Thread: Dissidence under Communism?

Results 21 to 27 of 27

  1. #21
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,284
    Rep Power 65


    Well, these are *three* different things, and you're simply *ignoring* my response on this issue -- I've made the distinction of thought-vs.-physical-action, and that's where *I'd* draw the line to define 'a counterrevolutionary'.

    Right, so expressing dissenting thought would be considered counterrevolutionary. Gotcha, then you have confirmed that your idea of communism is inherently tyrannical. Besides locking people up for not complying to have their property seized, you would also have people locked up for expressing their thoughts...

    You're not paying attention to what I've said, and so you continue to misrepresent my stated position:

    You're being disingenuous again since I've already made it clear that '[thought] dissent' would not be a target for a movement of working class revolutionaries:

    [I] can't see it as being worthwhile from the standpoint of revolutionaries to 'root out' antithetical *thought* -- because thought alone would not challenge a real mass uprising seeking socialism and communism. It would be *physical acts* that would socio-politically be more clearly identified as counterrevolutionary and a real threat to the nascent workers state


    Yes, ideas do exist in what you call an 'ideas-sphere'... have you never read any Carl Jung, or Nietzsche? ideas permeate society in ways that are very difficult for us to reconcile as individuals, but they do. There is more to us as people than our mere immediate material surroundings.

    The jargon for this is 'subjective factor', which I've mentioned.


    Worldview Diagram


    i know you didn't say it. But this is how Antifa bully and assault people. Believe me, I don't enjoy the 'activist' and tribe mentality of the right as it currently stands either. But just from looking at the two side by side, one looks like Oswald Mosley's black shirts from the 1930's, only with masks, the other look like they went to too many Trump rallies, but the former certainly, even just in appearance, looks more hostile.

    Yet again you ignore the 'ends', in favor of only focusing on the 'style', or 'means', of the content of the politics. All you're doing is being *contrarian*, and slandering, instead of acknowledging my stated positions and basing your replies on what I've presented.

    This discussion is getting too *one-sided*, so watch yourself -- if you're going to one-sidedly continue to do nothing but *propagandize*, you probably shouldn't have access to RevLeft.

    Again, one cannot compare socialism to fascism, because the political content / 'ends' are vastly different:

    This is an inapt comparison since you're conflating collective proletarian revolution with fascist hierarchical control.


    It's not 'hatred' -- this is a common misconception. It's acting appropriately given the prevailing hegemonic political culture of the day. Why aren't you denouncing the state on this issue instead of siding with it, as you're doing now -- ?

    Also, no one's proposing to 'outsource' politics to the control of an 'Antifa' layer. That would be Stalinism.

    They are pretending to act on the behalf of some form of group identity. It is not some virtuous uprising as you seem to think, when they are assaulting strangers who they project their ideology onto.

    All you're doing here is attempting to *discredit* collective anti-fascist empowerment by taking a dismissive tone and by misrepresenting Antifa's politics.

    We know for a *fact* that fascists will destroy the people they hate, by whatever means they can get away with -- it's politically *appropriate* to have comrades like those in Antifa who can use direct action to deny fascist-type aggression against social minorities.

    I also take issue with the right's ardent support for 'Cops' (agents of State violence) which appears to be a reaction to the left's vehement disavowal of them (though the left doesn't take a deep enough level of analysis, and often promote Statist reformism as the solution).

    Well, since cops don't do anything substantive about police violence and its killing of over 1,000 people every year, that's why we need left-wing 'specialists' like Antifa to do what the state doesn't do about fascism.

    listen to yourself. This is no different Nazi informant culture. I don't know how this proposal can be viewed as anything but the inroads to the growth of a tyrannical surveillance state.

    You're just *imputing* this -- there's no political reasoning from you because you don't have a political *program* -- you think subscribing to a 'minimalist' government setup is enough, when you really know *better*. Consider the empirical dynamic of present-day bureaucratic class rule, and you'll realize that such an *institution* is its own separate layer of socio-political *being*, and that it will inherently resist attempts to downsize it.

    Again your conflation and comparison with Nazis only means that you're *sidestepping* what revolutionary-left politics is all about -- putting workers in control of all social production, worldwide.

    Yes, but you believe that owners do not work. In addition to this, you're entire reasoning for this is based on the Labour theory of value, which is, well, just wrong. This is why ageing cars increase in value, etc.

