rights have not existed to date is not an argument in favor of continuing the situation, but to change it. The bourgeoisie have, on several occasions, taken measures to expand human rights to those who were lacking them, otherwise there would be nothing like the democratic socialism that exists today. *Rarely* have authoritarian leaders done anything to uplift the oppressed, as it not at all in their best interest. As human rights are a subjective social fabrication, I will gladly accept the illusion of equability.

Human rights in a classless society=how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I'm talking about now.

RGacky3

13th June 2008, 02:05

Are you sure you're talking about the same communists in both cases, because taking the views of two different propenents (or set of proponents) of an idea and presenting these as the views of all that are supportive of that idea is, y'know, fallacious.

I'm only talking about one case, Communists who don't believe in human rights, or any innate rights, BUT claim that women have a right to their own body which out does the fetus's right to live.

I'm being very specific here, I never said 'ALL.' I'm saying those who hold both of those beliefs wind up in a contradiction.

If a communist belives that no man has any moral obligation to any other man (i.e. human rights), or that any man has no innate rights of his own, then that concludes that if a man is stronger than a woman he would have no reason not to dominate her if he wanted too, ahh, but thats wrong, we want equality, yes, equality is an ethical concept, on the same metaphyisical plane as freedom or liberty.

If there are no human rights, then every man for himself, rape is just fine, so is murder as long as the murderer is gaining something for himself, so is ratting out organizers in a workplace, so is scabbing, so is exploiting workers, its fine, because, there are no ethics you should suscribe to, and there are no human rights.

Fortunately I believe in human rights, no they are not objective (really nothing other than hard physics is), but they are innate to humans, a desire for equality and freedom, and justice, and as such should be respected, thats why I am a socialist, because Capitalism violates human rights, its an immoral system, because domination, oppression and exploitation are immoral.

Hyacinth

13th June 2008, 02:09

Human rights in a classless society=how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I'm talking about now.
They don’t, nor can they, exist now under the present economic system. Revolutionaries are, in effect, fighting for the establishment of human rights by fighting to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism. Regardless, I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion in this thread re: views on abortion.

Dros

13th June 2008, 02:51

Thus I have the right not to be shot through the head for being an imperialist.

No you don't.

Or a Ukranian.

FAIL. (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/ukrainian.html)

Most of them were executed because they held certain beliefs, belonged to certain ethnicities or expressed freedom in an oppressive system

Yes. Kulaks, counter revolutionaries, fascists, whites, sabatours, and criminals. :lol:

I can't wait to live in your society.

Yes, human lives don't matter, but women do. Purges, wars, executions, re-education camps, deprivation, that's all good.

Read a book. I'm really tired of having people always with the same rehashed old lies. Make a thorough investigation. Then come back and tell me why my view of history is incorrect. But don't come here with the same old bourgeois/fascist propagandistic "OMGZ he killezed teh peeplz" line.

Making a woman live through a pregnancy isn't. Would you rather be pregnant and have a baby or spend the rest of your life in gulag?

I'd rather we grant civil rights to all non criminals in society and that we suppress counter revolutionaries. I'm sorry if you're not, but I'm ready to get to socialism!

Communism should focus on social justice and basic rights for all human beings, not the definition of "human".

Absolutely. That's why Communists support giving women control over their bodies.

pusher robot

13th June 2008, 03:51

This thread is a microcosm of the scale of the problem facing your "movement." You have a bunch of people here coalesced around a very vague set of goals, but with absolutely no common vision of how or even why to pursue those goals. So as a result, you don't have a movement, you have a *****fest.

Joe Sixpack understands "propertarianism." It's not hard for him to understand not only what the rules are but why they are: what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine and you don't steal from me and I won't steal from you. Your movement cannot ever hope to accomplish anything until you are able to explain somewhat succinctly - and with relative consensus - what your principles really are.

A little free advice from The Man. Your mileage may vary.

Bluetongue

13th June 2008, 06:58

I can't wait to live in your society.

I live in my society now. Where do you live?

Read a book. I'm really tired of having people always with the same rehashed old lies. Make a thorough investigation. Then come back and tell me why my view of history is incorrect. But don't come here with the same old bourgeois/fascist propagandistic "OMGZ he killezed teh peeplz" line.

I probably know more about the subject than you do. Do you know what "Holodomor" means? It's the same line because there is no answer to it - outside of "we will never allow that to occur again", which is what I'm suggesting. I don't know what your view of history is. Are you saying that you are so jaded that genocide and mass murder are passe? BTW, truth and propaganda are rather different things. The fact that millions of people have been killed in the name of communism isn't propaganda. You accept these atrocities then wig out when some one suggests that pregnant women should be denied abortion. It shows that your philosophy is arbitrary and has no ethical foundations.

Kwisatz Haderach

13th June 2008, 13:37

The fact that millions of people have been killed in the name of communism isn't propaganda.
Actually, it is.

The fact is that millions of people died unnecessary, preventable deaths in countries ruled by governments calling themselves communist.

That's not the same as them being "killed in the name of communism." When people starve in capitalist countries for preventable reasons, we don't normally say they were "killed in the name of capitalism."

If there are no human rights, then every man for himself, rape is just fine, so is murder as long as the murderer is gaining something for himself, so is ratting out organizers in a workplace, so is scabbing, so is exploiting workers, its fine, because, there are no ethics you should suscribe to, and there are no human rights.
Wrong. You are confusing human rights in particular with ethics in general. It is ok to rape, murder, exploit and so on, if there are no ethics. But human rights are only one particular form of ethics. It is possible to oppose human rights but support a different form of ethics which says that rape, murder, exploitation and so on are immoral.

This thread is a microcosm of the scale of the problem facing your "movement." You have a bunch of people here coalesced around a very vague set of goals, but with absolutely no common vision of how or even why to pursue those goals. So as a result, you don't have a movement, you have a *****fest.

Joe Sixpack understands "propertarianism." It's not hard for him to understand not only what the rules are but why they are: what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine and you don't steal from me and I won't steal from you. Your movement cannot ever hope to accomplish anything until you are able to explain somewhat succinctly - and with relative consensus - what your principles really are.

A little free advice from The Man. Your mileage may vary.
Congrats, you've just discovered the reason why there are so many different leftist movements, parties, groups and sects rather than a single, coherent, united movement. You are correct, of course. This isn't just a problem, it's the elephant in the room, the single greatest reason for our lack of success over the past few decades.

I really don't know what to do about it, though. The revolutionary left has never been properly united. What happened in all successful communist revolutions was that one faction (e.g. the Bolsheviks) was able to take the initiative and dominate or defeat all the others. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not the preferable way to go.

Jazzratt

13th June 2008, 14:00

So, why doesn't communism focus on human rights issues where people are being starved, murdered and/or enslaved?

False dichotomy, dickhead.

By the time we deal with that, the idea of what may or may not be human will be *much* more interesting.

Again, how does one support rights for humans if one does not know what a human is?

PS - the whole "violence to a fetus" bit is irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing human rights vs women's rights. (or, for that matter, gay rights, disabled rights, etc)

Once more - prove that "human rights" are separable from women's rights.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 14:20

Baconator

13th June 2008, 14:27

With respect to the human rights issue, a philosophical objection to the idea of human rights as naturally inherent does not entail opposition to human rights guarantees on a societal basis. The notion that people have natural or inherent rights is nonsense of stilts but it is a very good idea for society to guarantee every individual rights to free speech, housing, clothing, democratic participation, education, healthcare and so on.

Thats a straw man. The NR argumentation does not specify any of those as human rights ( housing , clothing , etc). Individual right to his own life,use of his own energy(labor), and product of that energy(property) is axiomatic on the grounds of self-ownership which can't be coherently denied without accepting self ownership. Thats it. No need to make it too complicated.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 14:29

Thats a straw man. The NR argumentation does not specify any of those as human rights ( housing , clothing , etc). Individual right to his own life,use of his own energy(labor), and product of that energy(property) is axiomatic on the grounds of self-ownership which can't be coherently denied without accepting self ownership. Thats it. No need to make it too complicated.

Natural Rights simply says that whatever rights the arguer happens to believe in are the natural ones.

The crap that is self-ownership has been gone over many times here. I do not own myself, I am myself. There is a difference.

Baconator

13th June 2008, 14:30

Again, how does one support rights for humans if one does not know what a human is?

Agreed. And this is why communists usually get it wrong. We can start with the fact that a human being is an individual being and not a cog in some collective machinery. Individuals = can exist apart from the collective , Collective = doesn't exist apart from the individuals which make it up.
Individual = > than group.

Baconator

13th June 2008, 14:37

Natural Rights simply says that whatever rights the arguer happens to believe in are the natural ones.

The crap that is self-ownership has been gone over many times here. I do not own myself, I am myself. There is a difference.

