centralization =/= state dipshit
Results 21 to 38 of 38
... even though there's not even a state in communism?
centralization =/= state dipshit
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
The point stands. You said that communism "requires a totalitarian state" and there's no state in communism, dipshit. See how easy it is to call people names? It doesn't make you cooler, trust me.
Communism does require a state, and this transistional form to communism is not itself communism. If you read marx then you would know this. Its even weirder that you don't know this and yet describe yourself as an Engelsist, as Engels's side of the "division of labor" between marx and engels was moreso on the function of the state.
The relevant quote is "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."
So what the fuck does communism not having a state have to do with anything? I mean really you aren't being cute or clever here, but rather demonstrating yourself to, as always, have no fucking clue about what you are talking about.
lol if i was concerned about looking cool i wouldnt be on revleft (and im just stopping by to message someone)
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
For some reason, Bordigism eats up people's personalities.
pew pew pew
Arent you the same asshat who says that this is a political board, and that from this website, you learn someone's politics, but not necessarily the rest of their personality? Seriously you even agree with me over RedWorker but still have the need to insult me based on... bordiga? I mean, do you even know about other "orthodox" bordigists besides the two that you have interacted with on this forum?
great reply mate
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
You can have a communist state without having the communist phase of history, if you mean a state guided by the principles of communism or otherwise attempting to head toward that phase.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
Ignoring Ramus Bleys' attention seeking, I never said there should not be a transitional state.
"State guided by the principles of communism or otherwise attempting to head toward that phase"? That reeks of idealism, voluntarism, and utopianism. Communism is no "state of affairs" to be established, it is the expression of a real movement. There can be no "state guided by the principles of communism", there can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
No I'm not that asshat, at least I don't remember saying that -- and if I did then still, I'm remarking about what I see online. I 'insult' you in that I tried to comedically remark that Bordigists have this tendency toward dogmatic expression via hardtalk, which makes them come across as insufferable douches with a black and white worldview, making any discussion with them useless. And I remember how you used to not talk like a douche, so the further immersion into Bordigism appears to correlate with it. I thought it was clever-ish to make that connection.
Whether I disagree or not is not relevant whether or not you come across as insufferable. And this post is a perfect example of you coming across as insufferable. So for the sake of some resemblance of quality of posts on revleft, keep away as you kinda implied you would.
pew pew pew
To RedWorker,
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, because you agree with it right at the end of your post. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state, and a state that expresses such partisanship in favor of the proletariat expresses communist partisanship.
I recognize the difference between the "communist" state I described and the communist phase of human civilization. You'd do well to stop assuming the worst in the people here.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
"Replying to my bullshit is attention seeking!!" If a transitional state exists, then why object to my post on the basis that Communism has no state? I was quite clearly talking about a transitional state from capitalism to communism, so why object on the basis that communism has no state if you admit this state is a necessary precursor to Communism? Is because you're an idiot, and you're backtracking.
The principles of Communism is derived from the interests of the proletariat, which is the abolition of the worker class. This is like babymarxism, Manifesto level shit. Though I will agree that poster's wording makes... no sense
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
@Toxin: The point is that you believe that the transitional state has to do with "following communist principles" when it in fact has nothing to do with that. There is no "following communist principles", there is the expression of the class struggle. This is coincident with your belief that we should put "a few people who follow communism at the top", like Stalin, and there we have a transitional state.
To RedWorker,
Wouldn't a communist principle mean acting in accordance with class consciousness and proletarian partisanship?
And what are you talking about, "a few who follow communism at the top?" How could you say I believe something like that? You're assigning to me your view of "Stalinists" regardless whether I have said anything to that effect whatsoever, and it's petty.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
I don't "assign" anything to you, it was you who self-described as a "Marxist-Leninist" (Stalinist). But things you do say clearly point to that effect. You expect the state to just act in accordance with the interests of the proletariat. The proletarian state is the expression of the proletariat, not of some bureaucratic class which is to "follow the interests of the proletariat", which is in fact not possible despite their intentions.
To RedWorker,
So, in other words, yes, you do assign it to me because I've never said anything to that effect and you're just being petty and sectarian.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
Being a Stalinist has nothing to do with you following Stalin personally (which is why Tito is said to follow a variant of Stalinism). It has to do with having a voluntarist, utopian and idealist understanding of various things, the revisionist notion of "socialism in one country", etc. If you don't agree with this then don't claim to be a Stalinist. And please stop asking me to treat you like royalty, all I do is post my own view of things.
To RedWorker,
Your response to my continued requests for you to give genuine thought to what you're saying was extremely immature.
The rest was nonsense I can barely parse. It could've helped had you bothered to explain how you came to conclude that socialism in one country is "voluntarist" but probably not by much. And s.i.o.c. has nothing to do with "putting people at the top" or whatever arbitrary string of words you were flinging at me earlier.
Last edited by ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт; 5th October 2014 at 18:38. Reason: Revision, coherency.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS "TOXIN," 2014-10-08.
Sounds good to me.
I definitely see authoritarian as placing obedience to the state above personal development, freedom of expression or quality of life, and behaviors would be controlled or even micromanaged via a carrot-and-stick type system, where a power structure would deal in positive and negative reinforcements in order to promote conformity. This strikes me as being inherently anti-egalitarian and therefore inherently anti-leftist.
However a left-wing egalitarian society would see citizens voluntarily interacting with the state because they care about society-- not merely because of blind patriotism or an emotional connection to other people, but because they understand that rationally, it is in everyone's best interests to perform these duties, and no one duty is any more or less important than the others.
Essentially, the leftist society emphasizes intrinsic motivation based on the rational benefits of co-operation, whereas the right-wing society emphasizes extrinsic motivation based on punishment and reward.
I'm not arguing with that. The DOP isn't the end result so much as a means of attaining it, and therefore isn't really part of my argument. I only referred to it in an off-hand way as I was anticipating its mention, but as far as I can tell, it isn't even an essential part of the transition.Originally Posted by RedMaterialist
I wasn't talking about social democracy or progressive liberals... the former strikes me as a nascent form likely to lose sight of itself on it's lethargic slog to the promised land (hasn't this already happened), and the other is capitalism and its adherents wouldn't have it any other way.Originally Posted by [email protected]
I will also say that the egalitarian quality of both is dubious-- they tend to get health care and sometimes education right, but when it comes to welfare and other social programs they only tend to reinforce the socioeconomic status of those who participate in them, and in most cases do not seem particularly interested in actually helping people so much as pacifying or simply carrying them through their lives.