    The "work" that owners do is for their own private self-aggrandizement -- it is *not* materially productive, but goes towards either an appropriation of surplus labor value, or a shuffling around of already-owned financial assets.

    What *you're* talking about -- financial appreciation -- is only in the realm of *exchange values*. Revolutionary politics is all about *use values*, or the fulfillment of *unmet human need*.

    what does a corporation have to do with market dynamics? A Corporation is an fictional entity given legal protection by the State to separate the responsibility of the executives. In a free market, people who are not worth $1,000,000 will not be payed in such amounts unless they are very good lairs. Johnny Depp is payed more than your average performing arts student because his name, face and talent will bring more profit to a film than the later.

    (I'll pass on this since you're again not discussing politics at all, and you're just propagandistically touting the market mechanism.)

    Tyranny is independent of the partisan nature of 'left and right'. I'm not sure why you made it a 'right wing' issue.

    'Tyranny' implies *nationalism*, and so is right-wing, while left-wing -- even Stalinist -- politics does *not*, in theory ('Socialism in one country' would still be about socialism, to some geographical extent.)

    Political Spectrum, Simplified


    Anyway, just because you have managed to dress up the idea of imprisoning people for not agreeing with you, doesn't make it not tyrannical.

    You're misconstruing my 'counterrevolutionaries detained in skyscrapers' proposal. Also, I wouldn't necessarily be in charge of that, or any other department of a workers state -- decision-making would be *collectivist* in nature, remember -- ? Here's the text again -- please get it right:

    After some additional thought on this topic I came up with a possible approach: Counterrevolutionaries could be 'quarantined' inside of existing *skyscrapers*, with an outer wall and a motion-detecting *perimeter* well within the exterior wall. There could be a conical-shaped *netting* around each skyscraper (and within the motion-detecting perimeter), flared outward, so that anyone falling on the outside of each skyscraper -- for whatever reason -- would have a soft landing and would slide downward and outward, triggering the perimeter. (And/or they could just re-enter the building and resume "regular" life there.)

    The idea is that this measure would be *temporary*, with all of the amenities of life and living provided-for daily inside such a structure, so that such people under 'collective house-arrest' would feel relatively comfortable in the interim until the proletarian revolution would be completed. Doubtlessly there would also be maintenance-type tasks within each building, as well, to keep people busy if they wanted.

    Security cameras on every floor could broadcast their live video feeds out onto the Internet, so that informal voluntary revolutionary participation could be done by anyone, watching the various feeds to keep track of things there. And, derived from such Internet-based involvement could be the makings of an organic mass voluntary participation -- an 'emergent' 'institution' overseeing and tending-to each given skyscraper, with proceedings ongoing on a RevLeft-type discussion board for cooperation and decisive actions given whatever situation.

    Perhaps the most complex aspect of this approach -- as with the whole revolution itself -- would be keeping policy *consistent* across each and every skyscraper facility, so that any possible discontinuities would be solidly ironed-out. The overall idea here is to be as humane as possible to as many class enemy personnel as possible so that they're excluded from active real-world politics, but without antagonizing any of them personally so that they could claim an inherently messy *social* situation and treatment. Once the revolution is completed all such prisoners could then be released because they and their reactionary ideas would no longer have any traction in such a fully post-capitalist social order.


    What happens if these people refuse to go to the skyscrapers, as i image they will? Will you shoot them, taser them, take them whilst they sleep as the Soviet secret police did? It's ideas like these that drive dictatorships... 'for the collective good'.

    It wouldn't be up to me alone, or *any* one individual, most-likely. I'll take those suggestions positively, though -- thanks.

    You continue to miss the fact that the class division *exists*, and that the ruling class continues to inflict violence *every day* on people all over the globe. Why not re-focus on *that* violence some more -- !

    How many instance can you give where absolute power has been wielded to good ends? I can think of approximately zero.

    Just talk to any revolutionary who defends the USSR, through to Stalinist control -- there was *much* leeway for workers collective self-determination in the workplace, even with all of the geopolitical shit that Stalin took up.


    This is an inapt comparison since you're conflating collective proletarian revolution with fascist hierarchical control.

    It's the same ideology at its core. Group identity over the individual. And every time that road is taken, it runs itself over the cliff.

