Thread: Dissidence under Communism?

Results 1 to 20 of 27

  1. #1
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default Dissidence under Communism?

    What is the mechanism of resolving and negotiating political diversity non-violently in a Communist system.

    For instance, is the dichotomy between private property rights and collective ownership still permitted to be negotiated. Is the public expression of such ideas even allowed? Can debate be held on topics antithetical to Marxist ideology, or to Communist practise? Will people holding such ideas be allowed to organise, such as Communist Parties and organisations are now? Can a communist system tolerate political diversity without violence?

    If these things are not permitted, then how are they dealt with,
    Thanks.
  2. #2
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default

    I think the quick, ready answer to *all* of your questions is 'Here we are.'

    (We're debating these topics on a public Internet discussion board in the 'Opposing Ideologies' subforum.)

    That said, though, a revolutionary or post-capitalist world society wouldn't *need* to have 'political diversity', because that's *not* the aim of revolutionary politics. Just as today's bourgeoisie has collective dominant control over the determination of public policy -- class rule -- a *proletarian* upsurge would be looking for that same monolithic control over the public sphere, but the difference is that such proletariat-collective control would be for different *ends* -- to benefit workers and also for humane ends for *all* in the global population, and not for balkanized private profit-making.

    As I mentioned before, I think the litmus test would be 'Are they proactively interfering with the development of a working-class revolution -- ?' -- for any given person whose 'political diversity' would make them into active counterrevolutionary agents in the politics of an ongoing proletarian revolution.

    The *point* of such a revolution would be to *overturn* the socio-political paradigm of 'private property rights', which have become *fetters* on the further socio-material development of world society, going-forward.
  3. #3
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    To what degree does one become an 'active counterrevolutionary' as you put it? One could say that merely expressing views differing from, or antithetical to Marxism, or to communism is actively countering the revolutionary ideology (it is an 'action' to express one's own ideas).

    I think the quick, ready answer to *all* of your questions is 'Here we are.'

    (We're debating these topics on a public Internet discussion board in the 'Opposing Ideologies' subforum.)
    This means absolutely nothing. The very fact that this site has moderators able to relegate people outside the ideology of Marxism to a lesser access of participation in the various discussions of this website, but only to the limited 'opposing ideologies' section is a testament to Communist ideologues intolerance to political diversity. For my own views, my account has been tagged as 'reactionary' and thusly been given a restricted status. So if you're argument is that the very existence of this site is a reflection of how political discourse would manifest in a real world communist system, then that only serves to confirm my conviction that Marxism as an ideology is fundamentally in conflict with free and open discourse, and that if you amplified this site's processes to a real world scenario, what would that look like? Would so called 'reactionaries' be rooted out and be given restricted status on their freedoms of expression?

    That said, though, a revolutionary or post-capitalist world society wouldn't *need* to have 'political diversity', because that's *not* the aim of revolutionary politics.
    It really does not matter what Communism 'needs' or is 'aiming' for. What matters is that political diversity 'will' exist, and it is how a society deals with that, that underpins everything.

    Just as today's bourgeoisie has collective dominant control over the determination of public policy
    Which can only be achieved through enforcement by the State (an institution I also do not sympathise with).

    a *proletarian* upsurge would be looking for that same monolithic control over the public sphere, but the difference is that such proletariat-collective control would be for different *ends* -- to benefit workers and also for humane ends for *all* in the global population, and not for balkanized private profit-making.
    You have heard the phrase, "the road to tyranny is paved with good intentions"? What you are saying is simply the espousing of ideological rhetoric, because as you should know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Giving a group 'monolithic control over the public sphere' and assuming it will act with good intentions is assertively ignorant, because at the same time, you then give it the power to act with bad intentions. And all of that entirely depends upon what parameters you are using to even define 'good' or 'humane' ends? Could it be considered 'humane' to violently suppress political dissent for the collective benefit of the workers? That seems quite conceivable to me. Giving any group a monopoly on power and violence will always end in tyranny, no matter what 'good intentions' it perceives itself as undertaking. This is why, for instance, the US Government now has more people in prison than Soviet Russia had in the Gulags, under the 'good intentions' of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, which it exploits as a guise to keep surveillance on the population, arrest people for private matters and invade their property, all with a monopoly on violence.

    Thanks for engaging, ​ckaihatsu
  4. #4
    Join Date Jan 2013
    Posts 2,893
    Organisation
    The lol people
    Rep Power 51

    Default

    The reality is that under communism, there will maybe be a few people who hold weird eccentric beliefs in support of capitalism but they'd be seen as just that, eccentric. Most people would either be looking to something beyond communism or (if the communists who believe that communism is the final possible economic system are correct) or they'd be communists. We have no need to round up fuedalists in our current society cause they have no power, just as it's be with capitalists.
    "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. #5
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default Dissidence under Communism?

    First, I think this sense of politics could only exist before communism or the generation right after a revolution.

    Communist politics would make as much sense to us as a US party convention would make sense to a feudal lord or peasant.

    But after a revolutionary change, there’d likely be a flourishing of political diversity. At the most basic level, things that are not within “politics” right now would suddenly be matters of public debate and discussion: how should communities be built, what kinds of consumer needs should be prioritized, how should work be arranged, what should the aesthetics of public spaces or buildings be, etc? More people would be enfranchised and the scope of public decisions would be expanded and part of everyday routines because you’d work but would have a say in how that is accomplished. You’d live in communities but have a say over how it develops. While there’s probably be more opinions on all sorts of things, people would likely gravitate to some kind of affinity-based “parties” or groups.

    Clear counter-revolutionary groups probably would not participate in these kinds of formations since they would have originated from the fact of increased enfranchisement and worker-control over society. So it would make as much sense to form a pro-capitalist party in this context as it would be for someone to run for mayoral office under a platform of “vote me in as divinely appointed monarch”.

    So people seeking to restore the old order would find themselves at odds with expanded popular power and would likely act more like terrorist cells attempting to demoralize that empowered majority. A pro-capitalist version of reconstruction-era KKK. People would likely defend themselves and their new gains from people like this.

