Results 61 to 80 of 142
You're distorting his words (even though I disagree with Peter here about whether to give a fuck at all about this bullshit), what he's saying:
At the end he makes a remark about how 'res publica' (the public case) could be interpreted as an anti-statist sentiment. Its debatable and I personally don't give a rats ass about republican or democratist jargon or blueprint fantasizing so 'whatever', I guess. But saying he advocates a republic in this piece is nonsense and you know it.Originally Posted by Translation
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree..."
- John Milton -
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
- Amadeo Bordiga
I'm not distorting his words. His case for a republic (or, as he calls it, res publica) is pretty explicit. He opposes the republic in the sense of opposing presidential rule and as a continued capitalist state form. Mind that nowhere I defended that either.
I can only but agree with this view of a republic. He calls it res publica, I call it the "democratic republic", same thing in my view, judging on what he wrote.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
So you advocate the absence of any form of institutional rule, the absence of the state, the absence of any office? (Because I know Peter well enough to know that that is what he means when he talks about a stateless society). Simply trying to say "he opposes the republic in the sense of opposing presidential rule and as a continued capitalist state form" (almost silently implying he doesn't have anything to say about a 'socialist state') isn't the same as advocating a 'republic', whatever that word might mean.
Mind you, its not that I care, its just that I get the feeling you're trying to seek allies where they're not.
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree..."
- John Milton -
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
- Amadeo Bordiga
Do you think France and the USA are closer to revolution than Spain and the UK? Do you think a bourgeois republic is 'better' for workers in some way than a constitutional monarchy? Do you think any republic (eg Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain) is 'better' than every monarchy?
If not, then what difference does calling for a republic make?
If it's possible to organise a massive and successful anti-monarchy campaign, why is it not possible instead to organise a massive and successful anti-capitalist campaign? Is it because (as I know it isn't possible) a republic is entirely inside the bourgeois framework (compare, USA, France, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Croatia, Romania...) whereas he abolition of capitalism isn't? Doesn't that tell you that as a demand it's useless? Anything the bourgeoisie is prepared to give us, is something they're prepared to lose, and therefore worthless.
No we don't have to abolish every last vestige of feudalism before we get round to socialism. Are you going to call for the bourgeois state to ban religion? That's a hangover from feudalism, isn't it? Do we have to abolish every monarchy on earth, and every religious group, before we even begin the proletarian revolution?
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
No i'm not, i didn't mention the theoretical distinction between the bourgeois and workers republic. You can read it in the civil war in france or the state and revolution. What i said was that the call for a soviet power today is disconnected from reality, the level of class consciousness is too low and to do so would be laughable. Imagine a group of a couple hundred communists with their demanding transfer of power to the imaginary soviets in every village, town and city!
What i propose, is that we call for a democratic republic, the replacement of the standing army with a peoples militia, all officials to be on a workers wage, all officials to be elected and recallable.
Any granting of these demands strengthens the workers power and acts as a bridge from the current level of consciousness to the seizure of power. What's great about them is that they are exactly what we want, they are embodied in the Soviet Republic.
Now, granted, in the particular case of the Netherlands there is already a strong history of democracy but it's further expansion can only be beneficial to the great majority of society, the proletariat.
Lenin advocated both, while i can't find a copy of the bolsheviks minimum program they certainly had one, the second congress of the party adopted it, Lenin says in the April Theses it needs to be updated, and after the seizure of power the 1919 program says that it's now been possible to implement the minimum program in full in the section called 'In the Sphere of Protection of Labour and Social Insurance'.
The minimum program wasn't abandoned, to do so would be to separate oneself from the workers, it was fought for and combined with a program of revolution and socialism, when Trotsky talks of a transitional program he says that today the minimum demands aren't abandoned but they ever more come into conflict with capitalism itself, that is, the simplest demand for higher wages brings the proletariat into conflict with the bourgeois regime.
I agree of course but the proletariat also struggles for reforms alongside this, the historic mission of the proletariat is to overthrow capitalism but it has nowhere near the level of consciousness needed to do this, the objective factors have made the socialist revolution possible, indeed overdue, across the world. The communists shouldn't abandon the workers struggles for reforms but fight along side them and in doing so raise ever more radical demands leading further and further along the road to power.
I never called for a bourgeois republic as an end in itself. I just recognize that in the struggle against capitalism the monarchy will get scrapped at some point and that this will be a positive development. I called for the same measures that the Commune took, a democratic republic with the armed people etc This is the measure that the proletariat must carry out to assure it's supremacy, this is the proletarian dictatorship.
