The ecological imperative? - Is Marxist socialism in accord

[ralphkyle]

When I was much younger I used to be a Marxist of sorts, possibly most in sympathy with what was called Maoism, which those who host this forum would probably class as Stalinist. Over time, however, I have come to believe that the liberal-democratic capitalist system is really the zenith of social evolution, and that, ultimately, in accordance with the ecological imperative, liberal-democratic capitalism will give way to an essentially fascistic totalitarian system, possibly associated with a Stalinist or traditional fascist society, or possibly some amalgam of Stalinism and fascism -- probably Stalinism could be called Left-fascism?

What I mean by the ecological imperative would possibly be understood by most Marxists as referring to the fact that capitalism is ultimately ecologically unsustainable, and so must give way to a post-capitalist society. However, I do not think that most Marxists understand the full implications of the ecological imperative. I would assume that everyone is essentially egotistic in a materialistic sense, and so, in accordance with the exigencies of the ecological imperative, it will be necessary for a politically totalitarian system to curb the materialistic egotism of most people (presumably on a worldwide scale); however, I would assume that any totalitarian system is essentially fascistic (whether based on racist or classist assumptions, or again, some amalgam), and so contrary to any authenic spirit of Marxist socialism, as enunciated originally by Karl Marx. Surely, therefore, unless one assumes that totalitarian Stalinism is authenic Marxism, one can only conclude that Marxism is essentially Utopian.

As I said, I think that a liberal-democratic society is the zenith of social evolution, which I think is necessarily inherent in a capitalistic economic system, whereas, in accordance with the exigencies of the ecological imperative, any attempt to supplant capitalism by a post-capitalist economic system will simply lead to a socially retrogressive totalitarian system, and so, if one values liberal-democracy, it is best if one politically supports the political reform of capitalism, at the most, and not to seek the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. During the last century, of course, there were several instances of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism (whether one counts the fascistic supplanting of capitalist liberal-democracy or not), and this invariably led to political totalitarianism, which all authenic Marxists condemned; but, whereas such instances were simply failures relating to questions of political philosophy, and did not involve questions concerning any notion of an ecological imperative, that would not be the case in the future, since the exigencies of the ecological imperative involve a far more fundamental question of whether any notion of an authenic Marxist society is inherently ecologically viable or not.

I think that if one goes back to Karl Marx it is surely apparent that he did not think in ecological terms the way we do today, so that he naturally assumed that with the optimisation of capitalism as a mode of production there would be such a super-abundance of commodities, that capitalist social relations would become socially superfluous, so that there would be a communist revolution which would allow everyone to live, relatively speaking, as millionaires, in material terms. Those of us who think ecologically, however, know that such a notion of super-abundance is absurd, since, in accordance with the exigencies of the ecological imperative, it is surely necessary that each individual consumes, in material terms, as little as possible (which, of course, in the context of a social revolution, would necessarily militate against any notion of socialist revolution as a democratic process, since, in terms of materialistic egotism, what would people have to gain by making a revolution that would only help others at their expense?) -- and so, where is the motive for people generally to make communist revolution today, as surely the only rational thing to do is for each person to seek to satisfy his or her materialistic egotism as much as possible, to the necessary detriment ecologically, of all others; for instance, in my personal case, I seek to obtain the best computer equipment possible, and have access to the best libraries imaginable, as well as having as affluent a lifestyle as possible, allowing me to have the time to think about, say, all the questions raised in this forum, which, clearly, in a materialistic (and therefore ecological) sense, can only be at the expense of others in the world; and the only alternative to this state of affairs is if some totalitarian State entity forces me to limit my consumption of material resources, in favour of others who may need to be allocated resources so that they can merely survive.

However, as I have implied, such a totalitarian State would necessarily be an essentially fascistic system (excluding the notion that a strict Stalinist system is not really a Marxist system -- if it is, then I suppose we would all have to be Stalinists?), so that such a system would necessarily be socially retrogressive, and so, ultimately, nobody would be really helped by such a system, even those threatened by starvation. It should not be necessary to have to point this out, but, the basic premise in my argument is that we are all ultimately motivated by materialistic egotism, and so we cannot say that if we had totalitarian political power we would not ultimately wield such political power in our own interest, at the expense of others (even if we make some sort of show of being concerned about others) -- but that is becoming rather psychologically complicated!

