Results 81 to 100 of 111
The pre-suppositions are that interests are shared, and that they should be treated as such.
The desire for economic efficiancy is absolutely an ethical judgement, you are making a "should" statement, the economy SHOULD be efficiant.
Oh he absolutely did make normatic economic models, not blueprints at all, but he did examine and analize potential economic situations, shit he wrote the communist manifesto.
Of coarse most of his analysis was positive, he did'nt shy away from normative analysis.
Also his decision to support the proletarian movements was absolutely an ethical move, the same goes with engels, his desire to overthrow capitalism was also an ethical decision.
Marx's support for progress, an ethical move, Marx's concept of a "good" economic system, and ethical judgement, Marx's decision to analyse from the workers point of view and so on.
What are unscientific about them. Also they are 2 philosophers, not exactly the best "economists," also its pretty stupid that after reading 2 Anarchists who wern't even professional economists to say "All non marxist analysis of capitalism is unscientific, idealistic and so on."
BTW Kropotkin essencailly founded socio-biology/evolutionary psychology, which is a major starting point when it comes to economic and political theory.
Now thats a much more modest claim is'nt it.
Neither is the root of Marxism, Marxism was rooted in classical economic theory, modern liberalism, utopian thinkers and hegelian and materialist philosophy.
Socialism was the conclusion and Marx's personal ideology.
Ok, you are claiming that NO economic analysis of capitalism that is'nt Marxist is un-"scientific" (which btw is a strange claim, considering the ambiguity of what is and is not scientific when it comes to economics), idealistic and so on and so forth.
Yet you have only read 2 other guys who wern't even economists, and even with them you hav'nt explained how their theory was un-scientific or wrongly idealistic!!
I know what idealism is.
First of all Anarchists don't think workers will work because of Morality or revolutionary spirit, they believe they will work because its in their own interest to work and it logically follows based on history and analysis of human behavior.
Also Free Marketeers believe monopolies won't form NOT because of the "good morals of an entreprenuer," But because competition and diseconomies of scale prevent that (they are wrong obviously).
So its clear you don't understand the arguments of other economists.
Also NONE of the economic schools I mentioned are "blueprint" economics.
This is why I'm saying your speaking out of ignorance.
BTW, Marx believed in a dialectic, i.e. material conditions cause the ideological structure which in turn caused the material conditions (although causation is the wrong word it was more that they were dialectically related to each other). Marx was'nt strictly "Material conditions are the first cause," in the way you are implying.
The interests of four people trapped in a cage trying to escape is shared. Nothing ethical about that.
I kind of feel bad for you, how you just talk out of your ass, not even knowing what ethics is. I say, along with Marx, that the economy will eventually be more efficient. And I want it to be because I want a better life.
There is absolutely nothing ethical about that.
The communsit manifesto represents young marx, not old marx. Old Marx and the Communist manifesto were not in agreement, my friend.
What a fucking insult to both of those men. Gacky, stop throwing in people like Marx in Engels with your sick ethical bullshit, okay? It wasn't ethical at all, he supported it for scientific reasons, i.e. He believed it was inevitable the proletariat overthrow their class antagonism, just as the capitalists did to theirs, during feudalism. He understood that what this would do, is solve the internal contradictions within capitalism. It was 100% scientific. Why did he support a better society? To forward the human technological constraint to discover more, for more knowledge. This isn't ethical at all.
Then I suppose all of his works on materialism and scientific socialism (engels)was not really their works, and that Rgacky3 is correct about the views of Marx and Engels, even if their own works pisses on everything Gacky just said.
Seriously, you're a fucking joke. Notice how Marx never gave reasons as to why he supported the dictatorship of the proletariat. Never. All he did is analyse that it's inevitable. Completely scientific and amoral.
I've read more by the mutualists and the post scarcity assholes, along with the Libertarian socialists and the Utopian blueprinters. I asked you to link me a scientific economic work written by an anarchist. You rejected. I can't link you something that doesn't exist, gacky, you're the one saying that non marxist socialist economists aren't Idealist and Unscientific, therefore it's your job to link me the supposed works by them that dignifies your statement. You have failed to do so, therefore I take you are full of shit.
What a fucking joke. That is not a major starting point for economic or political theory. And he definitively wasn't the founder of socio biology or evolutionary psychology, a fucking idiot would say he was.