    Hypothetically, if a group of 50-100 pro-capitalists was not attempting to destroy popular power and restore the old order, but wanted to start their own capitalist commune where one guy is boss and everyone else works for him... I don’t see the harm to anyone besides their selves. They can go off and start their Gault’s Gulch version of the Roanoke colony.
  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  7. #6
    Join Date Sep 2010
    Location United States
    Posts 1,896
    Rep Power 16

    Default

    What is the mechanism of resolving and negotiating political diversity non-violently in a Communist system.


    There is no political antagonism in a communist system. Once class rule disappears and the state has collapsed there is no longer any need for a system of political coercion. For instance, under communism the question of whether gigantic oil and gas companies should be allowed to destroy the planet would not even come up. The issue of allowing illegal human beings into one's country would not exist because there would no longer be any political borders between countries. Countries would only exist as football teams do today. The issue of implementing tax laws that drastically increase the division between poor and rich would be ridiculed as the idea of an insane person.

    You would have the right to advocate any of these bizarre ideas and some people might even find you entertaining. However, you would not have the power, authority and armed force of the state to back you up.



  8. #7
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    To what degree does one become an 'active counterrevolutionary' as you put it? One could say that merely expressing views differing from, or antithetical to Marxism, or to communism is actively countering the revolutionary ideology (it is an 'action' to express one's own ideas).

    You're consistently shifting the social context to one of *ideas* only, ALC, and that's not only disingenuous but also materially *incorrect*. Class struggle between the two classes is what drives all qualitative aspects of society and social development, not merely 'innovative' ideas waiting on the sidelines to be implemented.

    In other words workers with *zero* political theory could instantaneously become revolutionary -- without ideas -- if the working conditions there *force* class-consciousness *onto* them, as with a wage dispute. Workers realize through their own experience what exploitation is, because the company, and even their own corporate union, are not working in their best interests. It's also an opportunity for rank-and-file *solidarity* and the potential for a *win* against the employer, and possibly across the entire industry, and with other industries as well.

    I think those doing physical acts against a revolution-in-progress would more easily be seen everywhere as being active counterrevolutionary roles, and would most-likely be seen as part of the overall reactionary forces against the revolution.



    This means absolutely nothing. The very fact that this site has moderators able to relegate people outside the ideology of Marxism to a lesser access of participation in the various discussions of this website, but only to the limited 'opposing ideologies' section is a testament to Communist ideologues intolerance to political diversity. For my own views, my account has been tagged as 'reactionary' and thusly been given a restricted status. So if you're argument is that the very existence of this site is a reflection of how political discourse would manifest in a real world communist system, then that only serves to confirm my conviction that Marxism as an ideology is fundamentally in conflict with free and open discourse, and that if you amplified this site's processes to a real world scenario, what would that look like? Would so called 'reactionaries' be rooted out and be given restricted status on their freedoms of expression?

    Again, 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 (not a 'state' in the current, bourgeois sense).

    Of course if a site like RevLeft was retained for mass communication purposes during the period of a revolution, it would certainly restrict the participation of counterrevolutionaries -- if not banning such participation outright -- because such non-communist 'diversity', as you put it, would simply be inappropriate to the conditions of actual social uprisings.

    Think of it like Nazis today -- as long as they shut up and don't overtly identify as fascists they can do whatever they want in their personal lives. But any show of *politics* inherently makes it a *political* issue and then they can be readily opposed by antifascists, including Antifa.



    It really does not matter what Communism 'needs' or is 'aiming' for. What matters is that political diversity 'will' exist, and it is how a society deals with that, that underpins everything.

    Your concept of 'political diversity' would be misapplied in any *truly* revolutionary context because the point with uprisings would be to displace all political sentiments to the right of national and international socialist-type revolution. Again we have to distinguish between personal 'thought', and *physical activity* in the public sphere. People can think whatever they like as long as they don't become *physically active* in some kind of counterrevolutionary way.



    Which can only be achieved through enforcement by the State (an institution I also do not sympathise with).

    Well, since *workers* are the unavoidable impetus behind every kind of social production, tangible or intangible, there's no good reason they / we shouldn't have our own 'state', for the purposes of workers power over that social production that is done. I agree that there shouldn't-be any standing institutions, for the concerns that everyone has about them (substitutionism), so workers could just add-in all co-determining ('socio-political') co-administrative processes that parallel and complement their main, primary work roles / activities.



    You have heard the phrase, "the road to tyranny is paved with good intentions"? What you are saying is simply the espousing of ideological rhetoric, because as you should know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Giving a group 'monolithic control over the public sphere' and assuming it will act with good intentions is assertively ignorant,

    Fortunately, no one here is *calling* for this kind of implementation, because such would be *substitutionist* for workers collective control over social production. In other words we're not *trying* to be Stalinistic, because the revolution would have to transcend the scale of the nation-state, anyway, and be internationalist, ultimately.

    You're sounding downright *superstitious* with your invoking of that aphorism -- if taken literally it's effectively *fatalistic* because then no one with good intentions should ever attempt *anything* constructive since doing so would just 'automatically' put them and everyone else on the road to tyranny. I think the conclusion is faulty here by being too black-or-white.



    because at the same time, you then give it the power to act with bad intentions. And all of that entirely depends upon what parameters you are using to even define 'good' or 'humane' ends?

    'Good' and 'humane' ends is *not* vague -- 'good' usually means 'socially constructive', and 'humane' means 'for the benefit of the human organism'.



    Could it be considered 'humane' to violently suppress political dissent for the collective benefit of the workers?

    Well, shouldn't the workers interests be benefitted -- ? Where do you stand on this issue, in terms of political priorities?



    That seems quite conceivable to me. Giving any group a monopoly on power and violence will always end in tyranny, no matter what 'good intentions' it perceives itself as undertaking.

    Our revolutionary politics do *not* call for the 'outsourcing' of political power to any specialized-administrative group, if at all possible.



    This is why, for instance, the US Government now has more people in prison than Soviet Russia had in the Gulags, under the 'good intentions' of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, which it exploits as a guise to keep surveillance on the population, arrest people for private matters and invade their property, all with a monopoly on violence.