This whole subject is all rather complex, and a whole book could be written about it, so that is all I will say for the present. If, as I hope, some people reply to it, I will be happy to expand on my points, if possible. Needless to say, I am not interested in scoring points off anyone in a political sense, as I would be pleased if some avowed Marxist could point out to me why I am wrong, as I do think that my present viewpoint could be said to be somewhat pessimistic, and I suppose it would be better to hold a more optimistic viewpoint, as probably those Marxists who host this forum could be said to hold.

[Unrelenting Steve]

I think I understand most of what your saying; althought isnt that just a little selfish, you having all the resource rather than just supporting everyones surviaval. otherwise why dont we just try and make the Marxist dream a realality after fixing the enviromental imperitive (make it a non issue), we can all live like millionaires, if we limit the population, (the one child policy for everyone for 10 generations)=1 tenth of the current population. 1 tenth of the population living with all our resources, perhaps even epahasized by technological advancement (greater recylcing methods, or even just plain old replicators (someone told me where only 75 years off one of those)). -But then this all requires will and power that no one with these objectives will obtain, so screw that! (damn, and I thought it sounded pretty good).

And now I have made a total fool of myself by clearly not getting anything you have written and am going on about stuff that is realated but way off what you where talking about-sorry.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 11:47 am on June 15, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

You make some good points Ralph, I agree with the majority of your theory. For readabilities sake, I will post comments paragraphically;

When I was much younger I used to be a Marxist of sorts, possibly most in sympathy with what was called Maoism, which those who host this forum would probably class as Stalinist. Over time, however, I have come to believe that the liberal-democratic capitalist system is really the zenith of social evolution, and that, ultimately, in accordance with the ecological imperative, liberal-democratic capitalism will give way to an essentially fascistic totalitarian system, possibly associated with a Stalinist or traditional fascist society, or possibly some amalgam of Stalinism and fascism -- probably Stalinism could be called Left-fascism?

It is quite hard for many to remain loyal to the communist movement once the order of political evolution had been determined in '61. Liberal Capitalism would be better described as the apex of national political evolution rather than social evolution as communism is without any shadow of a doubt more socially evolved than Liberal Capitalism. I am mostly interested on your views of what will come after the zenith of national politics as I did my theseis on this very same subject. You are absolutely correct with your affirmation that an authoritarian or even totalitarian political and economic system based on socialist ideals
will rise from the now defunct national political system. I believe the only flaw in your theory is the inclusion of facism. I also disgree with your view on Stalinism but that is a debate for another time.

What I mean by the ecological imperative would possibly be understood by most Marxists as referring to the fact that capitalism is ultimately ecologically unsustainable, and so must give way to a post-capitalist society. However, I do not think that most Marxists understand the full implications of the ecological imperative. I would assume that everyone is essentially egotistic in a materialistic sense, and so, in accordance with the exigencies of the ecological imperative, it will be necessary for a politically totalitarian system to curb the materialistic egotism of most people (presumably on a worldwide scale); however, I would assume that any totalitarian system is essentially fascistic (whether based on racist or classist assumptions, or again, some amalgam), and so contrary to any authenic spirit of Marxist socialism, as enunciated originally by Karl Marx. Surely, therefore, unless one assumes that totalitarian Stalinism is authenic Marxism, one can only conclude that Marxism is essentially Utopian.

This is a very well thought out portion of your post. What I have found among today's marxist is a complete lack of understanding in the field of political evolution. I agree that capitalism is indeed ecologically unsustainable on a global level and will inevitably collapse, leading to the post nationalistic phase of political evolution. The only viable option for a highly technological and industrious society with no working economic platform is communism. As the imprint of materialism will still be left on the psyche of society, I also agree that a totalitarian communistic political environment is absolutely necessary to guide the masses into this phase of political evolution. Once this is achieved, a far less athouritarian political system will be necessary.


As I said, I think that a liberal-democratic society is the zenith of social evolution, which I think is necessarily inherent in a capitalistic economic system, whereas, in accordance with the exigencies of the ecological imperative, any attempt to supplant capitalism by a post-capitalist economic system will simply lead to a socially retrogressive totalitarian system, and so, if one values liberal-democracy, it is best if one politically supports the political reform of capitalism, at the most, and not to seek the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. During the last century, of course, there were several instances of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism (whether one counts the fascistic supplanting of capitalist liberal-democracy or not), and this invariably led to political totalitarianism, which all authenic Marxists condemned; but, whereas such instances were simply failures relating to questions of political philosophy, and did not involve questions concerning any notion of an ecological imperative, that would not be the case in the future, since the exigencies of the ecological imperative involve a far more fundamental question of whether any notion of an authenic Marxist society is inherently ecologically viable or not.