Stop talking about a structure you don't have any clue about. Marx was influenced by Classical economic theory, Hegelian dialectics, and French Materialism. he analysed them, and took what was true, and left what was bullshit. That is in, no way evidence for them being the "root" of Marxism. As for Utopian thinkers, that's horse shit, Marx actually hated Utopians more than any other type of human being.
Are you kidding? It wasn't a conclusion, you Idealist piss twit (Hur dur Ideology starts from some guy's conclusion as an Idea instead of a reflection of a movement which represents the interests of a certain class) Socialism was already the movement that existed, Marx and Engels just "hitched a ride" with it. They didn't start the movement. And it wasn't his personal Ideology, he believed ideology itself to be a tool of classes, Marx was never a stooge for Idea's. It was his ideology, but not his personal ideology.
Jesus christ you are literally shitting on Marx. You're probably doing it to stoop him down to the level of your psuedo economist anarchist shit bags.
I didn't say that you fucking asshole, I said Non Marxist socialist economists and their analysis of capitalism is unscientific
This is how Rgacky3 works, ladies and gentilemen, he has his ideology as sort of a train, and when a user's post comes into conflict with his intellectual constraint, he smoothens and twists up the user's post, to make his refution much easier.
At least I respond to your posts correctly, asshole. If I wanted, I could say "gacky, you said that Marx was a romantic and unscientific" but I won't, because you didn't say that. See how we reply posts properly now? Fucking pathetic.
Those guys were off the top of my head. Link me the works of these non marxist Socialist economists.
No you don't, you think that Idealism is simply believing that everthing is a projection of our mind and is an idea (Matrix) but that's only a fraction of what Idealism actually is.
What's there interest to work, gacky? Link me this analysis of human behavior, (No, Mutual aid does not give us a reason as to why they'll work)
and even if they did, it sure as hell wouldn't be as efficient and advanced as the capitalist mode of production, just a bunch of hippies with beards playing the ukalalie baking bread biscuts for their community.
How do you think competition and diseconomies will prevent that? Good morals of the entrepenuer. (It's much more easier to join up with the monopoly and form one together, then to stay true)
For the last time:
[FONT="Impact"]Link me the fucking arguments of these economists and we'll see how scentific they are. [/FONT]
Remember, asshole, they have to be Socialist economists, that are not Marxists.
See above.
Yup and thanks for that
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
That's not what Marxian dialectics is and yes he was strictly "Material conditions are the first cause".
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
No he was'nt.
Except you arn't 4 people trapped in a cage, its a lot more complicated than that.
So your a determinist, ok.
Except Marx did'nt stop advocating solutions, he still did later on in his life.
You see the irony there?
Sciency is intrinsicly tied into ethics, i.e. what to research and why. The same goes with Marx.
Forwarding the human technological constraint to discover more, and have more knowledge is absolutely ethical.
If Marx was'nt ethical he would have played along with the system and made money (which he absolutely had the opportunity to).
He did give reasons, his reasons were he thought that was the only way to bring about revolution.
materialism and scientific socialism IS NOT antethical to morality, not at all.
BTW, I've made plenty of posts here expanding of Marxian economics, I hav'nt seen many from you.
Sociologists would say that. Also studying evolutionary psychology, his insights into social darwinism and so on are absolutely starting points for economic and political theory.
Marx HATED them? Thats a pretty damn ethicaly based emotion. Marx disagreed with them, but I doubt he was just an angry teenager.
the evidnece for it being the "root" of marxism is that he used the classical economists models and used their presumtions.
YOu missunderstood what I wrote.
Everyone has a personal ideology, based on their conclusions, based on their situation and so on, WHY did Marx hitch a ride on socialism? Because they studied capitalism and came to certain conclusions.
Thats not idealism pisstwit (calm down buddy), its called analaysis.
Ok, but your still wrong.
Ok, read works by Thorstein Veblen, Joseph Schumpeter
There are plenty of Ricardians such as John bray, John Gray and others.
You have yet to say HOW the anarchist writers are unscientific (other than it juts did'nt seam so in your little angry mind).
You have Market socialists such as Oskar Lange.
You also have David Schweickart, Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel and the parecon movement.
The point is idealism does'nt just mean ONE thing.