False premise. You exist which means you're alive. You own your life. If someone murders you , that person has taken your life from you. If your life isn't exclusively yours ( i.e. you don't own it), then murder has no meaning because nothing was taken. Furthermore the murderer cannot be responsible for his actions. You see, how can he own or be responsible for the action? If he really doesn't own his life, he doesn't own the energy that life gives. He doesn't own ( and is therefore, not responsible for) what actions he performs with his energy. You say he may not own property even though he created a 'means of production.' Well, if he can't own his property then his actions that could entail murder, rape , or theft ( which implies property rights exist or theft would be meaningless) wouldn't be logically his and no blame can be passed because nothing was taken from anyone.

Instead of getting hostile, you could try to figure out a way around this fickle without acknowledging your ownership of yourself.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 14:53

False premise. You exist which means you're alive. You own your life. If someone murders you , that person has taken your life from you. If your life isn't exclusively yours ( i.e. you don't own it), then murder has no meaning because nothing was taken. Furthermore the murderer cannot be responsible for his actions. You see, how can he own or be responsible for the action? If he really doesn't own his life, he doesn't own the energy that life gives. He doesn't own ( and is therefore, not responsible for) what actions he performs with his energy. You say he may not own property even though he created a 'means of production.' Well, if he can't own his property then his actions that could entail murder, rape , or theft ( which implies property rights exist or theft would be meaningless) wouldn't be logically his and no blame can be passed because nothing was taken from anyone.

Instead of getting hostile, you could try to figure out a way around this fickle without acknowledging your ownership of yourself.
This is just obsession with property making you see everything in property terms rather than humanistic terms. Murder is wrong because it earns a person's life, harms their loved ones and so forth. Not because of property rights.

The concept of life being property is a quite appalling one. If I own my life, can I sell it? Is that not the justification for slavery?

Furthermore the concept is utterly meaningless anyway. If myself is what I own, what is the "I" that owns me. The thing that owns me is the thing that owns me?

Dros

13th June 2008, 15:01

I live in my society now. Where do you live?

I live in a place called reality where your inane suggestions aren't simply assumed to be facts and where arguments have to make sense and be based on materialist analysis and such other silly things in order for people here to give a fuck about what you have to say.

I probably know more about the subject than you do.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::l ol::laugh::laugh::laugh:

If that had one shred of truth to it, you would never even talk about the Holodomor, you fucking Nazi.

Do you know what "Holodomor" means?

holod=hunger
mor=disease

It's the same line because there is no answer to it - outside of "we will never allow that to occur again", which is what I'm suggesting.

Or you could read the link I gave you and stop spewing Hitler's falsehoods every time you open your mouth.

I don't know what your view of history is.

My views of history are grounded in what actually happened instead of... lies.

Are you saying that you are so jaded that genocide and mass murder are passe?

There was no genocide!

BTW, truth and propaganda are rather different things.

No fucking shit Sherlock!

Now why don't you stop loudly blaring the propagandistic histories of cold warriors and fascists?

The fact that millions of people have been killed in the name of communism isn't propaganda.

Actually, that is propaganda. I advise you to see Edric's post.

You accept these atrocities then wig out when some one suggests that pregnant women should be denied abortion.

I find it difficult to believe that I can accept atrocities that never actually occurred. But yes. I'm a communist which means that I support the full autonomy of women in every sphere. Period.

It shows that your philosophy is arbitrary and has no ethical foundations.

I think you've already demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge pertaining to any relevant historical questions at all. This however brilliantly demonstrates that you also have no understanding of Marxist philosophy.

So, my question is, why do you continue so loudly to make absurd pronouncements regarding things you know absolutely nothing about?

Bluetongue

13th June 2008, 16:43

Again, how does one support rights for humans if one does not know what a human is?

Once more - prove that "human rights" are separable from women's rights.

I was talking about transhumanism in the first bit. It's not really relevant.

I'm asking you to prove that communism supports humans rights in general, which it apparently doesn't. I was just directed to www.stalinistnonsense.org to read about why the Holodomor is a myth. Or doesn't count. Or something. Apparently I'm a Nazi because I get my facts from JSTOR rather than PRAVDA.

Why does RevLeft embrace people who defend the democides of Lenin, Stalin and Mao while rejecting people who believe that women should bear children to term? Where do you find human rights in Stalinism? Why are women more important than Ukranians? Should Ukranian women have free abortions while they are starving? You accept people who *fantasize* about committing democide but kick out anti-abortionists because "women's rights are human rights".

Kwisatz Haderach

13th June 2008, 16:45

You own your life.
No. I do not own my life.

Refute that.

Kwisatz Haderach

13th June 2008, 16:50

Why does RevLeft embrace people who defend the democides of Lenin, Stalin and Mao while rejecting people who believe that women should bear children to term? Where do you find human rights in Stalinism? Why are women more important than Ukranians? Should Ukranian women have free abortions while they are starving? You accept people who *fantasize* about committing democide but kick out anti-abortionists because "women's rights are human rights".
We do not accept people who fantasize about committing democide. You will find no one here who argues that killing Ukranians is a good thing. You will find people who argue that Stalin did not intentionally kill any innocent Ukranians. That's different. The argument is about historical fact (whether X event did or did not happen), not about morality.

Bluetongue

13th June 2008, 17:06

Dros

13th June 2008, 17:13

I was just directed to www.stalinistnonsense.org to read about why the Holodomor is a myth. Or doesn't count. Or something. Apparently I'm a Nazi because I get my facts from JSTOR rather than PRAVDA.

You're a troll and a useless waste of bandwidth.

You are continuing to spew propaganda churned out and popularized by Hitler. Your inability to make an historical argument, or do a real investigation, while slightly amusing, is more saddening to me because you're the kind of fuck up who is killing the leftist movement.

And JSTOR isn't a source you dumb fuck. It's an online journal library. The means you're still getting the same fucking versions of history. Propagandistic history with an academic flavor is still a fucking propagandistic version of history.

Why does RevLeft embrace people who defend the democides of Lenin, Stalin and Mao while rejecting people who believe that women should bear children to term? Where do you find human rights in Stalinism? Why are women more important than Ukranians? Should Ukranian women have free abortions while they are starving? You accept people who *fantasize* about committing democide but kick out anti-abortionists because "women's rights are human rights".

I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that stupid. Congratulations! You just proved me wrong...

EDIT:

Do you allow Holocaust deniers?

No.

How is denying the existence of the Holodomor different?

Because unlike the Holocaust the "Holodomor" NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED!

I've linked you to the resources. I suggest you go read that and then rebut the argument! If you can show the Holodomor happened, I'll renounce Stalin. But it didn't so you can't. And I think that if you had any real arguments, you would have made them already instead of just trolling and spewing the stupidest shit I've ever come across on the internet.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 17:14

Bluetongue

13th June 2008, 17:26

Under the Great Leap Forward, Mao and other party leaders ordered the implementation of a variety of unproven and unscientific new agricultural techniques by the new communes. Combined with the diversion of labour to steel production and infrastructure projects and the reduced personal incentives under a commune system this led to an approximately 15% drop in grain production in 1959 followed by further 10% reduction in 1960 and no recovery in 1961. In an effort to win favour with their superiors and avoid being purged, each layer in the party hierarchy exaggerated the amount of grain produced under them and based on the fabricated success, party cadres were ordered to requisition a disproportionately high amount of the true harvest for state use primarily in the cities and urban areas but also for export. The net result, which was compounded in some areas by drought and in others by floods, was that the rural peasants were not left enough to eat and many millions starved to death in what is thought to be the largest famine in human history. This famine was a direct cause of the death of tens of millions of Chinese peasants between 1959 and 1962. Further, many children who became emaciated and malnourished during years of hardship and struggle for survival, died shortly after the Great Leap Forward came to an end in 1962 (Spence, 553).This is what I mean by "killed in the name of communism". I'm not denying that other systems do the same, BTW.

JSTOR (ie, the peer reviewed journals collected therein) has no qualms about documenting the horrors of capitalism - are those also false? Who here thinks that http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html is a more trustworthy source than articles available via JSTOR?

Kwisatz Haderach

13th June 2008, 17:30

I beg to differ. RevLeft is rife with bloodthirsty teenagers. On several occasions I have seem references to purging or killing posters who don't agree with whatever line someone is espousing. In fact, one of the responses to my post essentially said that imperialists should be executed. No, they don't intend to kill Ukrainians per se, but they certainly intend to kill somebody. Be they capitalists, counter-revolutionaries, fascists, what have you, they will also be HUMANS.
Yes, true, we have our share of bloodthirsty teenagers. But they are by no means a majority, nor are they the most active or respected of comrades, and we hope they will soon grow out of it.

And blood will flow and oppression will follow, because they haven't learned one damned thing from studying history.
If those bloodthirsty teenagers lead a revolution, yes, you're probably right. But that's hardly likely to happen... Most of us have learned from history.

Do you allow Holocaust deniers? How is denying the existence of the Holodomor different?
It is dishonest to start with Holocaust deniers and generalize to the point where anyone who denies any claim of genocide made by anyone else is just as bad as a Holocaust denier. Just because Holocaust deniers are wrong, that does not necessarily imply that anyone who denies any claim of genocide must also be wrong.