Logically it is indeed fundamentally sound to support the advancement of liberal capitalism as the overall end result would bolster communistic ideals. The reason I am currently not in full support of this course of action (I am however in full support of it being punctilious fundamentally) is that I feel their still could be a possiblity of a mass mobilisation effort via armed rebellion if the spurs can be dug in deep enough. It would also have to be done on a global scale within a very short period of time and be housed under a completely totalilitarian platform. The window of opportunity however is closing quickly.

think that if one goes back to Karl Marx it is surely apparent that he did not think in ecological terms the way we do today, so that he naturally assumed that with the optimisation of capitalism as a mode of production there would be such a super-abundance of commodities, that capitalist social relations would become socially superfluous, so that there would be a communist revolution which would allow everyone to live, relatively speaking, as millionaires, in material terms. Those of us who think ecologically, however, know that such a notion of super-abundance is absurd, since, in accordance with the exigencies of the ecological imperative, it is surely necessary that each individual consumes, in material terms, as little as possible (which, of course, in the context of a social revolution, would necessarily militate against any notion of socialist revolution as a democratic process, since, in terms of materialistic egotism, what would people have to gain by making a revolution that would only help others at their expense?) -- and so, where is the motive for people generally to make communist revolution today, as surely the only rational thing to do is for each person to seek to satisfy his or her materialistic egotism as much as possible, to the necessary detriment ecologically, of all others; for instance, in my personal case, I seek to obtain the best computer equipment possible, and have access to the best libraries imaginable, as well as having as affluent a lifestyle as possible, allowing me to have the time to think about, say, all the questions raised in this forum, which, clearly, in a materialistic (and therefore ecological) sense, can only be at the expense of others in the world; and the only alternative to this state of affairs is if some totalitarian State entity forces me to limit my consumption of material resources, in favour of others who may need to be allocated resources so that they can merely survive.

It would be an incredible mistake to apply Marx and Engel's theory verbatim to todays society. especially in the event of a revolution. I believe you have already discussed the reasons in this last portion. I agree that there is absolutely no motivation for anyone to socially rebel against capitalism. Therefore the people must be given no choice. This is also a discussion for another time.

However, as I have implied, such a totalitarian State would necessarily be an essentially fascistic system (excluding the notion that a strict Stalinist system is not really a Marxist system -- if it is, then I suppose we would all have to be Stalinists?), so that such a system would necessarily be socially retrogressive, and so, ultimately, nobody would be really helped by such a system, even those threatened by starvation. It should not be necessary to have to point this out, but, the basic premise in my argument is that we are all ultimately motivated by materialistic egotism, and so we cannot say that if we had totalitarian political power we would not ultimately wield such political power in our own interest, at the expense of others (even if we make some sort of show of being concerned about others) -- but that is becoming rather psychologically complicated!

This is where we disagree. Any totalitarian system designed to create a new society from one that already has high levels of industry and technology but no monetary system will not be capable of being socially
regressive. On the contrary, communism itself is designed to be socially progressive and as we have shown here, communism will be the only alternative.

[ralphkyle]

At the present time I am using a publicly available computer so I may have to, as they say, abort this post, and just post what I am able to (and then come back later), if somebody else wants to use it. (Most people just don't understand all the problems one has with publicly available computers, since some are email restricted, which stops one from being able to post and such, as well as the fact that you are sometimes not allowed to save on a floppy disk; but, assuming that most of the people in this forum are communists, and so probably not very wealthy, you possibly know all about publicly available computers!) In a sense, I suppose that I am too poor to afford my own computer technology at present because I have always been too concerned about political revolution when I was younger, so that I was inclined to assume that it was pointless to be a serious capitalist, as revolution was imminent. My serious advice to any young communist, therefore, is that you are just wasting your time, because the probability is that there is not going to be a Revolution, so, in your long-term interests, you may as well concentrate on becoming wealthy, which, in a capitalist society, is doing -- guess what! About the only people who can make any money out of being communists are intellectuals, who get published or who have a tenured University position. If you have the time, however, you can never really stop thinking about the possibility of revolution, so it is good that there is an internet discussion forum such as this, where you can, in a sense, get all these thoughts out of your system!

As far as Unrelenting Steve is concerned I would recommend that he links to http://www.worldsocialism.org where he will find a completely anti-Leninist utopian socialist perspective, which is what I think he is articulating in his post. I don't wish to be insulting to anyone (as everyone needs to learn!), but Steve's perspective is reminiscent of John Lennon's "Imagine", which is somewhat far away from a serious Marxist-Leninist perspective.

In a sense I would agree with Comrade RAF that communism is indeed the way of the future; but what I mean is primitive communism, since, assuming that liberal-democratic capitalism is supplanted by a post-capitalistic fascistic totalitarian society (which might be either a Stalinist or more traditional fascistic society, or, some amalgam of such), which, due to its totalitarian nature (and thus suppression of all notions of liberal-democracy, which is the wellspring of social progress), will ultimately mean a social retrogression to primitive communism -- at least theoretically. Maybe Comrade RAF might not such a Utopian Socialist as Steve, but I do think, as apparently a Marxist-Leninist himself (or herself), he just does not understand what are the implications of the ecological imperative, which is that, while it does indeed indicate that a post-civilised primitive communist society would ultimately be ecologically ideal, this is surely not something that a rational individual would want to proselytize.

If we take into account, for instance, the present-day world population, and considering that most professional ecologists think that the world is vastly over-populated in ecological terms, it is surely be the case that civilisation would collapse if an attempt was made to put the communist distribution into effect, as all the material resources of the world would be used for personal consumption, so that there would be nothing left for the reproduction of the productive forces of society (or whatever the particular phraseology is in terms of Marxist political economy). Thus, it just seems obvious that, in terms of classical Marxism, any serious attempt to put the communist distribution principle into effect, whether within a totalitarian political context or not, is just Utopian, unless one assumes that a primitive communist society would be an ideal society.

As I said liberal-democratic capitalism is the zenith of social evolution, since, as I hope I have explained, in ecological terms the materialistic basis of a socially progressive post-capitalist society would not be present, which means that capitalist reformism is the only socially progressive perspective that is credible, although, in the long-term, it is indeed the case that capitalism is not ecologically sustainable (since the capitalist imperative of economic growth contradicts the ecological imperative of economic conservation). Probably it could be said that this is an endpoint of civilisation as we know it, and it likely that noone alive today will actually experience such a transition into barbarism.

If I was to change my mind about my theory about the ultimately socially retrogressive nature of the ecological imperative, then any Marxist-Leninist such as Comrade RAF would have to convince me that, in terms of the communist distribution principle (i.e, the equalitarian principle, at least in terms of material wealth) it would be possible to provide a civilised social existence for every inhabitant of earth that was not ecologically unsustainable. Surely, for anyone who thinks in terms of an ecological consciousness such a notion is purely Utopian. Moreover, any attempt to put the communist distribution into effect would necessitate political totalitarianism, since all rational individuals are egotistical materialists (and so would have to be coerced to put what is proclaimed the common good above their egotistical interests, in the face of the generalised poverty of primitve communism), which ultimately destroys the highest values of civilisation associated with liberal democracy, so that such a Stalinist totalitarianism is essentially Left-fascism, which is not qualitatively different from traditional fascism.

As I said this is a most complex subject and in response to replies I will be happy to expand on what I have said; but my time on my computer is now up. If possible I would like to read replies couched in terms of dialectical materialism, since this is another of my favourite subjects in relation to the Hegelian dialectic.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Point A:
Friend it is obvious that you in now way read my post and would rather enjoy hearing the sound of your own voice than discuss politics. I understand your
concepts of the ecological imperative and social evolution as well as you. I did my graduate studies in political science. I have noticed that quite simply, aside from making inaccurate judgements as to my political affiliations, you simply reiterated your original idea of social evolution. I now believe it is possible you may have an issue with other intellectuals finding flaws in your theories considering the "flavour" of your follow up.

Point B)
I am not a Marxist nor a Leninist. If you were to attempt to label my political beliefs I would be closest to what the left would consider to be a Stalinist. Which should have been quite obvious to you.

Point C)
You assumtion that the end of civilisation will occur once capitalism falls as it is not ecologically sustainable is simply wrong. However I don't see much of a point in debating this issue with as you have already shown me you will simply apply your original rhetoric to any question I may pose.

Perhaps you should try convincing me that Communism is not a viable conclusion to the end of global capitalism as it is obvious your theory is flawed from this point on. Perhaps the essay "Why Socialism" by Einstein could help you see more clearly.

Edit:
Perhaps referring to individuals other than yourself in something besides the third person would make you a bit more likable. If not, I suggest you relax, have a pint or two and simply piss off.


(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 9:14 am on June 17, 2003)

[ralphkyle]

'It is probably true that a "Western" living standard is not possible for the population of the world at its present level. A recent study posited that for the rest of the world to enjoy the standard of living the First World does, it would require the resources of two additional Earths! This "standard of living" is a product of an alienated society in which consumption for the sake of consumption is the new god. In a grow-or-die economy, production and consumption must keep increasing to prevent economic collapse. This need for growth leads to massive advertising campaigns to indoctrinate people with the capitalist theology that more and more must be consumed to find "happiness" (salvation), producing consumerist attitudes that feed into an already-present tendency to consume in order to compensate for doing boring, pointless work in a hierarchical workplace. Unless a transformation of values occurs that recognises the importance of living as opposed to consuming, the ecological crisis will get worse. It's impossible to imagine such a radical transformation occurring under capitalism, whose lifeblood is consumption for the sake of consumption.'

I found the above statement on the Che-lives website at the Anarchist FAQ, in the section dealing with ecology at http://www.che-lives.com/Archive/afaq/secE6.html which I think is somewhat definitive from a communistic perspective on the subject of this thread. The key point is that '...Unless a transformation of values occurs that recognises the importance of living as opposed to consuming, the ecological crisis will get worse. It's impossible to imagine such a radical transformation occurring under capitalism, whose lifeblood is consumption for the sake of consumption.' What this indicates to me is that such a communistic perspective is essentially an idealist perspective, as opposed to materialism in the philosophical sense, which means that such a communistic perspective is essentially irrational; of course, it might be said that the philosophical basis of communism is dialectical materialism, but there are many radical philosophers who maintain that what is known as the Diamat is really a vulgarisation of the idealist Hegelian dialectic. Certainly, it is true that the capitalist imperative is economic growth, which, in a sense, entails consumption for consumption's sake; but, is it not an objective fact that the consumption of material wealth is what any rational individual is primarily concerned with in any type of society, and who in their right mind is going to take any notice of some communist fanatic who tells them they would be much happier if they only had the standard of living of some Cambodian peasant during the time of Pol Pot -- if many of the people who post in this forum think like Comrade RAF, then Che Guevara should be supplanted as the revolutionary idol by Pol Pot at this website!

I suppose, in a sense, that there is nothing wrong with idealism, if, for instance, those who are communists are able to convince the overwhelming majority of people in the world to live in a communistic society. But as far as the past is concerned, I would assume that those theorists are right who maintain that the communist revolutions in the Soviet Union and China were just the bourgeois capitalist revolution in conditions of socio-economic underdevelopment, which is generally referred to as State-capitalism. And as far as the present is concerned, there is certainly no great demand for communism, especially in North Korea and Cuba, which most people there would like to escape from, apparently; moreover, in developed capitalist nations, when it comes to elections, even blatantly fascistic parties do much better than anyone who is an avowed communist.

I always try to be polite in posts, but since Comrade RAF chose to be abusive, I feel justified in returning the same in kind. He (or she) claims to have done '...graduate studies in political science' (isn't that a rather bourgeois concept, since surely Comrade RAF should be out agitproping the proletariat?); but, here is someone who says: 'I am not a Marxist nor a Leninist. If you were to attempt to label my political beliefs I would be closest to what the left would consider to be a Stalinist. Which should have been quite obvious to you.'
I have known people who were actually Stalinists, but they would never call themselves Stalinist (since anyone with some common sense realises that Stalin was a psychopathic dictator, who had the blood of millions on his hands! -- although he was a useful foil in regard to that German dictator), but only Marxist-Leninists, even though they only had good things to say about Uncle Joe. I think that Comrade RAF must have completed his studies at something like the Mickey Mouse School of Political Philosophy, probably by correspondence as a result of posting in a cut-out from a breakfast cereal box!

Also Comrade RAF rather patronizingly advises me in a profane manner (is that the standard communist response? Excuse me if I am guilty of bourgeois elitism!) to go away and study what some great man had to say. Well, I am familiar with Einstein's essay, and I would just say that it is the usual idealistic screed that one would come to expect from someone who is talking outside their field of study (moreover it is not apparent to me that Einstein considered Communism and Socialism essentially the same thing) -- wasn't Einstein also a Zionist, despite the fact that it was surely apparent that Zionism is essentially Jewish fascism, as is demonstrated by the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians perpetrated by them today? No doubt Comrade RAF is expressing his pro-Stalinist ideology in condemning the notion that I "...rather enjoy hearing the sound of...' my own voice -- apparently if we were living under his Stalinist dictatorship his would be the only voice which could be heard! And where did he get that signature quotation: 'Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas? -J. Stalin' -- would Stalin have been so stupid as to have said something like that? Furthermore, it is in accordance with the format of this forum, by which each post is a stand-alone post (i.e., not incorporating the contents of a previous post), that I chose to employ the third person form of address, as I am, in effect, speaking to everyone in the forum; besides, I have no particular wish to be in any sense personal with someone who thinks that Stalin could be an ideal role model!

I have, indeed, raised this point concerning the ecological imperative in other pro-Marxist forums before, but, as has been the case in this forum so far, I have never had any satisfactory response. I do not want to have to reiterate what I have said in previous posts in this thread, but it just seems quite obvious to me that, in relation to the communist distribution principle, there is simply no way that the communists can guarantee a civilised social existence for the world population as a whole. At best, it seems to me, the communists can only provide a totalitarian Stalinist Left-fascist system (which will ultimately probably metamorphize into traditional fascism), much like Pol Pot's system, in which the peasants get barely enough to stay alive, while the members of the Politburo, in the interests of historical necessity, have to have unlimited access to all material resources! As I said, I have no interest in wanting to belittle anyone's political ideology, but am simply trying to find out information. In my opinion (and the subject of the ecological imperative is not original on my part, as there have been ex-Maoist post-modernists in France who have raised this point), the whole communist edifice stands or falls on this notion of the ecological imperative, since it relates to the ultimate communist ideal society -- and surely it is necessary to demonstrate that it is somehow ultimately theoretically viable. I would do the job myself if I could -- but it just seems to me that the classical Marxist notion of communism is purely Utopian. (I did not want to go into detail in this post concerning the fact that, in relation to a Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship, supposedly for the good of the task of building communism, there is essentially a dialectical contradiction between the Party and the proletariat, in political terms, which can only be resolved by one side destroying the other, resulting in a capitalist, if not, actually, fascist, counter-revolution.)

[Vinny Rafarino]

I always try to be polite in posts, but since Comrade RAF chose to be abusive, I feel justified in returning the same in kind. He (or she) claims to have done '...graduate studies in political science' (isn't that a rather bourgeois concept, since surely Comrade RAF should be out agitproping the proletariat?); but, here is someone who says: 'I am not a Marxist nor a Leninist. If you were to attempt to label my political beliefs I would be closest to what the left would consider to be a Stalinist. Which should have been quite obvious to you.'
I have known people who were actually Stalinists, but they would never call themselves Stalinist (since anyone with some common sense realises that Stalin was a psychopathic dictator, who had the blood of millions on his hands! -- although he was a useful foil in regard to that German dictator), but only Marxist-Leninists, even though they only had good things to say about Uncle Joe. I think that Comrade RAF must have completed his studies at something like the Mickey Mouse School of Political Philosophy, probably by correspondence as a result of posting in a cut-out from a breakfast cereal box

I have been hearing the same right-wing rhetoric from individuals such as Ralph for nearly two decades. I would expect Ralph to provide factual support for his claim that Stalin was a "psychopathic dictator, who had the blood of millions on his hands" but I fear Ralph like the majority of back-street pseudo-intellectuals like himself will simply ignore factual support in favour of blind opinion.

UCL and the University of London are hardly "cereal box" institutions boy.