    I certainly agree here, and I usually consider 'libertarians' to be 'left-nationalists', for this whistle-blowing type of aspect.



    Thanks for engaging, ​ckaihatsu

    Of course. Likewise.
  9. #8
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    So you say BIXX...

    It seems like you underestimate the power of ideas. Stalin understood the power of ideas, so took to suppressing them in the most violent and systematic way he possibly could, as he famously said, "ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?". This argument that because a Communist system has been erected, that all previous ideas simply vanish from influence is wishful thinking on your behalf. Of course much easier for you to deny that there are, and will be people who have different ideas than your own. This entire line of argument just seems unfounded. It is equivalent to saying that under tyranny, the idea of freedom will become trivial.
  10. #9
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Jimmie Higgins, hey there.

    But after a revolutionary change, there’d likely be a flourishing of political diversity. At the most basic level, things that are not within “politics” right now would suddenly be matters of public debate and discussion: how should communities be built, what kinds of consumer needs should be prioritized, how should work be arranged, what should the aesthetics of public spaces or buildings be, etc? More people would be enfranchised and the scope of public decisions would be expanded and part of everyday routines because you’d work but would have a say in how that is accomplished. You’d live in communities but have a say over how it develops. While there’s probably be more opinions on all sorts of things, people would likely gravitate to some kind of affinity-based “parties” or groups.
    All the things you just listed as what would be "new" areas of public discussion take place under capitalism, only it is decided efficiently by the market (i.e. communities are built based on what is believed the consumer will buy). If someone decides to invest in building a village of tiny wooden shacks, no one will buy them; if someone invests in building smaller affordable homes, then that accommodates a particular group. You talk of this 'greater enfranchisement' but where does the resolution of this enfranchisement occur, without any authority guiding that resolution? Capitalism of course has experienced managers and owners that can delegate and determine the direction of things (and will be positively or negatively rewarded based on how the public reacts).

    So people seeking to restore the old order would find themselves at odds with expanded popular power and would likely act more like terrorist cells attempting to demoralize that empowered majority.
    This assumes that Communism will turn out as the utopia you think it will, and not turn out live every their failed state before it.

    Hypothetically, if a group of 50-100 pro-capitalists was not attempting to destroy popular power and restore the old order, but wanted to start their own capitalist commune where one guy is boss and everyone else works for him... I don’t see the harm to anyone besides their selves. They can go off and start their Gault’s Gulch version of the Roanoke colony.
    That's a good mischaracterisation of Capitalism, but it just gives me the impression that you only understand what 'Capitalism' is based off the echo chamber of Marxist rhetoric. I think you would find that very quickly people would flock to the vestiges of Capitalist communes if you permitted them, just as the starving and oppressed East Berliner's risked everything to cross into the flourishing West.



    RedMaterialist...

    There is no political antagonism in a communist system. Once class rule disappears and the state has collapsed there is no longer any need for a system of political coercion. For instance, under communism the question of whether gigantic oil and gas companies should be allowed to destroy the planet would not even come up. The issue of allowing illegal human beings into one's country would not exist because there would no longer be any political borders between countries. Countries would only exist as football teams do today. The issue of implementing tax laws that drastically increase the division between poor and rich would be ridiculed as the idea of an insane person.

    You would have the right to advocate any of these bizarre ideas and some people might even find you entertaining. However, you would not have the power, authority and armed force of the state to back you up.
    Sure, if you want to use that low a level of analysis then that's okay. But I think you should really consider what I'm asking you, rather than blanket denying the influence of dissent.



    ckaihatsu...
    I will respond to you tomorrow. There's more to dig into
  11. #10
    Join Date Sep 2010
    Location United States
    Posts 1,896
    Rep Power 16

    Default


    RedMaterialist...


    Sure, if you want to use that low a level of analysis then that's okay. But I think you should really consider what I'm asking you, rather than blanket denying the influence of dissent.
    You asked about political "dissidence" in communism. I gave you three examples of current political issues that could not be issues under communism. If you can't debate then I suggest you go to Breitbart. I didn't deny the influence of dissent. What I said was that if someone dissents under communism they can't use the power of the state to impose their views on other people.

    So far, communism has not existed in any modern society. In prehistoric society a kind of "primitive" communism existed but not associated with any coercive, repressive state. The only modern state to collapse recently was the Soviet Union, but it was quickly replaced not by communism but by gangster capitalism.

    Since this is a site which welcomes debate you can now post your response. If this were an alt.right site there would be no debate at all allowed about communism except for anti-communist loony fascism.
  12. #11
    Join Date Sep 2010
    Location United States
    Posts 1,896
    Rep Power 16

    Default

    What is the mechanism of resolving and negotiating political diversity non-violently in a Communist system.
    free discussion

    For instance, is the dichotomy between private property rights and collective ownership still permitted to be negotiated.
    Private property doesn't exist in communism therefore it would be ridiculous to negotiate it. It would be like negotiating slavery today. Interesting but non-sensical. Or perhaps you mean personal property like your flat screen tv? Personal property is what you buy with money you earned by your own work, not by exploiting someone else.

    Is the public expression of such ideas even allowed? Can debate be held on topics antithetical to Marxist ideology, or to Communist practise? Will people holding such ideas be allowed to organise, such as Communist Parties and organisations are now? Can a communist system tolerate political diversity without violence?
    Yes. Yes. You can organize all you like. However, you can't organize yourself into an armed collection of thugs, i.e., a state. Yes.

    If these things are not permitted, then how are they dealt with,
    Thanks.


    They are all permitted except for the establishment of a state, which will be impossible because of the elimination of class exploitation.

    If this is all too low level for you I suggest you read The Communist Manifesto. It is explained pretty well.
  13. #12
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    ​chaihatsu

    You're consistently shifting the social context to one of *ideas* only, ALC, and that's not only disingenuous but also materially *incorrect*. Class struggle between the two classes is what drives all qualitative aspects of society and social development, not merely 'innovative' ideas waiting on the sidelines to be implemented.
    This is all about ideas.

    Again, 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 (not a 'state' in the current, bourgeois sense).

    Of course if a site like RevLeft was retained for mass communication purposes during the period of a revolution, it would certainly restrict the participation of counterrevolutionaries -- if not banning such participation outright -- because such non-communist 'diversity', as you put it, would simply be inappropriate to the conditions of actual social uprisings.
    I'm not merely discussing the consequences of dissenting thoughts, but also the expression of them, the demonstrating of them even. You are essentially arguing that ideas aren't influential if the system they exist within is in conflict with them, which, if I applied that to what you are proposing, would make a Communist revolution a non-threat. You're entire argument is the basic textbook Marxist rhetoric that the working class revolution is an inevitable evolution of Capitalism arising from the exploitation of the working class, etc, etc. And you are also assuming that it will be a Utopia (which is fantasy).

    Think of it like Nazis today -- as long as they shut up and don't overtly identify as fascists they can do whatever they want in their personal lives. But any show of *politics* inherently makes it a *political* issue and then they can be readily opposed by antifascists, including Antifa.
    Yes, and everyone right of Lenin is a Nazi these days. Do you really support Antifa? They just look like violent thugs who attack people, often with weapons, for the 'politically incorrect' infraction of having a Donald Trump hat on their heads. And these are the kind of people who call themselves 'revolutionaries', so just image how violently they proceed towards dissenters if given this "monolithic control", you can see the hatred just desperately bursting to get out of them, which is why they project it all on people who disagree with them.

    Your concept of 'political diversity' would be misapplied in any *truly* revolutionary context because the point with uprisings would be to displace all political sentiments to the right of national and international socialist-type revolution. Again we have to distinguish between personal 'thought', and *physical activity* in the public sphere. People can think whatever they like as long as they don't become *physically active* in some kind of counterrevolutionary way.
    Again, who is defining these parameters for what is "physical activity" and "counterrevolutionary"? And what would happen to these people if they were deemed as committing such heinous crimes?


    Well, since *workers* are the unavoidable impetus behind every kind of social production, tangible or intangible,
    Yes, people who work drive production. And people who are most valuable to production are rewarded the most.


    Fortunately, no one here is *calling* for this kind of implementation, because such would be *substitutionist* for workers collective control over social production. In other words we're not *trying* to be Stalinistic, because the revolution would have to transcend the scale of the nation-state, anyway, and be internationalist, ultimately.
    You don't believe there can be an international tyranny? I mean, how do you expect to curtail the perceived 'counterrevolutionaries' without any degree of tyranny?

    ou're sounding downright *superstitious* with your invoking of that aphorism -- if taken literally it's effectively *fatalistic* because then no one with good intentions should ever attempt *anything* constructive since doing so would just 'automatically' put them and everyone else on the road to tyranny. I think the conclusion is faulty here by being too black-or-white.
    In no way did what I say imply that "no one with good intentions should ever attempt anything constructive". I said that power is a corrupting force and that people will concede to tyranny in the pursuit of 'good intentions'. We tell children "don't hit", we don't say "hit wisely".

    'Good' and 'humane' ends is *not* vague -- 'good' usually means 'socially constructive', and 'humane' means 'for the benefit of the human organism'
    That doesn't clear up the parameters. Who says what is 'socially constructive' and what is 'for the benefit of the human organism'? Hitler thought the extermination of the Jewish kind was for the benefit of the human organism...

    Well, shouldn't the workers interests be benefitted -- ? Where do you stand on this issue, in terms of political priorities?
    Firstly; I don't accept your paradigm of who 'the workers' are. Secondly; I do not believe any group should be using violence to enforce its ideology onto others, no matter what guise it buries itself in.

    Our revolutionary politics do *not* call for the 'outsourcing' of political power to any specialized-administrative group, if at all possible.
    a *proletarian* upsurge would be looking for that same monolithic control over the public sphere, but the difference is that such proletariat-collective control would be for different *ends* -- to benefit workers and also for humane ends for *all* in the global population
    I beg to differ. Even if you claim to not be calling for such an 'outsourcing of power', how do you propose to curtail dissent without any?

    I certainly agree here, and I usually consider 'libertarians' to be 'left-nationalists', for this whistle-blowing type of aspect.
    No problem buddy
  14. #13
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    RedMaterialist


    Private property doesn't exist in communism therefore it would be ridiculous to negotiate it. It would be like negotiating slavery today. Interesting but non-sensical. Or perhaps you mean personal property like your flat screen tv? Personal property is what you buy with money you earned by your own work, not by exploiting someone else.
    What do you believe the difference to be between what is personal and private property?


    Yes. Yes. You can organize all you like. However, you can't organize yourself into an armed collection of thugs, i.e., a state. Yes.
    Are you suggesting gun/weapon ownership will not be permitted under Communism?


    If this is all too low level for you I suggest you read The Communist Manifesto. It is explained pretty well.



    The Communist Manifesto was pretty low level to understand in my reading. Very basic victim narrative, basic group categorisation, explained without evidence, and of course, his predictions were wrong, because the working class didn't get oppressed and rise up; they got iPhones, hot showers and flat screen TV's. It isn't even explained very well either, as it is the clumping together of various essays. I mean, Karl Marx kept an unpaid housemaid who he impregnated. At least employers pay their workers and don't rape them.
  15. #14
    Join Date Oct 2017
    Posts 27
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Dear ALC,

    you literally have no concept of reality. Everything you write proves this.

    1. Not understanding the distinction between personal belongings and capital (personal and private property) requires some hardline willingful ignorance. If you think there is no difference between a toothbrush and a factory, you are objectively wrong. If you think you should have the right to own other people's labor, lives, etc like you have the right to own a toothbrush, you are also wrong.

    2. "This is all about ideas" - well if you think that ideas coming down from thin air are responsible for the way society operates and the way social relations are constructed, you end up always speaking about abstracts - like you actually do - and getting in conflict with material-social reality.