No absolutely not, calling a constituent assembly was a tactic which has surpassed by the course of events. One of the main and most popular Bolshevik slogans between February and October was 'Down with the ten capitalist ministers' with this they opposed the Kadets but not the Mensheviks and SRs, they didn't raise any demand of down with the socialist ministers or down with the PRG, this is because the masses hated the Kadets but still had confidence in the Mensheviks and SRs, the masses had to learn for themselves that the parliamentary socialists acted for the capitalists and not the workers and peasants.
No bourgeois state is revolutionary and i don't spread illusions in any. If Saudi Arabian workers overthrew the monarchy i would support it, if they elected a government of capitalists i would oppose the government to protect the revolution from the capitalists.
The bourgeoisie no longer has any interest in revolutionising society, only the working class is capable of leading this as it's doing in Egypt for example where the masses are struggling to create democracy but the bourgeois are doing everything they can to stop this.
Last edited by Aurora; 31st January 2013 at 04:30.
"But like Trotskyites working with fascists in the USSR to plant no warning bombs to rip out the lungs of Soviet children from their tiny rib cages you will probably choose to turn a blind eye." - RedSunRising
RIP tech,you will be missed
Marxist Book Resource
I'd have fewer problems with Q's original post if he'd said 'it's high time time the working class overthrew the monarchy, and after that, the whole capitalist system'. But he didn't. He called for the establishment of a republic, which is not a revolutionary demand, it's not even a reformist demand, it's just a demand for a redecoration of the prison.
The form of capitalist government matters not one iota to the class struggle. Obviously, if the Orange-Nassau clan, the Windsors, the House of Bernadotte and the Grimaldis were all deposed tomorrow, I wouldn't be weeping, but if capitalist rule continued in the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden and Monaco I wouldn't see much to celebrate either (from a class point of view - schadenfreude is something else).
Hell, if Q had said 'I fucking hate the Orange-Nassaus, I hope they're all deposed' that would at least have been an understandable reaction of spite and vengeance. But to try to pretend, in this day and age, that a call for the establishment of a liberal-democratic republic is anything but a 200-year-old slogan of the bourgeoisie, that's it's actually a viable tactic for promoting class consciousness or a stepping stone to proletarian revolution, is ridiculous. If France or the USA is no more revolutionary than Spain or the UK, why support the call for a bourgeois republic?
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
So now we see the Communist Left bravely defending... royalty.
There was a thread about why the Communist Left is annoying? Well why could it be? Really, can't see any reason.
Luís Henrique
Can I see a quote which would verify this? Or would you rather admit that you're making this up?
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
Preumably he means:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
Watch out Luis, someone might accuse you of being a liar if your not careful.
Last edited by Blake's Baby; 31st January 2013 at 14:29.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Sounds like a defence to me.
Sounds like a defence to me (and is obviously false, a great part of the income of royals comes from their privileged position as royals).
Sounds like a defence to me.
Sounds like a defence to me.
If you can say that to other people if you think they believe a republic is a lesser evil, why can't I say you are supporting the monarchy, if you evidently see no difference between both regimes?
In the context, sounds like a defence to me.
Really, any particular monarchy? Those of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait included?
Sounds to me as a declaration that you actually can't be bothered with abolishing those monarchies.
The point being that the Dutch queen is abdicating, so want it or not, it is the time when monarchies get questioned (why should we have one more king? Couldn't we do without any?); unhappily, this does not necessarily coincide with the time when capitalism is questioned (is anyone actually questioning capitalism in the Netherlands in a practical way? Probably not, so what even is the logic of confronting the abolition of monarchy with the abolition of capital as if it were an actual disjunctive?)
Really, the thing boils down to you accusing everybody else of "supporting" bourgeois "progressive" regimes if we dare to say they are, or could be, a lesser evil. And then getting riled when someone calls you on actually saying that monarchy is no worse than republic.
If you really want to at least sound more radical than Q, then at least say something like, "fine, let's abolish the monarchy, and while we are at abolishing things, let's abolish capitalism too, why not?".
Luís Henrique
Perhaps he should have, considering that the Russians ended with twelve hours a day and Stakhanovist medals instead of a better pay.
Luís Henrique
Curiously, they often seem to pop up in conjunction with monarchies being abolished (Germany, Russia, Austria...) But I suppose we should have opposed the February revolution, or at least abstained to take sides?
Luís Henrique
This is just ridiculous.
So you're going to tell me that an assessment of the political importance of a specific institution and group amounts to a defense? This is plainly preposterous, and more than that. It is sheer idiocy. What now, communists can't assess the situation and dare to conclude that an institution does not constitute a power center for the bourgeoisie? If I'd claim that the Ministry of Environment in Croatia does not wield significant power you'd conclude that I'm defending it?