    Nope -- you're oversimplifying. You're only looking at *sociological* characteristics, and you're missing-out on the *political* content, which is not surprising since you don't *have* a coherent political program to begin with, so you don't have that 'social' perspective anywhere, either.

    As a *correction*, people could certainly have their own personal lives when not being professional revolutionaries, during upsurges and revolution. There's no logistical problem, despite your recalcitrant, baseless contentions to that effect.

    Yes, and there are only two categories... those who work, and those who do not/cannot work. Employers and employee's both work.

    Employees must *sell their labor* to the employer for want of the means of life and living, while employers are *managers* under the command of ownership, whose "work" is entirely *internal* to the company, since it yields no production the way the *workers* labor does.

    It would be difficult for me to disavow state violence any more than I already have. Have you not been reading what I've said. And I definitely do not agree with this idea that the ends justify the means.

    I never said that 'the ends justify the means' in the *abstract*. I will say that *collectivist* ends, as into a workers state and beyond, justify *many* means used against the exploiting and repressively-violent *bourgeois* class.
  2. #22
    Join Date Sep 2010
    Location United States
    Posts 1,896
    Rep Power 16


    10,000 years of Capitalism? What history books have you been reading, because it's no greater than 250 years old at most.
    I said 10K years of class exploitation. Capitalism is only the latest form of exploitation. Before that there was patriarchy, slavery and serfdom
  3. #23
    Join Date Sep 2010
    Location United States
    Posts 1,896
    Rep Power 16


    [QUOTE=A Libertarian Capitalist;2890389]

    Literally none of what you are saying has anything to do with capitalism. The Russian Tsars, the Chinese dynasties, Hitler, Franco, Kissinger?? Who are these people but Statesmen and autocrats, completely removed from the free market. Capitalism is simply a respect for property rights and non coercive trade at its simplest level, yet you are giving me a lesson in why Government dictators and autocrats are bad like I don't already agree with you.
    You really believe that history, statesmen, autocrats, war, the state are completely removed from economics? Slavery didn't have anything to do with the development of the Greek and Roman states, serfdom had nothing to do with the feudal states, and capitalism had nothing to do with the modern state in the West?

    Wait, wait... hold on. Let me get this straight... 'Keynesian saved Capitalism'? I'm not even sure where to start with that. Keynesian being the economic doctrine that literally caused the great depression, sank the entire western world into mass debt and inflation, spurring the rise of dictators in Europe, in which the result was, and only escape from, was the biggest war in history that led to the deaths of 42 million people? This is what saved Capitalism, huh? And yet I am charged with not understanding history... once again you conflate Statism with Capitalism as if they are mutually coexisting, when the state has the only monopoly.
    The Great Depression began in 1929, at least 6 yrs before Keynes' theory of unemployment. The Great Depression quickly brought mass unemployment on a scale never seen before. If this continued it would have meant the revolutionary destruction of western capitalism. Keynes realized that the only way out was employment guaranteed by the state. And that is exactly what happened. Roosevelt's New Deal and Hitler's rearming (financed by London and Paris.)

    Yes. Government spending to prop up demand is what saved capitalism.

    Where, exactly, did you get the idea that Keynes caused WWII?

    Yes, but you believe that owners do not work. In addition to this, you're entire reasoning for this is based on the Labour theory of value, which is, well, just wrong. This is why ageing cars increase in value, etc.
    That must be the junkyard theory of value. I have a car I bought ten yrs ago for 15K. Would you like to buy it for 20K. Used cars are worth less, in the ordinary course of business, because their use value, utility, has been consumed. Commodities are a composite of use value and exchange value. Please read chapter one of Marx's Capital.

    what does a corporation have to do with market dynamics?
    It's hard to believe that somebody could write something like that. The modern corporation dominates, monopolizes and controls market dynamics. Try buying something on line which does not involve Google or Amazon.

    How many instance can you give where absolute power has been wielded to good ends? I can think of approximately zero.
    Here're two examples: The Russian and American military invasion of Europe to defeat Hitler. Or the American invasion of the Confederacy to abolish slavery. And if you don't think the military is an absolute power, I suggest you avoid the draft, like Trump did.