    3. If I were to believe you that you actually read the Manifesto - and not just claim to have read it, like 99% of your kind do - than it is apparent that it was a waste of time, pearl before swine. Victim narrative? Do you have any idea how workers lived in that era? Clearly don't. Victim narrative my ass. Learn your history, and behold what capital did to proletarized people. Explained without evidence? People died at early ages from overwork. They were living in conditions you couldn't even imagine. Also, if you had any rudimentary knowledge of history, you would also know that the workers did rise up many times. Just a few examples, because you are clearly living in a bubble: luddite movement, Gracchus Babeuf's movement, chartist movement, various unions' struggle for better wages and living conditions, various worker-centered sections of 1848 revolutions in Italy, Hungary, and German territories, 1871 Paris Commune, 1905 Russia and Hungary, 1917 Russia, 1919 Hungary, Spartakus-uprising, Council Republic of Bavaria, later Catalonia, various anti-colonial uprisings after 1945, etc etc. iPhones, hot showers and flat screen TV's? Say that vis a vis to a sweatshop worker in Bangladesh, or an average factory worker in the Eastern parts of Europe, i dare you. You know NOTHING about the real world. I wonder why the others even bother with you.
  16. The Following User Says Thank You to CommunistOrganon For This Useful Post:


  17. #15
    Join Date Sep 2010
    Location United States
    Posts 1,896
    Rep Power 16

    Default

    RedMaterialist


    What do you believe the difference to be between what is personal and private property?
    Personal: what you earn by your own work; private (in the capitalist sense) what you own through somebody else's work.


    [QUOTE]Are you suggesting gun/weapon ownership will not be permitted under Communism? [[QUOTE/]

    They won't be needed. It may surprise you but Marx advocated for the arming of the working population.


    The Communist Manifesto was pretty low level to understand in my reading. Very basic victim narrative, basic group categorisation, explained without evidence, and of course, his predictions were wrong, because the working class didn't get oppressed and rise up; they got iPhones, hot showers and flat screen TV's. It isn't even explained very well either, as it is the clumping together of various essays. I mean, Karl Marx kept an unpaid housemaid who he impregnated. At least employers pay their workers and don't rape them.
    Victim narrative - 10,000 yrs of victims of class exploitation, patriarchy, slavery, serfdom and capitalism. Group categorization - you just can't admit to class exploitation and class war. You have to call it "group."
    No evidence? 10,000 yrs of history. The working class didn't rise up? Maybe you missed the 20th century. The Russian working class and peasants rose up and destroyed 500 yrs of Tsarist brutality. The Chinese rose up and destroyed 1,000 yrs of Chinese dynastic rule. Both revolutions were met with a century of capitalist brutality, the usual murder, rape, torture, etc., led by the great anti-communists, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Kissinger, Reagan.

    Capitalism came very close to self destruction in 1929, it had to be saved by the Keynesian welfare state (your showers and tvs). And again in 2008, saved by govt transferring trillions of tax money to the banks. One of the most lasting predictions of Marx is that capitalism, because of its internal structure and contradictions, will go into periodic crises. It is still happening before your own eyes.

    The woman who got pregnant was not an unpaid housemaid. She was a lifelong friend and family servant of Eleanor Marx who remained with the Marx's after they married and served as the Marx "housekeeper" -- she was in charge of the household. She was intelligent and often engaged in conversation with the various socialists who came through the Marx household. When she became pregnant the Marx daughters were outraged that she was forced to give up the child for adoption. Karl and Eleanor Marx were revolutionary socialist thinkers but they also lived in a extremely bourgeois society. Even they were forced to make concessions to Victorian England. Helene Demuth, after the deaths of Karl and Eleanor, went to live with Frederick Engels and ran his household until his death.

    No rape under capitalist employers? Maybe you haven't heard of Weinstein and company, or the child molester, Dr. Nasser, grooming little girls for future fame and million dollar breakfast cereal contracts.

    We can discuss the Communist Manifesto if you like. Post one sentence from it and tell us what you think about it. Here's two predicting globalism before anyone had heard the word:

    "The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere." Written in 1848.

  18. #16
    Join Date Feb 2015
    Posts 560
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    I don't know why you people are bothering with him. That idiot is the most disingenuous person I've read in a while. His little quips about "Antifa", which is a loosely-affiliated movement of (mainly) "Anarchists" and liberals shows this. First, there are not very many (any?) "random attacks for the smallest PC infraction" you steaming cesspit. Believe me, if there were, they would be reported AD NASEUM JUST LIKE THE "KNOCKOUT GAME" WAS, according to them, half the population of the US was being killed by these attacks. So which attacks? Richard Spencer? A FUCKING NAZI?

    I don't feel bad at all for people punching some white supremacist during a "JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US RALLY". In 1773-1776 dozens of tax collectors were tarred and feathered in the colonies, some beaten to death etc... Does this make me, in any way shape or form, "rethink" the American revolution? Of course not. I won't even bat an eyelash. At least one can feel some sort of sympathy for tax collectors given that they are just performing a job to feed themselves.

    What do you believe the difference to be between what is personal and private property?
    Do you use it in your every day life? Do you use it for transportation, sustenance, work, housing, entertainment etc...? A car, a house, a television, phone etc... is personal property. A 90,000 acre estate or a mine is not. And things like palatial mansions, I don't have a problem with people "keeping" them. But they won't "keep" them for that long when they have to mow the lawn, clean the 30 rooms, paint and perform repairs.

    Are you suggesting gun/weapon ownership will not be permitted under Communism?
    And this is why its painfully obvious you have never read a page out of Marx or Engels or anyone for that matter. You just went on Wikipedia.

    Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
    The 2nd amendment cliche in the United States needs to be understood for its historical context anyway. It was a way to rapidly mobilize a militia and also, in the South, to prevent slave uprisings in the face of the fact that the US army had ~11,000 men. Now its simply a "movement" which bourgeois scum use to stir up passions, to force working people to invest emotionally in this and so on. Believe me, when push comes to shove, the ones "getting your guns" will not be liberals, but probably right-wing scum.

    "Guns" and knives etc... are a democratic right. I've shot a few times myself, certainly nothing special, there just isn't any necessity for "banning" them.