Step aside and just read the crap you're writing here.
Because the historical example actually proves the necessity, without any consideration of the kind of an attacki against the monarchy and the balance of class forces, of events repeating themselves in exactly the same way.
Do I need to repeat myself? Step aside. And think for a moment.
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
I have to say i am very surprised how this thread turned out above all else the attacks on Q for not saying he wants to also abolish capitalism along with the house of orange nassau.
For fucks sake i dont even understand why this thread turned into such a shit storm.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
That's not all there is to it. Some of us have cast doubt on the almost automatic assumption that the abolition of the monarchy would necessarily strenghten the working class and our struggles. We've even come so far as to suggest that the contemporary hereditary aristocracy wields nothing more than a consultative and ceremonial power. And horror of horrors, we doubt the validity of the slogan of the democratic republic, precisely for those reasons.
It is because some would rather have a circle jerk where there is a competition as to who can denounce the monarchy in as badass way as possible.
Also because it is apparently hard to go beyond the simple, default reaction characteristic to communists - monarchy needs to be abolished - and even harder to think in concrete terms, and not in vacuous phrases inherited from the past.
And of course, there is the obligatory misrepresentation, and outright distortion, of what some of us claim here, and that's because we're annoying as all hell.
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
FYI i am drunk right now.
I would like to point out that the queen is a major shareholder in shell.
And her "royal lineage" gets paid out of tax money has their palaces maintained at public expense and their yacht the green dragon is also paid for and maintained at our expense.
They get paid a "salary" and i think their property is largely tax exempt.
As such i feel safe to call them the only "welfare queens" in existence.
These royal inbreds should be stripped of their privilege and ground into paste through taxes.
Yeah the ultra leftists did make an ass of themselves in this thread by distorting what Q said in such a manner.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
And this is relevant to the issue of political power, the issue of the institutional position of the monarchy, how? Would here shares be confiscated?
Okay, sure, this money could be better spent, but due to the simple fact of the current period being what it is, it's doubtful, but possible, that's certain.
Okay.
And do you think I don't hold these opinions as well?
And this is basically a list of arguments against the monarchy. I have absolutely no problem with that. On the other hand, I have a problem with other arguments, and these are outlined in the post you quoted but did not write a single word about.
I don't know about the exchange between BB and Q. But I don't think I did any such thing, and it is apparent that I'm being called out by means of this cute catchword.
Furthermore, as Q goes, he indeed misrepresented that Dutch anarchist he quoted as his supporting argument (well pointed out by Ravachol), and indeed there's been some more ridiculous shit, namely from Luis, right above.
So sure, you can pretend nothing like that ever happened. It's not as if I expect a rational debate here.
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
Like i said i am drunk right now but if you want i will do my best to translate that article when i am sober so you can judge for yourself if you want.
I have no desire to bend anything to suit any of my preconceptions, but i do want to give you the information contained in that article to the best of my ability but obviously i do not have english as my first language.
As for the rational debate bit i think we went past that already.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
Then you have a limited and warped understanding of the word 'defence'.
Sounds to me like you think Franco's republic was better than the monarchy of Juan Carlos; or Hitler's republic was better than George VI's monarchy. So, are you defending the Nazis now Luis? Sounds like a defence to me.
That's a fair enough point and if you bothered to engage with what people wrote instead of making shit up then you'd see that I've already said that if Q had said that he wanted the working class to abolish the monarchy today and capitalism tomorrow, I wouldn't have such a problem. What I have a problem with is 'high time for a republic' expressed as a political demand.
If you support the lesser evil for being the lesser evil, you can't really complain when someone reminds you it's evil. Please explain to me how republican France is so much less 'evil' than monarchial Spain.
Oh, no, if you look back over the conversation I call Q a fuck-pig of the bourgeoisie after he twice accuses me of being a liar.
I sound more radical than Q by not calling for the Netherlands to be just as democratic as Germany. And I said in post 66 that I'd have little problem if Q had said almost exactly the same as you've just said there.
So; either explain why the US is better than Britain, Germany better than the Netherlands, France better than Spain, and Nazi Germany better than Denmark and Norway together, or admit you don't have an argument. It's pretty easy really.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
I've not commented on it (see reason below) but there was no misrepresentation. At most a misunderstanding (I asked Peter on Facebook) and really, as I can talk best for my opinion on the matter, I think even that is overstating things, that being much in line with Peter's. I think our main difference comes down to a definition of what a "state" is. He has moved from a Trotskyist position to an anarchist position in the last few years, so I guess that affects the subject discussed.
Exactly, hence why I've stopped responding here mostly.
Last edited by Q; 31st January 2013 at 22:31.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