Besides, few people deny that there was famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s. The argument is not that the famine or death never happened - the argument is that it wasn't the government's fault.

Dros

13th June 2008, 17:38

This is what I mean by "killed in the name of communism". I'm not denying that other systems do the same, BTW.

Oh so when you said "killed in the name of Communism" what you really meant was "there was a famine in a country that has been famine ridden for millenia". Yeah. I can see how you could confuse mass murder with an ecological and agricultural catastrophe.:rolleyes:

JSTOR (ie, the peer reviewed journals collected therein) has no qualms about documenting the horrors of capitalism - are those also false?

Don't be dense. I use JSTOR all the time. I am saying that most contemporary accounts of events within the USSR are based on bad history. I'm criticizing most all of the "research" done in the US during the Cold War with regards to the USSR.

Who here thinks that http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html is a more trustworthy source than articles available via JSTOR?

Do you do historical work at all?

Historians don't go about there research and go "oh well I found it on JSTOR so it must be true!" They go back and they look at research critically. They go back and they examine evidence. They look at the biases within evidence.

All of the evidence for the existence of the "Holodomor" is derived from National Socialist and bourgeois Ukrainian accounts of "history", most of which were either obviously false or just incredibly sloppy.

Do your homework and come back when you have something worth while to say.

Killfacer

13th June 2008, 18:07

what kind of fuckwitt asks someone what something means on the bloody internet. Think they might look it up maybe?

also drosera, i dont think you can deny that certain historical journals have more credance than others. Also that Stalin website is shit. It basically denies Stalin did anything wrong. I have to also point out that they seem to be researching history and reading what they will out of it, the true historian will take what fact comes to them.

Bluetongue

13th June 2008, 18:35

I wouldn't blame anyone for confusing communism with an agricultural catastrophe. :(

The point isn't whether Stalin caused the Holodomor, but why communists accept some kinds of murder and oppression and not others. There's no arguing that Stalin, Lenin and Mao killed large numbers of people based on their political beliefs, which is utterly contrary to any reasonable definition of human rights.

Honestly, who would you have for your next leader, Stalin or an anti-abortion McCain? Are those of you who chose Stalin prepared to die for your choice - it's not like he exempted his supporters from the purges.

Orange Juche

13th June 2008, 19:23

Some so-called communists don't even believe in human rights, saying they are a bourgouis idea

Hahaha yeah, I fucking hate that.

RGacky3

14th June 2008, 01:15

Wrong. You are confusing human rights in particular with ethics in general. It is ok to rape, murder, exploit and so on, if there are no ethics. But human rights are only one particular form of ethics. It is possible to oppose human rights but support a different form of ethics which says that rape, murder, exploitation and so on are immoral.

Explain please, what set of ethics can deny human rights (i.e. that humans have innate rights), and still morally condemn rape, murder and so on. So far every set of ethics I've come accross sets innate human rights. Human rights is to ethics what tequila is to a margarita.

Baconator

14th June 2008, 01:49

Damn RGacky3 , I'm starting to like you more and more lately. Something must not be normal!

Kwisatz Haderach

14th June 2008, 02:15

The point isn't whether Stalin caused the Holodomor...
Yes it is. If Stalin didn't cause the Holodomor, then he cannot be accused of genocide; and in that case you can't say that Stalin's supporters are accepting genocide.

...but why communists accept some kinds of murder and oppression and not others.
You think only communists do that? Tell me, is war ever justified? Is it justifiable to kill civilians in war, if it is necessary in order to achieve victory or to save more lives than you take?

I would wager most people would answer yes to those questions. Killing can be justified if it is done in self-defence, or in wartime, or to save lives. Those who support the more violent actions of Stalin, Lenin or Mao are making the argument that their killing was done in self-defence, or in wartime, or to save lives.

For the record, I think that Stalin and Mao, and perhaps also Lenin, were indeed guilty of excessively bloodthirsty measures; they did kill some people unnecessarily, and large numbers of people died because of incompetence (I count the victims of the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward as victims of incompetence, like those killed by hurricane Katrina in New Orleans). And I do think that Stalin was a paranoid, sick bastard.

But on the other hand, some violence was necessary in order to prevent worse things from happening. Lenin's violence in particular is easily justifiable, since he was acting in a time of civil war, and a defeat for the Bolsheviks would have meant not only a wasted opportunity for communism, but very likely a total, Somalia-style collapse of Russian society. It wasn't a choice between the Bolsheviks or capitalism, it was a choice between the Bolsheviks or bloody, endless chaos.

Explain please, what set of ethics can deny human rights (i.e. that humans have innate rights), and still morally condemn rape, murder and so on.
Utilitarianism. Also Kantianism, if you're into that sort of thing. Rawls also provides a great justification for laws against rape, murder and so on without basing it on any conception of human rights.

So far every set of ethics I've come accross sets innate human rights.
Really? I can't say I've ever come across any set of ethics that offers any kind of good reason for why we should believe that innate human rights exist. So which ethics are you talking about, exactly?

If you believe you have a good justification for human rights, let's hear it. Answer the following question: Why should murder be illegal?

(my answer: Murder causes great suffering; any action that causes great suffering should be forbidden, except in cases where it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that such an action is necessary in order to produce an amount of happiness that outweighs the suffering. In other words, murder should be illegal unless it is absolutely necessary in order to save lives)

Dros

14th June 2008, 02:33

also drosera, i dont think you can deny that certain historical journals have more credance than others.

You can't narrowly reduce history to the quality of a source. You have to go back and look at the research. Come on! This is how history works! No valid historian picks up a journal and just reads it as fact!

Also that Stalin website is shit. It basically denies Stalin did anything wrong.

I don't think it does that. It does provide a lot of the context and facts missing from most accounts of history.

I have to also point out that they seem to be researching history and reading what they will out of it, the true historian will take what fact comes to them.

How so?

Go back and check there facts. Where did the "history" of the "Holodomor" come from?

RGacky3

14th June 2008, 06:40

Utilitarianism. Also Kantianism, if you're into that sort of thing. Rawls also provides a great justification for laws against rape, murder and so on without basing it on any conception of human rights.

Kants whole ethical theory was a defence of human rights, i.e. you have an obligation toward man based on reason and universally applying ethics. Kants theory upheld human rights.

Utalitarianism, i.e. the best for the most, is one that perhaps takes out human rights, but if you ascribe to that ethical theory, then your probably OK with limited slavery, and killing dissidents. Now then that being said, a large portion of Utalitarianists use the best for the most theory as a guide to creating ethical rules, i.e. Human rights.

As far as I know about Rawls, his theory advocated human rights, i.e. innate rights of man.

Really? I can't say I've ever come across any set of ethics that offers any kind of good reason for why we should believe that innate human rights exist. So which ethics are you talking about, exactly?

If you believe you have a good justification for human rights, let's hear it. Answer the following question: Why should murder be illegal?

Murder should be illigal because it violates a persons right to life, that persons right to life is an a-posteriori concept that pretty much all mankind has innately, which is why all mankind pretty much agree that killing is wrong, i.e. a human concience. All people also have an innate sense of justice and freedom. I believe Kants theory also defends human rights pretty well, man has no right to life leads to a contradiction, because that means no man has any right to live, and any man can take anyones life at any time.

(my answer: Murder causes great suffering; any action that causes great suffering should be forbidden, except in cases where it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that such an action is necessary in order to produce an amount of happiness that outweighs the suffering. In other words, murder should be illegal unless it is absolutely necessary in order to save lives)

Murder causes great suffereing to who? The murdered yes, his family yes, the murderer? No, hell maybe the murderer is gaining something from the death, so why should the murderer not kill him? what does he care about the suffering, ahh, but thats why we have laws right? How does a law determain when death is necessary in order to avert suffering.

Heres a situation, a physically handicapt person, he's confined to a wheel chair and has a lot of trouble moving, he can't work, the community might prefer him dead, he needs constant health care, draining their resources, and they don't want it any more, but the family will suffer, for a while, who's to say that that family suffering and the handicapt person dying is more important than the inconvenience to the whole community.

What if a person has no family or friends, no one will suffer at all. so why not kill him, he'll suffer just for a second, then he won't exist, no loss, hell his suffering for a second, might be offset by the thrill some might get by killing him? Why not?

Your saying that more happiness is better for more people, is great, but does'nt that amount to human rights anyway? I.E. people as a whole have the right to happiness, if not, then why can't a few live of the most? They are happy, who cares about the rest.

Bluetongue

14th June 2008, 15:03

Yes it is. If Stalin didn't cause the Holodomor, then he cannot be accused of genocide; and in that case you can't say that Stalin's supporters are accepting genocide.
Even if the Holodomor was incompetence, Stalin still murdered and imprisoned over a million people. This is the figure *posted* on the horrid little website defending the Great Leader.

I'm not arguing that other system don't murder people, I'm arguing that kicking people out of RevLeft for being anti-abortion while admitting Stalinists and Maoists is hypocritical. The whole "women's rights are humans rights" line doesn't fly with me in that context. Personally, I'd require total respect for human rights, of course, and crackdown on the bloodthirsty goons first.