    The Communist Manifesto was pretty low level to understand in my reading. Very basic victim narrative, basic group categorisation, explained without evidence, and of course, his predictions were wrong, because the working class didn't get oppressed and rise up; they got iPhones, hot showers and flat screen TV's. It isn't even explained very well either, as it is the clumping together of various essays. I mean, Karl Marx kept an unpaid housemaid who he impregnated. At least employers pay their workers and don't rape them.
    Ok, you've never read it, congratulations for making yourself look like an idiot. The communist manifesto isn't an "essay" so much as it is a party platform. Das Kapital for example is one of the most thoroughly explained texts for 'mass' consumption out there, it is passed out regularly in Wall Street as a means to understand current conditions.

    I'd also like to point one thing out. Proof that Marx was not merely some senile philosopher is the fact that for most of the late 19th century and early 20th, there was a genuine and real attempt to 'co-opt' Marx, to shave off the revolutionary edge of Marxism and leave it as an apologia for the Capitalist order.
    Last edited by Antiochus; 26th January 2018 at 19:16.
  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Antiochus For This Useful Post:


  20. #17
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default



    You're consistently shifting the social context to one of *ideas* only, ALC, and that's not only disingenuous but also materially *incorrect*. Class struggle between the two classes is what drives all qualitative aspects of society and social development, not merely 'innovative' ideas waiting on the sidelines to be implemented.


    How about using the idea of spelling my username correctly -- !



    I'm not merely discussing the consequences of dissenting thoughts, but also the expression of them, the demonstrating of them even.

    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'.



    You are essentially arguing that ideas aren't influential if the system they exist within is in conflict with them, which, if I applied that to what you are proposing, would make a Communist revolution a non-threat. You're entire argument is the basic textbook Marxist rhetoric that the working class revolution is an inevitable evolution of Capitalism arising from the exploitation of the working class, etc, etc. And you are also assuming that it will be a Utopia (which is fantasy).

    You're not understanding, though -- we're not talking just about ideas, but rather the results of the empirical world. If you think that there's some kind of neutral, floating 'ideas-sphere' that automatically connects everyone's heads, you're wrong -- ideas themselves have to have some kind of social medium, and that's not always a given (especially before the Internet).

    Just being *on* the Internet requires a certain material underpinning, that of having the *time* to do it, away from work and personal life. It requires a smartphone or laptop, and Internet access. These are material conditions that not *everyone* has access to, because of the material prerequisites / logistics I just mentioned.

    You *are* acknowledging material conditions with the portion 'ideas...exist [within the system]'.

    I myself don't think that revolution is *inevitable*, though, because the *subjective factor* has to exist, too -- class struggle, or the conscious class-based politics for collective working class self-rule. Proletarian revolutions have already been done in the past, so there's a precedent for that.

    There's *no* assumption of a 'utopia' -- it's simply that the working class, and then all of humanity, will be able to collectively control social production, all without private property and/or capital.



    Yes, and everyone right of Lenin is a Nazi these days.

    You're *imputing* that -- I never said as much, nor have I implied it.



    Do you really support Antifa? They just look like violent thugs who attack people, often with weapons, for the 'politically incorrect' infraction of having a Donald Trump hat on their heads. And these are the kind of people who call themselves 'revolutionaries', so just image how violently they proceed towards dissenters if given this "monolithic control", you can see the hatred just desperately bursting to get out of them, which is why they project it all on people who disagree with them.

    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.



    Again, who is defining these parameters for what is "physical activity" and "counterrevolutionary"? And what would happen to these people if they were deemed as committing such heinous crimes?

    The point with my 'detention of counterrevolutionaries in skyscrapers' proposal is to make any vanguard-type administrative decisions over each suspected counterrevolutionary a low socio-political risk, given prevailing conditions of revolutionary upsurge -- physical actions seen by *any* active revolutionary could be enough to take action, putting the person(s) into the skyscraper(s) without any hassle. In this way the treatment of detention could be maintained as being *political* only, professional, not-personal, and being not-injurious to the alleged counterrevolutionary.



    Yes, people who work drive production.

    Okay, I'm going to *hold you to this*, since '[workers] drive production' in any (necessarily class-based) economy.



    And people who are most valuable to production are rewarded the most.

    You're attempting to use current empirical reality to *justify* your line -- it's the equivalent of saying 'might makes right' since power politics -- the state -- tends to prevail in present-day times.

    You're not advancing a thought-out political line with any justifications or rationale. You're saying that if corporate executives get paid millions of dollars every year then it's "justified" because they're 'most valuable' to production, according to market dynamics.



    You don't believe there can be an international tyranny? I mean, how do you expect to curtail the perceived 'counterrevolutionaries' without any degree of tyranny?

    Your use of the term 'tyranny' is incorrect here, because there wouldn't have to be any kind of right-wing-type power hierarchy -- things could be done in very *distributed*, aggregated ways, as I've described through the proposed functioning of my model framework:



    communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

    consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

    consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

    consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process

    ---



    In no way did what I say imply that "no one with good intentions should ever attempt anything constructive". I said that power is a corrupting force and that people will concede to tyranny in the pursuit of 'good intentions'. We tell children "don't hit", we don't say "hit wisely".

    You're continuing to speak in abstractions, entirely apart from actual (or possible) socio-political-material conditions. There's nothing 'automatic' about wielding power -- it can be used for good *or* ill, so the final determination is with specific *instances*, and not with abstractions.



    That doesn't clear up the parameters. Who says what is 'socially constructive' and what is 'for the benefit of the human organism'?

    That's exactly what a proletarian revolution is able to address, in real-world ways.



    Hitler thought the extermination of the Jewish kind was for the benefit of the human organism...

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


    ---



    Well, shouldn't the workers interests be benefitted -- ? Where do you stand on this issue, in terms of political priorities?


    Firstly; I don't accept your paradigm of who 'the workers' are.

    Workers are those who put in their labor efforts so that the larger social concern can benefit. You've already provided a satisfactory working definition:



    Yes, people who work drive production.

    ---



    Secondly; I do not believe any group should be using violence to enforce its ideology onto others, no matter what guise it buries itself in.

    But why do you direct this 'non-violence' principle at revolutionaries instead of emphasizing the *present-day* violence of the state, which you claim to be so against -- ? Violence from capitalist states is far disproportionate:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoci...genous_peoples


    Also, I'll remind that violence is just a 'means' -- it cannot overshadow the 'ends', which may be socially justifiable, or they may not be socially justifiable. (It depends on the *specifics* of each real-world instance.)


    ---



    I beg to differ. Even if you claim to not be calling for such an 'outsourcing of power', how do you propose to curtail dissent without any?

    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
    Last edited by ckaihatsu; 26th January 2018 at 20:51. Reason: 'underpinning' instead of 'unpinning'
  21. #18
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default Dissidence under Communism?

    Howdy

    All the things you just listed as what would be "new" areas of public discussion take place under capitalism, only it is decided efficiently by the market (i.e. communities are built based on what is believed the consumer will buy). If someone decides to invest in building a village of tiny wooden shacks, no one will buy them; if someone invests in building smaller affordable homes, then that accommodates a particular group.
    lol, this is objectively NOT how the market works...

    Also, as far as I understand, the market doesn’t make any decisions but merely favors or disfavors certain decisions by holders of capital. In other words, people: a tiny fraction of the population decided these things based on what they think will be favored by the market. In other words, decisions about how our productive power are owned by a small number of people.

    So your position in regards to Enfranchisement is similar to feudal aristocrats view of enfranchisement: why would yeomen want to have a say in government when the role of government is just to settle beefs between Lords?

    You talk of this 'greater enfranchisement' but where does the resolution of this enfranchisement occur, without any authority guiding that resolution?
    resolution of enfranchisement? Do you mean how are majority decisions enforced?

    Capitalism of course has experienced managers and owners that can delegate and determine the direction of things (and will be positively or negatively rewarded based on how the public reacts).
    lol, have you ever had a job? Yeah no bad managers are ever rewarded ever bwahaha.

    I’d love to hear you make a pitch to investors with these arguments: “invest in my widget because people like the widget. In my company, managers will be rewarded based on how happy consumers are regardless of profits!”

    That's a good mischaracterisation of Capitalism, but it just gives me the impression that you only understand what 'Capitalism' is based off the echo chamber of Marxist rhetoric.
    i understood initially it from two decades of working various jobs, Marxist theory just helps put that experience in a larger historical and class context.

    I think you would find that very quickly people would flock to the vestiges of Capitalist communes if you permitted them, just as the starving and oppressed East Berliner's risked everything to cross into the flourishing West.
    why would anyone stay in a repressive situation. However millions of people in the former Soviet sphere have nostalgia for Stalinism, which is pathetic and shows how easily market and state capitalisms are just lesser-evils of eachother.

    On the other hand, workers who rose up themselves in Paris, Spain and Russia battled fascist and imperial armies to the death to protect their newly founded power. In Spain it took Francois, Nazi German armies and betrayal and repression from the USSR to defeat workers power. In Paris, French workers who did not defend Bourgeois Paris against the Prussian invasion, fought block by block to stop the French military from retaking the city from the workers. In Russia, workers fought protocols-fascist generals and an invasion by a force comprised of military from most of the major powers.

    Since a working class revolution, as opposed to a coup or soviet tanks rolling in and installing people in power, requires a strong working class movement and strong conscious conviction by millions of workers, historically when worker’s power has been fleetingly established, people fight to defend it. The ones who flee are historically the upper classes. Again, they can go establish their gault’s gulch and see how well capitalism works without workers.
  22. #19
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 37
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Hey there...

    Not understanding the distinction between personal belongings and capital (personal and private property) requires some hardline willingful ignorance. If you think there is no difference between a toothbrush and a factory, you are objectively wrong. If you think you should have the right to own other people's labor, lives, etc like you have the right to own a toothbrush, you are also wrong.
    Well, I don't "not understand" the concept. I was merely enquiring as to what you believed the distinction to be. I actually do not believe there is a difference between a factory and a toothbrush in how you apply the idea of 'property'. A Factory by itself has no innate value, just as toothbrush doesn't, but both, to differing degrees can have value. To use a car for example. You could say a car, by your definition that a car fits into the category of 'personal property' (use to transport yourself, etc), but you could also use that car as a form of profit (a taxi service, delivery service, rental, etc), does it then become private property? Because you have now used it as a means of production to create capital.

    . "This is all about ideas" - well if you think that ideas coming down from thin air are responsible for the way society operates and the way social relations are constructed, you end up always speaking about abstracts - like you actually do - and getting in conflict with material-social reality.
    You think ideas do not drive society? So the enlightenment, Christianity, secularism and science has had no bearing on how the Western world has developed. Sure, these things are just abstracts...

    If I were to believe you that you actually read the Manifesto - and not just claim to have read it, like 99% of your kind do - than it is apparent that it was a waste of time, pearl before swine. Victim narrative? Do you have any idea how workers lived in that era? Clearly don't. Victim narrative my ass. Learn your history, and behold what capital did to proletarized people. Explained without evidence? People died at early ages from overwork. They were living in conditions you couldn't even imagine.
    Sadly though it is to admit, I have read Marx. In fact, when I was younger and naive, I had ascribed to the idea of revolutionary Communism myself. But then I took a cursory glance at the history of Communist regimes...
    I stand by the fact that Marx did not escape from mere ideological rhetoric in The Communist Manifesto, though I do concede that the lives of many workers during the infancy of Capitalism were that of impoverishment (though, still far better than any degrees of what was considered poverty before it). Fortunately Capitalism has matured since, and Marx's rhetoric has become outdated. Of course I would read Karl Marx, the document alone is partly responsible for in excessive of tens of millions of deaths, i would not casually toss it out.