    Yes, and there are only two categories... those who work, and those who do not/cannot work. Employers and employee's both work.
    Tell me when D. Trump ever did a day's work in his life. Or when the WalMart heirs do work.
  4. #24
    Join Date Jan 2013
    Posts 2,893
    The lol people
    Rep Power 51


    I wonder why the others even bother with you.
    ... just after doing so
    I don't know why you people are bothering with him.
    ... proceeds to do so

    guys cmon at least i replied when we could still believe he was just an idiot.
    "I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
    Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
  5. #25
    Join Date Sep 2010
    Location United States
    Posts 1,896
    Rep Power 16


    ... just after doing so

    ... proceeds to do so

    guys cmon at least i replied when we could still believe he was just an idiot.
    These comments on replying to people like the libertarian capitalist reminds me of this passage from

    Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (Introduction):

    "War on the German [by analogy, modern capitalism] state of affairs! By all means! They are below the level of history, they are beneath any criticism, but they are still an object of criticism like the criminal who is below the level of humanity but still an object for the executioner. In the struggle against that state of affairs, criticism is no passion of the head, it is the head of passion. It is not a lancet, it is a weapon. Its object is its enemy, which it wants not to refute but to exterminate. For the spirit of that state of affairs is refuted. In itself, it is no object worthy of thought, it is an existence which is as despicable as it is despised. Criticism does not need to make things clear to itself as regards this object, for it has already settled accounts with it. It no longer assumes the quality of an end-in-itself, but only of a means. Its essential pathos is indignation, its essential work is denunciation...

    "Criticism dealing with this content is criticism in a hand-to-hand fight, and in such a fight the point is not whether the opponent is a noble, equal, interesting opponent, the point is to strike him. The point is not to let the Germans have a minute for self-deception and resignation. The actual pressure must be made more pressing by adding to it consciousness of pressure, the shame must be made more shameful by publicizing it. Every sphere of German society must be shown as the partie honteuse of German society: these petrified relations must be forced to dance by singing their own tune to them! The people must be taught to be terrified at itself in order to give it courage. This will be fulfilling an imperative need of the German nation, and the needs of the nations are in themselves the ultimate reason for their satisfaction."
  6. #26
    Join Date Feb 2018
    Posts 1
    Rep Power 0


    Before that there was patriarchy, slavery and serfdom
  7. #27
    Join Date Mar 2018
    Posts 71
    Rep Power 1


    I'm gonna quote extensively Mao Zedong on this question and synthesize at the end.

    "Two types of social contradictions - those between ourselves and the enemy and those among the people themselves confront us. The two are totally different in their nature."

    The contradictions between the enemy and us are antagonistic contradictions. Within the ranks of the people, the contradictions among the working people are non-antagonistic, while those between the exploited and the exploiting classes have a non-antagonistic aspect in addition to an antagonistic aspect."

    The question of suppressing counterrevolutionaries is one of a struggle between us and the enemy, a contradiction between us and the enemy."

    Since they are different in nature, the contradictions between us and the enemy and the contradictions among the people must be resolved by different methods. To put it briefly, the former is a matter of drawing a clear distinction between us and the enemy, and the latter a matter of drawing a clear distinction between right and wrong. It is, of course, true that the distinction between the enemy and us is also a matter of right and wrong. For example, the question of who is in the right, we or the domestic and foreign reactionaries, the imperialists, the feudalistic and bureaucrat-capitalists, is also a matter of right and wrong, but it is in a different category from questions of right and wrong among the people."

    The only way to settle questions of an ideological nature or controversial issues among the people is by the democratic method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education, and not by the method of coercion or repression."

    I cite Mao in order to demonstrate that this isn't a new idea, in opposition to historical communism. It's communist theory. To summarize, and the major points have already been shared I believe, we must suppress the enemy. We don't have a choice. "Revolution is not a dinner party." However, among the people, there will always be people who hold dissenting views, some because of privilege (like the petty bourgeois or national bourgeois in the Chinese case), and others because of misguidance. We don't resolve those contradictions through repression. We educate, but we don't force anyone to hold certain views.

Similar Threads

  1. Nothing on Revleft about US hegemony
    By Frantz Fanon in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 24th November 2009, 14:42
  2. RCP
    By Dros in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 20th November 2007, 16:55
  3. Political Survey: What Are Your Beliefs?
    By ZhangXun in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 189
    Last Post: 7th November 2006, 17:07
  4. Iraqi Resistance
    By Comrade Hector in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 6th January 2006, 03:48
  5. Yay Capitalism
    By bartski in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 22nd September 2003, 17:46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts