Caj

"They are moral positions. All moral positions are opinions."

If there are moral positions it would mean morality differs from one person to the other, if you beleive this is fact, tell me how it works.

"Yes, I am. I never denied the necessity of an oppressive state. "

I read your posts and I often say to myself, "these comnunists are mad."

"Even under “dictatorships” (by which I mean non-parliamentary, bourgeois states), power does not corrupt those in direct control of the state. Power continues to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole."

By curroption I mean, it makes the one in power want to remain there for as long as he lives.


"These are superficial comparisons. Although both involve a single-party, oppressive state apparatus, such an apparatus is a tool for two completely different classes with diametrically opposed interests. The oppressive state of fascism is a bourgeois state, while the oppressive state of the proletarian dictatorship is just that: a proletarian dictatorship. "

Try to see this from my point of view, system with state= dictatorship of the state.

"If you want to call it a fact, prove it."

I already did, but you decided to ignore the big explanation.

"I don’t insist that hypotheses are facts without proof or evidence merely because it supports my position. "

There is plenty of evidence that I had pointed out, but you decided to ignore it.

"Why can’t such a harmonious relationship exist between the proletariat and its dictatorship?"

It does not work that way, the proletariat as a class does not have any interest in maintaning a state (speaking in your terms), the proletariat can support itself and all other classes, but the other calsses can't support themselves, therefore they must opress the proletariatso that it will support them. To have a state that is subordinate to the interests of the proletariat does not work.

"Individuals with similar relations to the means of production form classes and hold identifiable, common interests. It’s not that I ignore the individual. It’s rather the fact that I recognize that there are social entities besides the particular individual, and that analyzing the individual independently of her social interactions, material relations, etc. is an effort wasted in useless abstraction."

Only when you understand the individual can you understand class.

"However, class consciousness emerges both from the development of the capitalist mode of production, which creates the material and social conditions necessary for radicalization, and from propaganda by communist organizations, groups, and parties."

So, what you are saying is people will figure out that the capitalist system is wrong by themselves, even with all the capitalist propaganda, and that communist parties will take advantage of this to gain power, and become the new opressors.

"I don’t think that's necessarily the case. Let’s again take the de facto state of the Makhnovshchina as an example: The peasants, the sole basis of support for the “anarchist” state, weren’t concerned about the Makhnovshcina’s adherence or lack thereof to anarchist principles but were concerned with whether or not the Makhnovshchina were benefiting them (in this case, preventing the peasants in their controlled territories from being subject to the forced agricultural requisitions of the Bolsheviks’ War Communism)."

That was a very good reply.
Now think, if the Makhnovists would have declared themselves rightfull rulers of Ukraine (de jure state), it wouldn't have gone well, would it?

"What’s essential here is the class structure characteristic of fascism, not the superstructural mode of decision-making erected upon this class base. An “oppressive” decision-making mechanism is actually a reflection of a deeper, underlying class oppression, of which the decision-making mechanism is merely a superstructural component."

So, according to you, "everything has its origins on classes".Who is the dogmatist now?

"What?"

I will speak no more of this, I have explained it 3 times already.

"For example, you claimed that capitalism is “unnatural.“ Nobody is in favor of capitalism?"

The majority (in democratic terms) is not.

"You said that it could be argued that modern technology is “unnatural.” Nobody is in favor of modern technology?"

I said it could be argued, but the majority (when I say majority I mean a democratic majority) is in favor, therefore it must be considered natural.

"Finally, you suggested that abortion could be called “unnatural.” Nobody is in favor of abortion rights?"

Abortion is perfectly natural, to outlaw it is a fascist measure, the people against it are catholic, catholics are not in favor because abortion would lead to a smaller population growth (same with homosexuality).

"Then my point still stands: Having every individual member of each community vote on a particular proposal is impractical to say the least. At some level, representatives would be necessary to ensure efficiency. "

I will exlain again, each community is independant as far as decision making, when a decision that affects more than one community has to be carried out, all communities that are affected by said decision have a vote.
This way the administration in each community is directly-democratic and efficient, and I doubt that inter-community decisions would have to be taken as often as you think, if you think these would have to be taken often give me an example.