What's there interest to work, gacky? Link me this analysis of human behavior, (No, Mutual aid does not give us a reason as to why they'll work
and even if they did, it sure as hell wouldn't be as efficient and advanced as the capitalist mode of production, just a bunch of hippies with beards playing the ukalalie baking bread biscuts for their community.
+ YouTube Video
+ YouTube Video
You also have a HUGE part of history in which work was done cooperatively because there were not institutions forcing people to do otherwise.
As for your second part ... I don't know how to answer that other than saying it reveals more and more who you are. But anyway, as much as you want to give excuses (trechery, the bad men came and ruined it), the USSR collapsed economically, not militarily, not politically, ECONOMICALLY.
No you idiot, Its not my argument, its the free marketeers and NO FREE MARKETEER ARGUES BY GOOD MORALS, not one, ever, your building a strawman, which is why you don't have the ability to debate with them (just type angry).
competition and diseconomies of scale supposedly prevent that through many mechanisms, one, marginal cost limits, actual diseconomies of scale (if you don't know what that means its when a firm gets so large problems of manegement and logistics show up), game theory.
With that argument your basically asking me to explain classical economics to you ....
Its obvious you hav'nt read up economics if you think the morals of the capitalist are EVER used as an argument, infact in classical and neo-classical economics they are assumed to not exist.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
I like how Gacky doesnt respond to my posts,he does not know enough,and he refuses to accept or learn something.
I'm to busy with Raqif, I did'nt read your response, I will though.
Ok for your first post, you have to remember that the tsar was in a war at the time, and many of the troops were in bad moralle, so it would have been extremely hard for him to mobilize completely against the bolsheviks.
Now the majority might not have been soldiers, but there was a lot of soldiers and sailors joining the revolution.
The situation in Spain was much different.
What I'm arguing mainly is that you can't put the defete of the Anarchists on the fact that they did'nt have an authoritarian political structure, nor can you thank the political structure for the bolshevik victory.
BUt democratic centrism also required that once a party decision is made everyone has to follow it, almost as if it cannot be questioned, which leades you to a situation where dissent can be viewed as a punishable offense.
THere was aboslutely discussion and dissent within the party, but dissent against the party is someting else, and you had a situation that ultimately led to Stalinism, I agree with Slavoj Zizek that Stalinism was'nt some obomination of Leninism, it followed naturally.
When I say Leninism I'm talking about "Marxism Leninism."
But I don't think you can bulk leninism in one thing, you have Lenins writings, which were brilliant and insightful, but then you have the system that was build up out of the civil war, thats what I have a problem with.
Well,if you ask me,the political structure of the Bolshevik party is one of the main factors that made the revolution possible and achievable,the mass party strategy.Their politics and political structure was also very important in the Civil War,on one side you had the White Guard commanders who were profesional soldiers but didnt have a conection with their men (who were drafted from the fields and sent into a grind-slaughter-machine that was the Russian front,and you had the political commanders the Bolsheviks,who agitated,commanded,introduced people to their ideas,and many people followed them.That was also the main difference between the white Russians and the Bolsheviks,the first were military commanders,the second ones were political commanders.
Yes,of course,i pointed out that he was unpopular in his own army,and that the soldiers despised him. (While they were loyal to some extent to the White Guard generals)
You forgot one very important thing: The decision needs to be a majority vote supported one.And if the party members had something to say against the proposal/idea,they had enough time.
Stalin and other higher rank Soviet politicians did far too much themselves to say the transition was natural.(And their relations also had a huge impact on everything)
You should point that out in the posts,as for me,Leninism is definitely not like Marxism-Leninism (ie SU politics after Lenins death)
Well thats not really the "political structure" thats just the military leaders engaging and motivating politically.
Well, their representatives had enough time, candidates picked by the leadership and voted in by the party, but once a decision was made, the democratic centrism basically made it binding, which retards the democracy somewhat, mix that with the concept of political crime (i.e. you can be held criminally responsible for holding certain beliefs or advocating certain things), you have what I believe is a disaster in the making.
Yes, but I"m arguing the system enabled Stalinism to happen, thats the problem.
Fuck I'm sorry I can't get to my computer and posting with a phone is difficult (as I have been for the past 2 days) but I WILL have it posted when I can
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Its really not necessary, if you want to limit your economic knowledge based on dogma be my guest.