Awful Reality

14th June 2008, 15:31

I know this is going to explode, there's no hope for it. At least I'm starting in OI. Anyway...
No, it will implode.

A large part of revolutionary socialism is about killing or imprisoning people because of their economic affiliations.
No, none of our ideology has anything to do with killing and imprisoning people.

Many of the heroes of various versions of leftism killed millions of people.
Who? When? Where? What? Capitalism hasn't killed more?

If the left can't accept a universal declaration of human rights thats totally rejects murder and oppression as political tools, how can you expect all leftists to agree the rights of a specific minority, be it fetus or female?
Women are not a minority. And women and foetuses are not a class. We support class dictatorship. It is different.

Basically, those who plot bloody revolution and re-education camps have no business getting upset about the oppression of women or the death of fetuses.
That's right, lay the history of something at the feet of an ideology, while ignoring the innumerable other factors that determine history.

Awful Reality

14th June 2008, 15:42

I wouldn't blame anyone for confusing communism with an agricultural catastrophe.
WHAT THE FUCK?????????????????????????????????????????????? ??

...Sorry, that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a few days, maybe a month. "I wouldn't blame someone for confusing an Ideology with a natural disaster." Can you sink any lower?

The point isn't whether Stalin caused the Holodomor, but why communists accept some kinds of murder and oppression and not others. There's no arguing that Stalin, Lenin and Mao killed large numbers of people based on their political beliefs, which is utterly contrary to any reasonable definition of human rights.
No, there really is arguing. Give me statistics.
And, do not try to set a societal moral standard regarding rights. We have a different standard from yours.

Honestly, who would you have for your next leader, Stalin or an anti-abortion McCain? Are those of you who chose Stalin prepared to die for your choice - it's not like he exempted his supporters from the purges.
Again, our political values are different from yours. And, please cut the sensationalism.

Bud Struggle

14th June 2008, 16:01

No, there really is arguing. Give me statistics.
And, do not try to set a societal moral standard regarding rights. We have a different standard from yours.

Again, our political values are different from yours. And, please cut the sensationalism.

This could have been posted over at Stormfront by a Nazi arguing that the Holocaust never really happened. :(

Bluetongue

14th June 2008, 16:17

Yes, TomK, it's not pretty.

Again, our political values are different from yours. And, please cut the sensationalism.

Mine = people who believe in human rights and social justice
Yours = ??

FYI, I am a communist.

I thought the communism/agricultural disaster bit was pithy. Forced collectivization => starvation and famine.

Killfacer

14th June 2008, 16:22

drosera, im not agreeing with blue tounge. Im not qualified to talk about Holdomor as i know absolutly nothing about it. I was simply saying that the site has a clear target, to make Stalin sound good, and has that in mind when it does it's research. I mean you wouldnt go on www.welovehitler.com (http://www.welovehitler.com) (not actually a site, well im not sure if it is, try it) if you wanted information about whether hitler was good or bad would you?

Awful Reality

14th June 2008, 16:23

Mine = people who believe in human rights and social justice
Yours = ??
We believe just as much in human rights and social justice. However, we understand that to truly achieve those it is sadly necessary to go through a violent phase of revolution, and securing revolution.

I thought the communism/agricultural disaster bit was pithy. Forced collectivization => starvation and famine.
No, the Kulaks were resisting and killing animals, burning fields, etc. Still, you said that you understand how people can confuse Communism with Famine.

Dros

14th June 2008, 16:41

This could have been posted over at Stormfront by a Nazi arguing that the Holocaust never really happened. :(

There is a qualitative difference here. Firstly, the Nazis ideology is based on the premise of racialism and genocide is the obvious conclusion to that. Our ideology isn't based on anything like that.

The second and most important argument is that the Holocaust was a genocide and the Holodomor was a natural famine. The Holocaust is one of the best supported historical events ever. Nazi "historians" simply assert its nonexistence and support that with clearly invalid evidence. They aren't actually doing historical research in any kind of valid way.

I on the contrary am perfectly willing to acknowledge the Holodomor if it's proven to be real. But I've seen no real evidence that it was.

WHAT THE FUCK?????????????????????????????????????????????? ??

...Sorry, that's the stupidest thing I've heard in a few days, maybe a month. "I wouldn't blame someone for confusing an Ideology with a natural disaster." Can you sink any lower?

Couldn't agree more man! Hope they let you out soon!

I'm not arguing that other system don't murder people, I'm arguing that kicking people out of RevLeft for being anti-abortion while admitting Stalinists and Maoists is hypocritical.

:lol:

The whole "women's rights are humans rights" line doesn't fly with me.

You are a terrible terrible person.

Personally, I'd require total respect for human rights, of course, and crackdown on the bloodthirsty goons first.

I take it that when you say "blood thirsty goons" you are referring to the Revolutionary Communists who are the only people capable of achieving "human rights" and actually emancipating humanity?

Bud Struggle

14th June 2008, 16:54

You are a terrible terrible person.

Drosera--I don't agree with you much, but I do admire your sense of humor. :lol:

Awful Reality

14th June 2008, 16:56

Personally, I'd require total respect for human rights, of course, and crackdown on the bloodthirsty goons first.

I'd assume that the hypocrisy here is self evident, so I'll leave this statement as it is.

Bluetongue

14th June 2008, 18:26

crackdown=stick in OI, which has already happened to you :)

Robert

14th June 2008, 21:43

the only people capable of achieving "human rights" and actually emancipating humanity?

You have to convince them that they are slaves first. Then you have to identify their masters in a way they can recognize. If not, they won't cooperate in their "emancipation." How good a job are you doing in this area?

Bud Struggle

14th June 2008, 22:02

How good a job are you doing in this area?

Ouch! :lol:

Comrade Rage

14th June 2008, 22:14

The point isn't whether Stalin caused the Holodomor, but why communists accept some kinds of murder and oppression and not others. There's no arguing that Stalin, Lenin and Mao killed large numbers of people based on their political beliefs, which is utterly contrary to any reasonable definition of human rights.Why do Capitalists accept some kinds of murder and oppression and not others? People are starving all over the world, there are multiple capitalist wars occuring, there is a system of violence keeping the workers 'in check' and you dare question me about violence?
Yes, violence on a smaller scale will be necessary. There will be people who want to violently reinstitute capitalism after the revolution, and they will need to be fought.
Even if I factor in your dubious statistics about Stalin and Lenin, I'm willing to say that 'they killed' way less people than capitalism has.

Honestly, who would you have for your next leader, Stalin or an anti-abortion McCain? Are those of you who chose Stalin prepared to die for your choice - it's not like he exempted his supporters from the purges.Stalin. 90000000000000%.And what the hell are you talking about? Stalin never executed his supporters. What are you quoting, The Black Book of Communism?:rolleyes:

That's irrational. Stalin didn't even do that, you make him sound like a dictator.

Bud Struggle

14th June 2008, 22:22

And what the hell are you talking about? Stalin never executed his supporters. What are you quoting, The Black Book of Communism?:rolleyes:

That's irrational. Stalin didn't even do that, you make him sound like a dictator.

Exactly! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:;)

Robert

14th June 2008, 22:56

Stalin never executed his supporters.

This is 100% true. He had them purged first, then had NKVD goons do it for him.

Pretty slick.

PRC-UTE

14th June 2008, 23:41

Comrade Rage

14th June 2008, 23:49

Exactly! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:;)
Exactly what? You presented a common falsehood about Comrade Stalin.

This is 100% true. He had them purged first, then had NKVD goons do it for him.

Pretty slick.What is this post missing? Oh yeah...proof.

Under liberal capitalist law, it's not violence to starve large numbers of people (which is extraordinarily common) or to let them die from preventable illness, yet it's violence if a starving peasant commits violence to attain food or medicine.

Structural, inherent violence is much larger problem.Exactly. QFT.:thumbup:

PRC-UTE

14th June 2008, 23:53

I wouldn't blame anyone for confusing communism with an agricultural catastrophe. :(

Famines were a regular occurence under Tsarist Russia and came to an end after the great leap forward.

Honestly, who would you have for your next leader, Stalin or an anti-abortion McCain? Are those of you who chose Stalin prepared to die for your choice - it's not like he exempted his supporters from the purges.

McCain defends a pretty brutal war in Iraq, did you think he was some kind of pacifist?

Bud Struggle

15th June 2008, 00:07

Part of the flaw with these types of discussions is what constitutes violence... they tend to focus on isolated acts by individuals.

Under liberal capitalist law, it's not violence to starve large numbers of people (which is extraordinarily common) or to let them die from preventable illness, yet it's violence if a starving peasant commits violence to attain food or medicine.

Structural, inherent violence is much larger problem.

I've been pretty consistant here--I think both (or any) kinds of violence are wrong.

Comrade Rage

15th June 2008, 00:12

I've been pretty consistant here--I think both (or any) kinds of violence are wrong.Then how do you reconcile your pacifism with being a capitalist and defending a system of systematic violence?