[ralphkyle]

As far as what Comrade RAF had to say concerning whether Stalin was "...a psychopathic dictator, who had the blood of millions on his hands!" one does not have to go to Right wing sources, since nearly everyone who considers themselves to be a Leftist, says the same thing. When I was a relatively immature (i.e., politically) pro-Maoist, I used to think that Stalin was the great heir of Lenin, who could do no wrong. Surely if one was a consistent Stalinist one would also have to say that Pol Pot, in a sense, was carrying on the tradition of Stalin, as were the Gang of Four, in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China.

Maybe if someone could seriously try to answer my point concerning the ecological imperative in relation to the exigencies of consolidating the communist distribution principle I might be able to re-affirm a belief in some sort of communistic perspective, and perhaps reconsider the role of Stalin in a different light -- although I would have serious doubts if one could ever take Stalin seriously as a Leftist in these post-modernist times. As I have explained so far in this thread I simply do not believe that any communistic perspective has any progressive significance, so that, in relation to liberal-democratic capitalism, it is necessary to be a social-democratic reformist, which is surely all one can expect the proletarian masses to take seriously. Of course, one can be a communist of sorts, but, as I have indicated, I think it simply entails adopting an idealist persprective philopophically, which is why all communistic Leftists appear to be little better than a variety of religious sects with virtually no political significance in any developed capitalist society.

According to Comrade RAF, he has impressive academic qualifications (which I find rather odd, since my experience with Stalinists is that they disparage bourgeois academic qualifications, and enjoin all authenic revolutionaries to be genuine proletarians in their place of capitalist exploitation), so that surely he should have no trouble dealing with my objections to his communistic perspective (not to mention that of Comrade Che!) concerning the ecological imperative. The fact, however, that he, or anyone else, has made no attempt to do so, simply confirms my belief that what I have asserted is irrefutable.

[Urban Rubble]

Godamn guys, slow down !!

Just kidding.

I'm not going to post anything because I am just reading, I'd be out of place. Good work though, we need more threads like these, it gets me thinking !

[Vinny Rafarino]

As far as what Comrade RAF had to say concerning whether Stalin was "...a psychopathic dictator, who had the blood of millions on his hands!" one does not have to go to Right wing sources, since nearly everyone who considers themselves to be a Leftist, says the same thing. When I was a relatively immature (i.e., politically) pro-Maoist, I used to think that Stalin was the great heir of Lenin, who could do no wrong. Surely if one was a consistent Stalinist one would also have to say that Pol Pot, in a sense, was carrying on the tradition of Stalin, as were the Gang of Four, in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China.

Rhetoric.


Maybe if someone could seriously try to answer my point concerning the ecological imperative in relation to the exigencies of consolidating the communist distribution principle I might be able to re-affirm a belief in some sort of communistic perspective, and perhaps reconsider the role of Stalin in a different light -- although I would have serious doubts if one could ever take Stalin seriously as a Leftist in these post-modernist times. As I have explained so far in this thread I simply do not believe that any communistic perspective has any progressive significance, so that, in relation to liberal-democratic capitalism, it is necessary to be a social-democratic reformist, which is surely all one can expect the proletarian masses to take seriously. Of course, one can be a communist of sorts, but, as I have indicated, I think it simply entails adopting an idealist persprective philopophically, which is why all communistic Leftists appear to be little better than a variety of religious sects with virtually no political significance in any developed capitalist society.

I already answered your question. You are wrong.

According to Comrade RAF, he has impressive academic qualifications (which I find rather odd, since my experience with Stalinists is that they disparage bourgeois academic qualifications, and enjoin all authenic revolutionaries to be genuine proletarians in their place of capitalist exploitation), so that surely he should have no trouble dealing with my objections to his communistic perspective (not to mention that of Comrade Che!) concerning the ecological imperative. The fact, however, that he, or anyone else, has made no attempt to do so, simply confirms my belief that what I have asserted is irrefutable.

Rhetoric.


Do you have anything new to add son?

[ralphkyle]

All I can say is that Comrade RAF is a very strange person considering the way he refuses to take seriously what I have said in this thread. I suppose that if one continues to be a communist in these times one must be a very alienated person.

Also it is disappointing that nobody else in this forum is prepard to deal with what I think is a serious objection to the communistic perspective, which simply confirms my belief that the classic Marxist perspective is totally defunct. If you disagree why can't you demonstrate to me that I am wrong.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I see you also have difficulty reading.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I see you also have difficulty reading.