Ah yes but the proletariat live their lives as wage slaves, thus they are all wage slaves together. Just as the natural comradeship and solidarity formed between the enslaved in ancient greece during the servile wars, there is an organic solidarity that all workers share. It is not about them being moral or altruistic, it's just that they need each other to fulfill their own self interest accordingly.
No, it's not set in stone. But human civilization will eventually have to solve the contradictions within capitalism, eventually abolishing the system all together. When the crisis is most terrible, the proletariat will eventually have to do something about it. This is common sense.
Well, perhaps you could provide us all with some of these Texts he made regarding solutions, later in his life.... Or perhaps Engel's Socialism: Utopian or Scientific and Marx's work despising all forms of Utopianism is enough for us.
There isn't any irony, as applying ethics to science is "Sick" in the sense that it is counterproductive to science itself.
Science has nothing to do with ethics. Science tells us how things happen, what happens, and why they happen. Ethical conclusions can only be formed after science... The two are not linked at all.
And I say bullshit. All humans are curious, or most of them. It is selfish.
Would you like to know the truth? Marx didn't "play along" and use his economic skills to make money because he was lazy as fuck
He also didn't do it because he was, at the time, already a figure in which many proletarians looked up to, so it would distort his image if he were to aquire immense amounts of wealth. But, just in case you didn't know, all of the money Marx did make was through exploiting the labor of workers, through his friend Fredrich Engels, who was an industrialist. Not that I am going to criticize him for it.
No, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a part of the revolution. He didn't give any reasons as to why he supported, but we can come to the conclusion that it was solely due to his economic understandings, and understandings of human behavior and history to come to such a conclusion.
Yes, but Materialism and Scientific socialism do not need morality in order to hold legitimacy, unlike Anarchism.
Materialists understand that material conditions always precede morality, just as matter precedes thought. materialists understand morality is 100% related to class.
Just the other day I was talking to a paulite, whom was a member of the petite bourgeoisie. All of his arguments were moral. I could say nothing in return because his morality was directly a reflection of his class background ("People should be able to open up buisnesses without govment tellin' em what to do"). If I were to bring proletarian morality into the discussion, not only would he not be able to comprehend or link himself with it, he would get insulted too. So instead of using morality, I shit on his morality and used a 100% Scientific criticism of capitalism, and he eventually could not disagree.
This happens to me all the time. Moral criticisms of capitalism are the weakest criticisms of capitalism. If you want buisness owners not to be immoral, than you must abolish the very concept of the buisness itself. Their immoral actions are a reflection of the existing material conditions and the mode of production. So criticize those instead of criticizing the results, i.e. People being immoral.
On this site? Yes, I don't hang around OI too much so using them for argument on this site is not something I do very commonly. Yes, you do have a decent grasp and understanding of economics, however they are all drowned in the midst of your ethical absolutism.
No, they would not. Social darwinism was already a rubbish theory before kropotkin even wrote that book. They are not a starting point for economic or political theory, they are just speculation as to how individuals will and have behaved in already existing political and economic structures. None the less they are just speculations.
Gacky stop talking out of your ass. You know well hate has nothing to do with ethics as an emotion. Marx despised them, not because he thought they were immoral, but because they, like you, were an embaressment to the movement as a whole and were fucking idiots.
For them to be the root of marxism would mean that marxism is tied to those economic theories as a whole completely, which it is not. Marx took those models and revised them to adjust with reality, i.e. Took out the bullshit.
Personal ideology would mean you act and behave and think based upon a framework of ideas, which marx did not do.
He didn't support socialism as an Idea. He supported it because it was a movement. And he supported that movement because it represented the interests of a revolutionary class.
It is Idealism.
Link me them.
Gacky, you can't send me on these fucking scavanger hunts. I need you to link specific phrases, texts in quotes that were scientific in their analysis of capitalism.
Because their whole criticism of capitalism is basically based off of what is right and what is wrong. Why capitalism is immoral, etc. And the reasons they specifiy have ot do with authoritararianism, etc. Which are structurally baseless and are subject to debate among various schools of thought and classes. Marxism, on the other hand, is based through mathematics, etc
Market Socialism itself cannot solve the contradictions within capitalism and markets and therefore is crap as well. Surly a scientific analysis would understand this.
The parecon movement is a joke.
Which you fail to understand.
This deals with "creative jobs" such as a designer or an engineer. However profit incentives are necessary for most jobs, such as factory workers, garbage men, janitors, etc. You cannot keep linking these RSA animate videos as if they are the base for thinking and evidence. They are not.