PRC-UTE

15th June 2008, 00:13

I've been pretty consistant here--I think both (or any) kinds of violence are wrong.

you wrote:

Violence is ALWAYS bad. Violence ALWAYS signfies that might makes right--which is rarely the case.

This is not very applicable to the real world. If it takes violence of revolution to end the violence of mass hunger, which is preferable?

PRC-UTE

15th June 2008, 00:18

Then how do you reconcile your pacifism with being a capitalist and defending a system of systematic violence?

Exactly, lol

Demogorgon

15th June 2008, 00:54

That's irrational. Stalin didn't even do that, you make him sound like a dictator.

What on earth could ever have prompted that notion?:confused:

Bud Struggle

15th June 2008, 00:54

you wrote:
This is not very applicable to the real world. If it takes violence of revolution to end the violence of mass hunger, which is preferable?

Revolution never ended mass hunger. Don't be silly (or don't be Marxist--much the same.)

We need to make the world a better place---granted. Certainly Marx--like Adam Smith isn't the answer.

But there IS something to Marx--like there IS to Adam Smith. Now let's be grown up boys and girls and work together and find the answer.

Bud Struggle

15th June 2008, 00:57

What on earth could ever have prompted that notion?:confused:

Tis' why I love RevLeft. :)

(Besides for the fact that at times--at times, you bastards could be pretty darn brilliant.)

Comedy and brains--if Revleft was a girl--she'd be a pretty hot babe.

PRC-UTE

15th June 2008, 01:21

Revolution never ended mass hunger. Don't be silly (or don't be Marxist--much the same.)

There weren't famines after the industrialisation of the Soviet Union. It did end mass hunger.

Bud Struggle

15th June 2008, 01:30

There weren't famines after the industrialisation of the Soviet Union. It did end mass hunger.

But it couldn't put food in the supermarkets.

I remember gointo syupermarkets in Moscow and Budapest--huge places, as big as anything in the US--and there was NOTHING TO EAT. The center of the store was empty, and the wall were lined with counters with nothing in them. There were people behind the counters but they were all empty.

RGacky3

15th June 2008, 01:41

I don't get how Leninists and especially Stalinists are still around, it was decades ago, and pretty much a tyrannical disaster from the begining, and it collapsed, yet people still hold on.

Yes, violence on a smaller scale will be necessary. There will be people who want to violently reinstitute capitalism after the revolution, and they will need to be fought.
Even if I factor in your dubious statistics about Stalin and Lenin, I'm willing to say that 'they killed' way less people than capitalism has.

It would be very hard to proove that even 1% of the people Stalin executed were actively trying to reinstitute Capitalism, however if you can proove that all of those Stalin executed were actively tryin to reinstitute Capitalism, well then, that would be absolutely insane, that would mean that all those tens of thousands of people hated live SO much in the Soviet Union, that they were actively fighting to bring back a system where they were wage slaves.

Of coarse they killed way less than Capitalism stupid, they were 2 people, Capitalism is a global system.

Stalin. 90000000000000%.And what the hell are you talking about? Stalin never executed his supporters. What are you quoting, The Black Book of Communism?:rolleyes:

He never executed his supporters, man what a great guy, I've never stomped my own balls either.

That's irrational. Stalin didn't even do that, you make him sound like a dictator.

I think that comment has been responded to sarcastically enough. But yeah, he was a dictator, and its insane that any Socialist, knowing what we know, supports him.

PRC-UTE

15th June 2008, 04:12

But it couldn't put food in the supermarkets.

I remember gointo syupermarkets in Moscow and Budapest--huge places, as big as anything in the US--and there was NOTHING TO EAT. The center of the store was empty, and the wall were lined with counters with nothing in them. There were people behind the counters but they were all empty.

That's a news flash: the USSR had some major flaws. Thanks for letting me know.

Anyway, doesn't change what I said.

There wasn't mass starvation and population decrease until capitalism was restored.

Dros

15th June 2008, 04:26

You have to convince them that they are slaves first. Then you have to identify their masters in a way they can recognize. If not, they won't cooperate in their "emancipation." How good a job are you doing in this area?

Obviously, not good enough! But we're all working hard on doing better.

Drosera--I don't agree with you much, but I do admire your sense of humor.

But I wasn't joking!:(

Stalin. 90000000000000%.

Also, this.

Stalin or McCain? Seriously?

Robert

15th June 2008, 04:36

But we're all working hard on doing better.

Keep up the good work, brother. I actually admire your perseverance.

Dros

15th June 2008, 08:25

Keep up the good work, brother. I actually admire your perseverance.

Thanks.:) Nothing less then the future of the world is at stake.

Bluetongue

16th June 2008, 02:42

Why do Capitalists accept some kinds of murder and oppression and not others? People are starving all over the world, there are multiple capitalist wars occuring, there is a system of violence keeping the workers 'in check' and you dare question me about violence?
Yes, violence on a smaller scale will be necessary. There will be people who want to violently reinstitute capitalism after the revolution, and they will need to be fought.
Even if I factor in your dubious statistics about Stalin and Lenin, I'm willing to say that 'they killed' way less people than capitalism has.

I question you because I'm a communist who rejects violence. The only use for political violence is to establish democracy, after which you VOTE in socialism. Anything else leads to Stalin/Mao, which is not at all towards the advancement of human rights or social justice.

Once again, this is not in comparison to capitalism.

McCain defends a pretty brutal war in Iraq, did you think he was some kind of pacifist?

Well, no. He's a neocon toad. But he's also 900000000% better than Stalin. He might continue the war in Iraq and attack abortion rights, but he's not going to purge congress or set up gulags in Alaska.

Thanks.:) Nothing less then the future of the world is at stake.

QFT.

The point of this thread is that communists as a whole do no embrace human rights, and thus ejecting communists who don't support abortion is ludicrous. And the stalinist go on proving the point over and over again. Thanks, guys. And FYI, according to the majority of historians, denying the Holodomor puts you in the same camp as those who deny the Holocaust. The whole Stalinist apologia bit is obscene.

Sam_b

16th June 2008, 03:17

establish democracy, after which you VOTE in socialism

Define what you mean by 'democracy'. How will socialism ever be voted in under a capitalist 'democratic' system, with established capitalist parties having obscene money and influence?

And does this mean you are a reformist?

or set up gulags in Alaska.

Nothing like good ol' Guantanamo bay....

Kwisatz Haderach

16th June 2008, 04:00

And FYI, according to the majority of historians, denying the Holodomor puts you in the same camp as those who deny the Holocaust. The whole Stalinist apologia bit is obscene.
Which "majority of historians" is this, and where can I read about them?

The question is not whether or not a certain number of Ukrainians starved to death in 1931-1933. Of course they did. The question is whether this was deliberate or accidental. Famines, you see, happen all the time without human help. Gas chambers, on the other hand, do not spring up from the ground by themselves.

It is perfectly possible for a famine to be accidental. On the other hand, it's pretty difficult to say that the whole concentration camp business was one big misunderstanding.

16th June 2008, 04:36

Dros

16th June 2008, 05:51

I question you because I'm a communist who rejects violence.

You are many things but Communist isn't one of them.

Anything else leads to Stalin/Mao,

We should be so lucky.

which is not at all towards the advancement of human rights or social justice.

You're a broken record incapable of arguing.

Well, no. He's a neocon toad. But he's also 900000000% better than Stalin. He might continue the war in Iraq and attack abortion rights, but he's not going to purge congress or set up gulags in Alaska.

You're a reactionary piece of trash!

The point of this thread is that communists as a whole do no embrace human rights,

I guess that depends on what you mean by "human rights". All Communists support some notion that human life has value and that it should be preserved.

and thus ejecting communists who don't support abortion is ludicrous.

There is no such thing as a Communist who doesn't support abortion.

And the stalinist go on proving the point over and over again.

You fail.

Thanks, guys. And FYI, according to the majority of historians, denying the Holodomor puts you in the same camp as those who deny the Holocaust. The whole Stalinist apologia bit is obscene.

Guess what you dumb fuck reactionary piece of shit, according to most historians, Communism doesn't work! According to most of the petty bourgeois academics you so love, Communism in all of it's forms is a political and economic failure! So I guess that means we should all put down our flags and go the fuck home, huh?

Your complete unwillingness to actually do an historical analysis displays how thoroughly opportunist (or just dumb) you are. Your willingness to continue to spray reactionary and deluded lies even when pointed to facts on numerous occasions demonstrates that you are in fact an anti-communist reactionary.

The logic of the reactionary position on the Ukrainian and Chinese deaths is that famines are genocide if and only if they happen in Communist led states (deliberate possibly, or at best due to communist mismanagement), otherwise they're natural disasters and tragedies which the economic system couldn't have prevented.

I couldn't agree more. Any kind of analysis makes this truth obvious.

Kwisatz Haderach

16th June 2008, 07:08

The logic of the reactionary position on the Ukrainian and Chinese deaths is that famines are genocide if and only if they happen in Communist led states (deliberate possibly, or at best due to communist mismanagement), otherwise they're natural disasters and tragedies which the economic system couldn't have prevented.
Indeed. "Communist murder" is defined as any death occurring for any reason other than old age within the borders of a country led by communists. Presumably communists have a responsibility to prevent any death from illness, war, or natural disasters, and if they fail to do so they are committing murder. Capitalists, on the other hand, have no such responsibility.

I seriously believe we should publish a book about the crimes of capitalism using the same standards that they use for communism. I wonder how many "murders" we would find.

Bluetongue

16th June 2008, 07:21

I'm just going to quote from Wiki, just my JSTOR link is down;

Wikipedia:

In the Soviet Union, collectivization was introduced by Stalin in the late 1920s as a way, according to the theories of communist leaders, to boost agricultural production through the organization of land and labor into collectives called collective farms (kolkhozes) and state farms (sovkhozes). At the same time, Soviet leaders argued that collectivization would free poor peasants from economic servitude under the kulaks. Stalin believed that the goals of collectivization could be achieved voluntarily, but when the new farms failed to attract the number of peasants hoped, the government blamed the oppression of the kulaks and resorted to forceful implementation of the plan, by murder and wholesale deportation of farmers to Siberia. Milions of unfortunates who remained died of starvation, and the centuries-old system of farming was destroyed in one of the most fertile regions in the world for farming, once called "the breadbasket of Europe." The immediate effect of forced collectivization was to reduce grain output and almost halve livestock, thus producing major famines in 1932 and 1933.

In 1932-1933, approximately 3.1 - 7 million people, mainly in Ukraine, died from famine after Stalin forced the peasants into the collectives (this famine is known in Ukraine as Holodomor). Most modern historians believe that this famine was caused by the sudden disruption of production brought on by collective farming policies that were implemented by the government of the Soviet Union. Some believe that, due to unreasonably high government quotas, farmers often received far less for their labor than they did before collectivization, and some refused to work; others retaliated by destroying their crops. It was not until 1940 that agricultural production finally surpassed its pre-collectivization levels.[1][2]
Wikipedia:
Collective farming began in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong. It was further pursued during the Great Leap Forward, an attempt to rapidly mobilize the country in an effort to transform China into an industrialized communist society. The policy mistakes associated with this collectivization attempt during the Great Leap Forward resulted in mass starvation. According to many other sources, the death toll due to famine was most likely about 20 to 30 million people. The three years between 1959 and 1962 were known as the "Three Bitter Years" and the Three Years of Natural Disasters.
While Hungary arguably provides the best positive example of collective farming in a communist state, North Korea provides its negative counterpart. In the late 1990s, the collective farming system collapsed under the strain of droughts. Estimates of deaths due to starvation ranged into the millions, although the government did not allow outside observers to survey the extent of the famine. Aggravating the severity of the famine, the government diverted international relief supplies to its armed forces.If this is untrue, then you are free to edit Wikipedia and change. Watch what happens.

Define what you mean by 'democracy'. How will socialism ever be voted in under a capitalist 'democratic' system, with established capitalist parties having obscene money and influence?Kerala. The people are perfectly capable of raising money for socialist parties, and in many countries there are severe laws limiting fundraising.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "human rights". All Communists support some notion that human life has value and that it should be preserved.Wikipedia:
Mao himself had no scruples about the taking of human life, and went so far as to suggest that the sign of a true revolutionary was his desire to kill: "This man Hitler was even more ferocious. The more ferocious the better, don't you think? The more people you kill, the more revolutionary you are."
Guess what you dumb fuck reactionary piece of shit, according to most historians, Communism doesn't work! According to most of the petty bourgeois academics you so love, Communism in all of it's forms is a political and economic failure! So I guess that means we should all put down our flags and go the fuck home, huh?Totalitarian communism, a la Stalin and Mao, is a complete failure. That should be obvious. It certainly means that Stalinists and Maoists are beating a dead horse. I'm not about to quit, but then again, I have a foward looking version of communism that doesn't involve dictatorships or mass starvation.

Your complete unwillingness to actually do an historical analysis displays how thoroughly opportunist (or just dumb) you are. Your willingness to continue to spray reactionary and deluded lies even when pointed to facts on numerous occasions demonstrates that you are in fact an anti-communist reactionary.So what are you going to do, have me shot in the head to prove the peace loving nature of Stalinism? You little website is not science. It's pure propaganda. I'm an anti-Stalin/Maoist communist, actually. There are many such people on this website.

Edric O:
Indeed. "Communist murder" is defined as any death occurring for any reason other than old age within the borders of a country led by communists. Presumably communists have a responsibility to prevent any death from illness, war, or natural disasters, and if they fail to do so they are committing murder. Capitalists, on the other hand, have no such responsibility.Are you accusing me of supporting this? Is president Bush then innocent of the deaths from Katrina? I do expect consistent standards. Murder by neglect or mismanagement is still murder. But, no, communists are not responsible for all the deaths that occurred in communist lead countries, nor is any other government. The difference in these mismanagements are that they are the direct result of communist restructuring of agricultural systems along ideological grounds. Untested, unscientific theories of agricultural production. If they'd left it alone, or tested it first, far fewer people would have starved. Communism always claims to be empirical, but often is not in practice. Collective farming can work, but no one in those countries even tried to experiment - the just did how they thought it should be. Unless, of course, you consider the whole experience as an experiment, which cost, what 30 million lives? With no controls, so the data is garbage anyway.

Kwisatz Haderach

16th June 2008, 07:30

Hyacinth

16th June 2008, 08:15

Explain please, what set of ethics can deny human rights (i.e. that humans have innate rights), and still morally condemn rape, murder and so on. So far every set of ethics I've come accross sets innate human rights. Human rights is to ethics what tequila is to a margarita.
“Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.”--Jeremy Bentham, father of utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)

Clearly you’re not very familiar with moral philosophy if you happen to miss an entire category of normative ethics, namely consequentialism, which makes no reference to such notions are rights, duties, etc.

Hyacinth

16th June 2008, 08:17

Utilitarianism. Also Kantianism, if you're into that sort of thing. Rawls also provides a great justification for laws against rape, murder and so on without basing it on any conception of human rights.
Thank you. I didn’t get as far as your post when I replied, I was just catching up on this thread when my philosophical sensibilities were offended that I felt I *had* to respond.

Hyacinth

16th June 2008, 08:51

Kants whole ethical theory was a defence of human rights, i.e. you have an obligation toward man based on reason and universally applying ethics. Kants theory upheld human rights.

Utalitarianism, i.e. the best for the most, is one that perhaps takes out human rights, but if you ascribe to that ethical theory, then your probably OK with limited slavery, and killing dissidents. Now then that being said, a large portion of Utalitarianists use the best for the most theory as a guide to creating ethical rules, i.e. Human rights.

As far as I know about Rawls, his theory advocated human rights, i.e. innate rights of man.
The distinction between conseqeutnalist normative ethics and deonltogical normative ethics is over what it is that makes actions right/wrong, whether it is their consequences (as per the former), or whether they’re right/wrong in themselves.

You’re using the term “innate”, though I suspect what you really have in mind is something like inalienable. The reason being is that even on a Kantian ethical system ‘rights’ are derivative, and hence not innate (they are derived from the categorical imperative).

Utilitarianism doesn’t commit one to saying that slavery is permissible, or that killing dissidents is permissible, or nothing of the sort. It simply doesn’t claim that these acts are wrong in themselves. Killing, slavery, whatever could be right actions provided that it maximizes utility (however utility ends up being defined by your axiology).

Kantianism, on the other hand, commits you to the absurd notion that killing an innocent, no matter what the consequences (even if, say, not doing so would result in the deaths of even more people), is always wrong, and hence prohibited. “Let justice be done though the world parish” sort of thinking.

Even on Rawls’ theory it isn’t the case that rights are innate (they are derived from a social contract arrived at behind the veil of ignorance), nor is it the case that they are inalienable.

In any case, Rawls does get one descriptive point about rights correct: rights are social constructs, plain and simple. Talk of natural/innate/etc. rights results in metaphysical nonsense. You end up having to create new entities, and expand your ontology (against what Occam’s razor suggests) in order to account for natural rights.

Murder should be illigal because it violates a persons right to life, that persons right to life is an a-posteriori concept that pretty much all mankind has innately, which is why all mankind pretty much agree that killing is wrong, i.e. a human concience. All people also have an innate sense of justice and freedom. I believe Kants theory also defends human rights pretty well, man has no right to life leads to a contradiction, because that means no man has any right to live, and any man can take anyones life at any time.
Nonsense. First of all, not all of mankind (sic) agrees that killing is wrong. They will all agree that murder is wrong, but that’s a tautology (murder by definition is unjustified killing). There are plenty of cases where people believe that killing is rights: ranging from self-defence, to euthanasia, to capital punishment.

As for the “innate sense of justice”, once again, hardly. Going as far back as Hume, if not earlier, we have identified that we do have moral sentiments, and we have more or less come to identify that the root of our a moral sentiments (what some people call “intuitions”) is empathy. When people have a feeling that something is morally wrong it is essentially simply a consequence of empathy. We have a perfectly naturalistic explanation for it, without appealing to a realm of morality. That having been said, *not* all people have such moral sentiments since not all people have empathy (sociopaths being a primary counterexample). Moreover, not all people empathize to the same degree, even without go so far as to be sociopaths (for example, we don’t empathize with those we think are getting their “just desserts”, in fact we do the opposite, take pleasure in their suffering).

As for Kant, while he said he was awakened by Hume from his dogmatic slumber, he unfortunately went right back to sleep. The notion upon which his ethics is based, that of a categorical imperative, is simply untenable. *All* imperatives, in order to have any force, have to be hypothetical imperatives, that is, derivative from what people want, need, desire, etc. *strike one for Kant*

Apart from being untenable, Kant’s categorical imperative is descriptively useless, it doesn’t account for the morality that we do have, whereas looking at it from a Humean perspective is explanatorily useful, since it explains (nicely) why we have, for example, the notion of property rights entrenched in the predominant morality of the day (it is in the interests of those in power, i.e. the capitalist [propertied] class to do so). *strike two*

Lastly, let’s be generous for a moment and ignore the irrevocable defects in Kantian ethics for a moment, and pretend that it somehow makes sense. Alas, even this degree of generosity doesn’t save Kant from absurdity. As the famous example from intro ethics goes: suppose that you were hiding Jews in your cellar during WWII in Nazi Germany, and the SS come knocking on your door asking you if you know of anyone who is hiding Jews, or of where any Jews might be hiding... what would the categorical imperative beckon us to do? Lie through your teeth like most people would? No! The categorical imperative, for the sake of consistency, implies that we *must* tell the truth, since otherwise we would be “willing deceit to be a universal moral maxim”.

Not convinced by that? Maybe you think lying isn’t wrong. Well, I’m afraid that Immanuel’s ethics can’t handle even that. We can concoct the scenario, once again famous in intro ethics, where you are, for whatever reason, forced to either kill one innocent person or else 10 innocent people will die... according to Kantian ethics you’re not allowed to kill that one innocent person. What about if it is 10,000? 10 million? 10 billion? I’m afraid still not. “Let justice be done though the world perish!” *strike three*

As an addendum, the mere fact that Kantianism fails, or that we don’t have“innate” or inalienable rights doesn’t mean there are no rights at all. I’m afraid you’re talking a huge logical leap between the denial of inalienable rights and the denial of all rights altogether. You can, for instance, have a perfectly consistent defence of rights on rule utilitarian grounds, which essentially states that we ought to have such-and-such rights because society, by and large, would be better off with them.

Hyacinth

16th June 2008, 09:04

Murder causes great suffereing to who? The murdered yes, his family yes, the murderer? No, hell maybe the murderer is gaining something from the death, so why should the murderer not kill him? what does he care about the suffering, ahh, but thats why we have laws right? How does a law determain when death is necessary in order to avert suffering.

Heres a situation, a physically handicapt person, he's confined to a wheel chair and has a lot of trouble moving, he can't work, the community might prefer him dead, he needs constant health care, draining their resources, and they don't want it any more, but the family will suffer, for a while, who's to say that that family suffering and the handicapt person dying is more important than the inconvenience to the whole community.

What if a person has no family or friends, no one will suffer at all. so why not kill him, he'll suffer just for a second, then he won't exist, no loss, hell his suffering for a second, might be offset by the thrill some might get by killing him? Why not?

Your saying that more happiness is better for more people, is great, but does'nt that amount to human rights anyway? I.E. people as a whole have the right to happiness, if not, then why can't a few live of the most? They are happy, who cares about the rest.
Where to start with this caricature of consequentialism?

Consequentialism is a theory about what is right and wrong, but it doesn’t provide you with a decision procedure for deciding what that is (neither does deontology for that matter). It simply states that the right act is the act which maximizes utility (whatever utility is defined as), but it doesn’t tell you how to figure that out. And let’s be very clear about that, the right act is the act which *MAXIMIZES* utility (the *greatest* good for the *greatest* number). It can’t simply tip the scale in the balance of goodness, it has to be the act, among all the myriads of possible actions an agent can undertake, which would do the *most* good. So hypothetically a consequentialist would have to concede the point that, on the off chance that for whatever bizarre reason the murder in your example *maximized* utility (of all the other possible things that the would-be-murdered could have done), the yes, it would be the right thing to do. But of course showing that this is the right thing to do is the difficult part.

Regardless, though, could you define what you mean by rights here? In the form of: an agent X has a right to Y if and only if...??? Because I fail to see why one cannot have rights which are not inalienable (in fact, we clearly do, as a matter of fact, have such rights, when rights are regarded as social or legal constructs). You clearly mean something by “rights” over and above rights as social/legal constructs.

Herman

16th June 2008, 09:37

Kerala. The people are perfectly capable of raising money for socialist parties, and in many countries there are severe laws limiting fundraising.[

Oh i'm sure socialists are capable of raising the same amount of money that bourgeois parties do... in 50 years. :rolleyes:

You don't understand, do you? You dare call yourself a communist and you're completely misinformed as to how bourgeois (or liberal) democracy works. You do not understand the problems that socialist parties face.

I question you because I'm a communist who rejects violence. The only use for political violence is to establish democracy, after which you VOTE in socialism. Anything else leads to Stalin/Mao, which is not at all towards the advancement of human rights or social justice.

No, you're not a communist. You're a social-democrat reformist who believes that liberal revolutions were fine and dandy, while socialist revolutions are not (the hypocrisy!). The fact that you call it "democracy" shows you have no understanding of communist politics.

Instead of claiming that "anything else leads to Stalin/Mao", perhaps you should do some research?

The point of this thread is that communists as a whole do no embrace human rights, and thus ejecting communists who don't support abortion is ludicrous.

We embrace human rights when it comes to the poor and downtrodden. We do not embrace it when it comes to exploiters and tyrants. I'm sure liberals had a great time shooting monarchists in the 19th century, espousing "civil liberties" and "human rights".

There is a difference between smart pacifism and stupid pacifism. You are in the latter.

There are many such people on this website.

And they are far less reactionary than you are.

If they'd left it alone, or tested it first, far fewer people would have starved. Communism always claims to be empirical, but often is not in practice. Collective farming can work, but no one in those countries even tried to experiment - the just did how they thought it should be.

Simplistic claims with simplistic (and not properly sourced - wikipedia is not a good source and any academic knows this) sources. You figure that they should have "tested it", which tells me you don't know your history. There were already such collectives before the October Revolution. They were called "Mir" and guess what? They worked! Even Marx claimed that they were good models for a form of collective agricultural property. Communism is very scientific, but you just pull claims out of nowhere, basing yourself on inaccurate data and, as Edric pointed out, editable sources.

Hyacinth

16th June 2008, 09:41

Bluetongue

16th June 2008, 14:30

LOL, most of the bolded text in your quote from the wiki article on collective farming comes from an edit made only two days ago by a new user, who did not provide any new sources.

This is why you shouldn't trust everything you read on wikipedia.This is true, but as I noted, my university link was down. Someone owns the information in those papers.....Do, you Edric O, doubt this information or disagree with my basic premise (ie, banning anti-abortionists from revleft is hypocritical).

No, you're not a communist. You're a social-democrat reformist who believes that liberal revolutions were fine and dandy, while socialist revolutions are not (the hypocrisy!). The fact that you call it "democracy" shows you have no understanding of communist politics.

Instead of claiming that "anything else leads to Stalin/Mao", perhaps you should do some research?I'm assuming that by your definition, socialist revolutions don't result in democracy. No, I'm not okay with that. I call it "democracy" because I'm using Standard English not NuSpeak or Marx-Jargon. I know what you mean by "democracy". Research into what? There have been communist revolutions that lead to democracy, but that's not what you're talking about.

Just to check, I did consult dictionary.com on "communist" and I do qualify. If you want to hear what I think about exclusivistic social movements, start another thread.

Sam_b

16th June 2008, 19:26

Kerala. The people are perfectly capable of raising money for socialist parties, and in many countries there are severe laws limiting fundraising.

Bollocks, mate. Having had the privilege to go to India and see how their party system works, as well as knowing friends there, this doesn't rub. Especially when you're talking against Stalinism and cite an administrative region where Stalin admirers are in overall control.

Not to mention that said party have also advocated big business reforms, where the workforce regularly loses a day a week to strikes with no proper administration of strike pay.....and seeminly no better resources because of it.

Try harder.

Herman

16th June 2008, 20:09

I'm assuming that by your definition, socialist revolutions don't result in democracy. No, I'm not okay with that. I call it "democracy" because I'm using Standard English not NuSpeak or Marx-Jargon.[You are both wrong and right. RIGHT because it doesn't results in LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. WRONG because it results in PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY or DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

And this isn't marxist jargon. It's language accepted and used by everyone in the political spectrum. Don't believe me? Check your favorite source "wikipedia".

I know what you mean by "democracy".No, you don't. Otherwise you would not have called it "democracy".