Yet capitalism is much more efficient and generates more amounts of wealth for the masses than primitive social structures.
Humans will never just "Work". They need a reason, lest they will do the least amount of work possible. They will need rewards, and strong management, if a socialist system is to survive.
Because the USSR never surpassed the capitalist mode of production, were isolated, and therefore had no way out. The USSR could not create a system more efficient than the capitalist mode of production merely because it did not have the capability to surpass the capitalist mode of production, as it had to adjust itself to the wrold market and trade with Bourgeois states, eventually becoming one itself. This has nothing to do with authoritarianism, merely isolation of the revolution.
Obviously you've never had a conversation with one, or have read works by Mises, etc.
they cannot explain why monopolies exist today and are so efficient, now can they?
really? REALLY?
They are, but they don't catch themselves doing it.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Except slaves are not in competition, for one.
Not necessarily, why will it have to solve the contradictions? Who says that Capitalism won't just turn to fascism? Who says capitalism won't just morph into some super capitalism (as it did in the 70s).
Socialism: Utopian or Scientific was a critique, by no means Marx of Engel's "dispising" anything, they critiqued classical economy too, that does'nt mean that it was'nt part of the foundation for marxism.
I'm not gonna look through Marx's text to find a place where he advocates socialism, he never refuted his earler advocations.
There is no way to DO science without applying ethics, you have to choose what is worth analysing and worth figuring out, and you base that on ethical values.
No Ethical standards choose what to study, and what to do with the science you get.
The 2 have always been linked.
So ... Most of the knowlege that Marx gained did absolutely nothing for his life. The same will probably go for you.
If your really selfish, go to university and work in finance.
... Really? Being involved in tons of radical organizations, writing all the time?Would you like to know the truth? Marx didn't "play along" and use his economic skills to make money because he was lazy as fuck
So what?
Engels worked as a manager in his dads company, After his dad died he was part owner for 5 years. Not really an industrialist.
Explain the "unlike Anarchism" part, because your full of shit.
¨
And YOUR morality is due to YOUR calss background too right? Or are you special?
There is plenty of evidence that many aspects of morality are for the most part universally held.
That is a moral arguments.
But you and I agree here, no one agrees that criticizing buisiness owners for being immoral is a strong criticism. Its not. The problems are systemic not personal.
Where is my ethical absolutism????
Well there is no consensus, but its far more than speculation anymore than anthropology is, but then again there is'nt a consensus on economics either, there is a lot to learn from sociobiology, either way, its still scientific.
Where did he dispise them? (criticism is'nt hatred), whats embarrasing is pissed off teenagers yelling.
No shit ... But Marxism was built on the classical economists, Marx's theory of value came from the classical economists, Marx's surplus values come from the assumption of the supply and demand curves, all of this stuff is contingent.
Your acting as if Marx is somehow holy.
Yes he did, he aboslutely did, he joined workers movements, he was invovled with revolutionary activity and so on.
Your playing semantics now.
I'm not going to do your research for you, how the hell can I send you texts in quotes that are scientific, they all published large works that were analytical, I'm not gonna try and sum up their theories for an ignorant person like you who claims nothing socialist but Marxism is scientific, yet has'nt heard of any of those other economists.
They are against authoritarianism is because they understand that it would revert back to a class society, not based on morality any more than opposition to social democracy, their criticism of capitalism is not at all based on what is right and wrong, its based on analysis of capitalism and its outcomes for most people, their criticisms was out of class interest, i.e. this is'nt working for most of us, so most of us should hcange it, that is no more "moralist" than Marx.
Marxism was'nt based on mathematics, it used mathematics to show economic problems, infact many modern economists would criticize Marx's models for being overly simplistic (whether or not that's a valid criticism is another thing).
Except you would'nt know would you, because you hav'nt read them.
Also Market socialists generally understand the contradictions and feel that they are not caused by commodity markets, but rahter capital and labor, and feel that the contradictions can be overcome by getting rid of the capitalist mode of production itself.
Says you ...
First of all, garbage men and janitors and factory workers don't make a profit, they make a wage (economics 101).
Also your just explaining the first video.
Also necessary jobs ALWAYS get done, in a democratic system the work can be shared or distributed in another way, there are examples of this all the time, if you've ever lived in a housing coop you'd know that.
Thats never been proven, and empirical evidence shows the opposite. People need to be productive, people want to create, naturally.
Also for uncreative work, the fact that it NEEDS to be done basically assures that it will get done.
There is NO evidence beyind your claim that without outside incentives people just would sit on their ass and do nothing.
These are all assumptions, there is no reason why they could't have surpassed the capitalist mode of production.
It would only have taken a few steps.
1. The workers in the workplace now are their own managers
2. they control the surplus
Over.
We don't know if it would'nt have worked or failed. What we do know is that it did'nt happen.
Oh believe me I have, spending time in the OI.
They try to explain it, that its outside forces (the government, unions and so on).
But they are wrong.
Does'nt make it unscientific.
Says you, and I say you don't catch yourself.
Human nature has both a biological component and socially constructed component. Biological instincts allow us to survive as individuals and as biological species. Social components allow us to survive as societies.
While biological human nature might be theoretically changed through application of scientific or technological means, its a risky business and could we speak of a human society after that?
Social component of human nature has to be constructed by educational system for every generation anew. Fedualism teached people to behave and think like nobles and peasants. Capitalism teaches people to behave and think like politicians, capitalists, enterpreneurs, workers. Classless society has to teach people to think and behave like productive and socially responsible members of society who are able to identify common benefit and work together towards it. It HAS to be done, otherwise society collapses.
In short, people will be sometimes be selfish and make mistakes and bad decisions even in advanced communism. The difference is what kind of behaviour is socially rewarded. Capitalism as a social system rewards following your self-interest through accumulation of capital. Socialism as a social system rewards following your self-interest through socially beneficial productive behaviour.
No he was not, you fool, Both the Bolshevik Revolution and the Counter Revolution had fuck all to do with World war one.
His troops were not recorded to have bad moralle, in fact, they were confident they were defending the fatherland against the "World Jewish threat".
It was a piece of cake mobilizing against the bolsheviks.... But facing the unrelenting power of the Red army... That is something those fools never managed to live up to.
And there was most likely many soldiers who joined the Republicans as well. The Spanish situation was different, you are right, it would have been much easier for the bolsheviks if they had the same conditions the spaniards did.
The Spanish had the support of a Superpower, with the international brigade, which consisted of units from all corners of the earth coming to aid your anarchist friends in the fight against Fascism.
You aren't arguing that, actually, you're just throwing facts all around out of your ass. We can easily identify a contributing factor in regards to the downfall of the Anarchsits in Spain: No mass organization to mobilize large portions of the country 2. The Anarchist military structure was complete shit.
The bolsheviks, on the other hand, had even worse conditions for revolution than the Anarchists could ever dream of, yet they managed to hoard of the counter revolution. One of the things I like about Lenin was that he was a brutal realist, he was willing to revise ideology in correlation with Russia's material conditions, and he successfully did so.
Than why was Ayn Rand blabbing her mouth in a Russian university until 1925ish where she was finally kicked out? I can name countless other Bourgeois academics.
It was not as simple as "Follow party line or be punished". It may have been that way during the civil war, but that was temporary. There was no organic proletarian to lead the revolution, hence the party had to take power. It's not as if the proletariat consisted of the majority of Russia, anyway. What the bolsheviks did worked in repelling the counter revolution, and for this we have evidence. We also have evidence that a lot of Russia's problems that the Bolshevik party had to face were due to the fact that the country was not Industrialized (They had to focus on making and distributing SHOES to the majority of the population) and that it was isolated (It had to start trade with Turkey, Britian, etc.)
Stalin's decisions did follow naturally, and I even go about saying that if Lenin would have lived longer, he would have done the same thing. But this is the consequence of Russia's material conditions, (How could you NOT except an eventual Bourgeois dictatorship?) not because they were greedy, corrupt or any of that shit from start.
Well you shouldn't, there are a lot of Trotskyists who call themselves Leninists as well. And there are people who call themselves Leninists in the sense that they hold Lenin's views up high, but dissociate with both Trotsky and Stalin's Marxism Leninism.
Uh huh, hey buddy, never was that sytsem called Leninism. . I mean do you honestly think and identify the USSR as a Leninist state, in regards to it's economy? Leninism is not an economic model, but Bueocratic Collectivism or "State Socialism" is.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Hell yes they were. They fought like dogs in ancient times, actually.
1. Fascism carries the contradictions within capitalism, but it slows down the destruction a tad bit. It is a much more efficient version of capitalism, actually. Did you know China's economic model is sometimes described as Fascist by a lot of people? It's much more efficient, but it is bound to collapse on itself, as do all capitalist modes of production.
2. What a joke. We are witnessing the death of "super Capitalism" as we speak. The fruits of the war are gone. There are no more excuses (Besides the Chinese model) or way's out the bourgeoisie can take now.
They despised Utopianism. There is not one scent of anything Utopian in any of their writings. Nothing. Classical Economy cannot be compared with Utopianism in that it was, at the least scientific.
I'm not gonna look through Marx's text to find a place where he advocates socialism, he never refuted his earler advocations.
Blah blah I'm not reading the rest. I will let you simply drown in your own stupidity and ideological blindness.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
I'm pretty sure selfishness will still exist in a communist society, in fact I think the debate between altruism and selfishness is a fruitless dichotomy when talking about macro historical trends. They're just traits that exist in human beings and they aren't mutually exclusive.
It'd be a little like saying that because random acts of kindness and sharing exist capitalism is unfeasible, which we all know is absurd.
But now we must pick up every piece
Of the life we used to love
Just to keep ourselves
At least enough to carry on
Actually a lot of the support for the Bolsheviks came from their promise to end the war.
Bullshit.
The Republicans fought AGAINST the Anarchists.
the Communists and republicans eventually turned on the anarchists, and with the communists, republicans AND fascists against them, and no foreign aid, the anarchists fell.
Thats bullshit considering they had actually a better industrial output and a more funcioning economy.
Also they did have mass organization, just not an authoritarian one.
The Anarchist military structure worked pretty damn well, what did'nt work was lack of equipment and weapons.
The major contributing factor was logistics and being way outnumbered and outgunned.
Yeah, he revised his ideology after an assasination attempt because he got scared, and he revised his ideology when it was'nt clear the bosheviks could hold power legitimately from other socialists.
The Bolsheviks managed to hold the revolution, fighting the white army, who just finished a world war, suffered from mass dissertions, and against a liberal government that basically lost any support, it was still amazing considering the foreign invasions.
But guess what in the process of holding the revolution you took away power from the soviets, took away their autonomy, and centralized power and took away any real democracy, a process that was'nt reversed and led to its dissolusion in the end.
I don't know, but its not supprising at all.
Wheres the corrolation? The peasentry and proletariat put together made the vast majority, but even if the proletariat did'nt make the majority in what way does that necessitate a party dictatorship???
The repelling of the counter revolution and the party dictatorship are not corrolated in any way, its just arbitrary and speculative to say it is.
As far as Russia being industrialized, I agree, if they stuck to workers democracies rather than a party dictatorship, it would have probably taken a longer time to industrize, but then again, they would'nt have had a state capitalist party dicatatorship.
But the fact is that the party dictatorship took away any pre-requisite for democracy and thus for socialism, freedom of speach (meaning no limit on political dialog) is a pre-requisite for democracy, you can't use political terror and expect that it will turn into socialism.
There is no way of knowing if that is true, although I'm pretty sure that Stalin's mass purges and extreme political represssion was not based on "material conditions,"
But if your saying they followed naturally, then I guess we have a problem with the model. The model was a failure.
My point is I'm talking about the system that was set up during the civil war, not lenins writings, there is a difference between the 2.
But you know what I mean.
Slaves were not in economic competition with each other .... Do I really need to spell it out?
Sure.
Capitalism "died" in the 1930s, then you had keynsianism holding it up followed by a financialization and neo-liberal model. Eventually
Capitalism will collapse, but claiming its DEFINATELY comming in your lifetime and thus its the smartest thing for you to be a communist even though its agaisnt your class interests is as silly as religious people thinking the "end" will come in their lifetime.
BTW, does'nt it make it in all capitalists interests to become communist then? Since its inevitable? So really we just need to show them its in their interests!!!
BUt hte fact is there is a slim chance world revolution will come in your lifetime, its very slim, so your obvious interests would be to make your way within capitalism and go to buisiness school..
Anyway, just admit your ignorance of other schools of economis and admit that you were ignorant in saying "no socialist economics is scientific other than Marxism," its clear you were speaking out of your league.