Research into what? There have been communist revolutions that lead to democracy, but that's not what you're talking about.The October revolution led to Soviet Democracy, a form of Direct Democracy. The Spanish Revolution, on the anarcho-syndicalist side, led to Worker's Democracy, again a form of Direct Democracy.

Just to check, I did consult dictionary.com on "communist" and I do qualify. If you want to hear what I think about exclusivistic social movements, start another thread.You are not a communist, because you accept that "voting" is the only means to achieve socialism. You are, at most, a democratic socialist, of the right-winged side. Even the SP-USA has better politics than you. If you were a communist, you'd accept that revolution, whether violent or peaceful, can be a means to achieving socialism.

Dros

16th June 2008, 21:35

I'm just going to quote from Wiki, just my JSTOR link is down;

You are such a fucking hypocrite. You go from your source=validity to quoting wikipedia. Let me make this explicitly clear for you: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE!

Kerala. The people are perfectly capable of raising money for socialist parties, and in many countries there are severe laws limiting fundraising.

Kerala is a capitalist province in India. Although the Maoists (you know, the ones you hate so much) are coming closer and closer to liberating it and much of that part of India is dominated by Maoists who are setting up revolutionary people's governments in the base areas.

Wikipedia:Totalitarian communism, a la Stalin and Mao, is a complete failure. That should be obvious. It certainly means that Stalinists and Maoists are beating a dead horse. I'm not about to quit, but then again, I have a foward looking version of communism that doesn't involve dictatorships or mass starvation.

You have no leg to stand on. We've repeatedly shat on your arguments and you've done nothing to back them up except repeat them and quote wikipedia.

Totalitarian communism, a la Stalin and Mao, is a complete failure. That should be obvious. It certainly means that Stalinists and Maoists are beating a dead horse. I'm not about to quit, but then again, I have a foward looking version of communism that doesn't involve dictatorships or mass starvation.

So you've basically conceded that the logic of the one non-argument you've loudly repeated is entirely false.

So what are you going to do, have me shot in the head to prove the peace loving nature of Stalinism? You little website is not science. It's pure propaganda.

I think if that were so, you would be able to make a real argument against the facts it provides there. However, you have never done so. You have opportunistically and unscientifically refused to make a real historical argument for us to address.

I
'm an anti-Stalin/Maoist communist, actually.

No. You're clearly nothing of the kind.

Bud Struggle

16th June 2008, 21:47

Let me make this explicitly clear for you: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE!

Yea. I agee. That's where I got my info on Holodomor. Once I got drosera's reply of "It never happened," I reread the source at WIKI. Now honestly--I don't KNOW what happened at Holomodor, but the WIKI source did seem a bit over top in making the Soviets seem guilty. Anyone could have written it, with any agenda.

If anyone's got anything pro or con with serious sources--I'd love to read it, but for now, I'm holding my opinion.

Bluetongue

16th June 2008, 22:26

Once again, I don't have my search privs at home, and can't get most journal articles. True, I should have done better than Wikipedia, but it does tend to reflect public opinion, and that's all I really wanted for that bit.

And this isn't marxist jargon. It's language accepted and used by everyone in the political spectrum. Don't believe me? Check your favorite source "wikipedia".

Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.
Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature.

Okay, sure. I would say that the common meaning of "democracy" includes liberal/representative and direct democracy (by the common definition wherein the people vote directly on issues and bills, not through representatives). It does not at all include anything that happened in the large scale politics of the Soviet Union. Obviously, there was some democracy going on somewhere in Spain during the civil war, there was some of everything going on.

Let me say AGAIN and YET AGAIN that the factuality of the Holodomor is not central to this argument. If you wish to argue about this, start another thread. If you will do so, I will make the effort to cite real sources - and so should you, since you haven't so far.

We embrace human rights when it comes to the poor and downtrodden. We do not embrace it when it comes to exploiters and tyrants. I'm sure liberals had a great time shooting monarchists in the 19th century, espousing "civil liberties" and "human rights".

This is honest. It says flat out that communists do not embrace universal human rights. Though, again, I don't care what capitalists do in the context of this discussion. It is purely about communism.

Dros

16th June 2008, 23:28

Let me say AGAIN and YET AGAIN that the factuality of the Holodomor is not central to this argument. If you wish to argue about this, start another thread.

You have asserted that Stalinists are people who support democide. That's quite a hefty allegation and the whole principle of your argument (people who do this can't seriously talk about abortion) is premised on the assumption that the Holodomor and other famines constitute mass murder instead of just famines.

If you will do so, I will make the effort to cite real sources - and so should you, since you haven't so far.

I've shown you a source. You have simply stated that it is propaganda. That may very well be true. The difference is, if it is propagandistic, you then need to make an argument showing where their bias has led to factual inaccuracies. However, most of the claims that are made are facts, not interpretation. For instance, the first books claiming that there was a genocide in Ukraine are all from documentably Nazi historians. They all have sloppy history. Of course the fact that they were Nazis does not mean that they couldn't have been historically correct. That is why the source also goes through and carefully analyzes and critiques with detail their blatantly flawed methods and sometimes their down right lies.

All that I ask is that you do the same. Instead of just attacking the source, go through their argument, do a bit of research, and demonstrate where they've been wrong.

This is honest. It says flat out that communists do not embrace universal human rights. Though, again, I don't care what capitalists do in the context of this discussion. It is purely about communism.

Well considering that "universal human rights", at least as they are commonly referenced in the mass media, are a bourgeois construct that justifies private property and work to force all struggle into the narrow channels of bourgeois dictatorship, I really fail to see how any real Communist could reject those "universal human rights".

Hyacinth

16th June 2008, 23:42

This is honest. It says flat out that communists do not embrace universal human rights. Though, again, I don't care what capitalists do in the context of this discussion. It is purely about communism.
I would imagine that under communism proper you would have communists committed to some sort of universal set of rights, but not in the revolutionary period. Rights, as social constructs, are something that you establish when you create a new social contract, as would be done with the establishment of communism. During a revolutionary period when you have class struggle and even class warfare there is no social contract, it is a struggle between the supporters of the old social order and those who are seeking to establish a new social order. Under such circumstances pragmatic concerns take precedence over idealism.

Also, what set of universal human rights are you talking about here? The right to free speech? Hardly any society has an inalienable right to that as it is; there are considerable restrictions on it wherever you go. Not that I support having legal restrictions on free speech per se, but at the same time I don’t believe that revolutionary ideas should be given equal access to the media and press. I think it perfectly reasonable for workers to refuse to publish reactionary tracts. Would this count as an infringement of a right to free speech?

But, again, which rights are members of your set of universal human rights that you assert that some comrades here don’t subscribe to?

Bud Struggle

16th June 2008, 23:54

We embrace human rights when it comes to the poor and downtrodden. We do not embrace it when it comes to exploiters and tyrants. I'm sure liberals had a great time shooting monarchists in the 19th century, espousing "civil liberties" and "human rights".

This is honest. It says flat out that communists do not embrace universal human rights. Though, again, I don't care what capitalists do in the context of this discussion. It is purely about communism.

It's the reason I really don't support Communism. We seriously need to work out a system where we ALL can do well. I kind of see it as Small town America or England you have the government or the crown, but it's of no real bother. You have your small business or farm or whatever and you make your keep and to hell with the rest of the world.

It's a little bit of what I'm trying to reconstruct for myself and my family, we live on a farm, no cable and little internet, TV once a week, we raise our own goats and chicken and ducks--and it's costing me a fortune.

Kwisatz Haderach

17th June 2008, 08:07

This is true, but as I noted, my university link was down. Someone owns the information in those papers... Do, you Edric O, doubt this information or disagree with my basic premise (ie, banning anti-abortionists from revleft is hypocritical).
I do doubt your information on Stalin, in the sense that while I am sure he did indeed cause the deaths of many innocent people, the extent of his cruelty is vastly exaggerated by capitalist propaganda. In particular, I agree that he can rightfully be blamed for the Gulag, but I do not think he can be blamed for the Holodomor.

And I think that banning anti-abortionists from revleft is stupid, counter-productive, and sectarian. But I don't see it as necessarily hypocritical.

Herman

17th June 2008, 09:05

Okay, sure. I would say that the common meaning of "democracy" includes liberal/representative and direct democracy (by the common definition wherein the people vote directly on issues and bills, not through representatives). It does not at all include anything that happened in the large scale politics of the Soviet Union. Obviously, there was some democracy going on somewhere in Spain during the civil war, there was some of everything going on.

The Soviet Union was, as its name implies, a union of all the soviets in their respective republics. The extent to which the procedures were democratic is debatable. Even so, I'd support the Soviet Union over Western Europe or the US, if it still existed.

This is honest. It says flat out that communists do not embrace universal human rights. Though, again, I don't care what capitalists do in the context of this discussion. It is purely about communism.

If we were to ever accept "universal human rights", it would be when we have achieved socialism. While capitalism exists, "human rights" are just a way of justifying their control and actions against the poor and workers.

It's the reason I really don't support Communism. We seriously need to work out a system where we ALL can do well.

We're not here to make everyone poor. We're here to make everyone "rich" (if you will).