    Also, if you had any rudimentary knowledge of history, you would also know that the workers did rise up many times. Just a few examples, because you are clearly living in a bubble: luddite movement, Gracchus Babeuf's movement, chartist movement, various unions' struggle for better wages and living conditions, various worker-centered sections of 1848 revolutions in Italy, Hungary, and German territories, 1871 Paris Commune, 1905 Russia and Hungary, 1917 Russia, 1919 Hungary, Spartakus-uprising, Council Republic of Bavaria, later Catalonia, various anti-colonial uprisings after 1945, etc etc. iPhones, hot showers and flat screen TV's? Say that vis a vis to a sweatshop worker in Bangladesh, or an average factory worker in the Eastern parts of Europe, i dare you. You know NOTHING about the real world. I wonder why the others even bother with you.
    Yes, I'm perfectly in support of people unionising for better wages, etc (so long as they don't force others to join or have a State backed monopoly as they do now in many cases). It is simply the revolutionary aspect that benefits no one. I do know history, I mean, what do the 1848 Italian revolutions have to do with Capitalism, it was against imperial rule. 1905 and 1917 in Russia, of course, capitalism was quite literally in its infancy, and was still under the waning clasp of Tsarists rule. Spartacus uprising, as you should probably know, burst out of the immediate aftermath of the first world war (started by the Government and militaristic autocrats!), which of course led to Government induced hyperinflation that led to the rise of the Nazi party during the 1920's and 30's facilitated by political instability. And yet, Marx proposes we give more power to the Government?! What he clearly did not understand is that the transitional Socialist stage is permanent because the State never relinquishes its power once you give it some.

    On sweatshop workers in the east/south. They are still developing (hence why they are called 'developing countries'). Korea used to be like China is today, fortunately the South maintained on the path of Capitalism and now it is a fully developed country like in the West, unlike the Communist North that like every other Communist regime set on the path to misery, despotism and poverty.


    They won't be needed. It may surprise you but Marx advocated for the arming of the working population.
    But you previously Stated that people who held dissenting beliefs would not be able to arm themselves? So which is it, everyone has the right or selectively it is given?

    Victim narrative - 10,000 yrs of victims of class exploitation, patriarchy, slavery, serfdom and capitalism
    10,000 years of Capitalism? What history books have you been reading, because it's no greater than 250 years old at most.

    you just can't admit to class exploitation and class war. You have to call it "group."
    No evidence? 10,000 yrs of history. The working class didn't rise up? Maybe you missed the 20th century. The Russian working class and peasants rose up and destroyed 500 yrs of Tsarist brutality. The Chinese rose up and destroyed 1,000 yrs of Chinese dynastic rule. Both revolutions were met with a century of capitalist brutality, the usual murder, rape, torture, etc., led by the great anti-communists, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Kissinger, Reagan.
    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.

    Capitalism came very close to self destruction in 1929, it had to be saved by the Keynesian welfare state (your showers and tvs). And again in 2008, saved by govt transferring trillions of tax money to the banks. One of the most lasting predictions of Marx is that capitalism, because of its internal structure and contradictions, will go into periodic crises. It is still happening before your own eyes.
    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.


    We can discuss the Communist Manifesto if you like. Post one sentence from it and tell us what you think about it. Here's two predicting globalism before anyone had heard the word:
    Is me doing this supposed to prove my readership or something? Anyway, what I mostly take issue with, besides the parasitic ideological rhetoric of victimhood and the false characterisations of Capitalism as an inherently fixed and dynastic class system (i.e. speaking of the bourgeoisie as something with a collective will, etc). And besides the fact that its rhetoric is not one of empathy for the proletariat, but merely the proletariat he uses simply to project his hatred, envy and vengefulness at the rich. Hence why most of it's proposals at the end of part two are aimed at hurting the rich, rather than benefiting the poor. It fundamentally takes a negative social action.
    It is this section at the end of part two that I find most irreconcilable, which is that he proposes to give so much power to the State in th effort to bring 'equality' that at the same time you give the State power to create inequality, and as virtually every proposal on that list has been achieved in most west European nations and to a large degree in the west in General, it has served the latter quite evidently.



    ckaihatsu

    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 understanding, though -- we're not talking just about ideas, but rather the results of the empirical world. If you think that there's some kind of neutral, floating 'ideas-sphere' that automatically connects everyone's heads, you're wrong -- ideas themselves have to have some kind of social medium, and that's not always a given (especially before the Internet).
    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.

    You're *imputing* that -- I never said as much, nor have I implied it.
    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.

    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 -- ?
    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. 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).

    The point with my 'detention of counterrevolutionaries in skyscrapers' proposal is to make any vanguard-type administrative decisions over each suspected counterrevolutionary a low socio-political risk, given prevailing conditions of revolutionary upsurge -- physical actions seen by *any* active revolutionary could be enough to take action, putting the person(s) into the skyscraper(s) without any hassle. In this way the treatment of detention could be maintained as being *political* only, professional, not-personal, and being not-injurious to the alleged counterrevolutionary.
    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.

    Okay, I'm going to *hold you to this*, since '[workers] drive production' in any (necessarily class-based) economy.
    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.

    You're attempting to use current empirical reality to *justify* your line -- it's the equivalent of saying 'might makes right' since power politics -- the state -- tends to prevail in present-day times.

    You're not advancing a thought-out political line with any justifications or rationale. You're saying that if corporate executives get paid millions of dollars every year then it's "justified" because they're 'most valuable' to production, according to market dynamics.
    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.

    Your use of the term 'tyranny' is incorrect here, because there wouldn't have to be any kind of right-wing-type power hierarchy -- things could be done in very *distributed*, aggregated ways, as I've described through the proposed functioning of my model framework:
    Tyranny is independent of the partisan nature of 'left and right'. I'm not sure why you made it a 'right wing' issue. 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. 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'.

    You're continuing to speak in abstractions, entirely apart from actual (or possible) socio-political-material conditions. There's nothing 'automatic' about wielding power -- it can be used for good *or* ill, so the final determination is with specific *instances*, and not with abstractions
    How many instance can you give where absolute power has been wielded to good ends? I can think of approximately zero.

    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.

    Workers are those who put in their labor efforts so that the larger social concern can benefit. You've already provided a satisfactory working definition:
    Yes, and there are only two categories... those who work, and those who do not/cannot work. Employers and employee's both work.

    But why do you direct this 'non-violence' principle at revolutionaries instead of emphasizing the *present-day* violence of the state, which you claim to be so against -- ? Violence from capitalist states is far disproportionate:
    Also, I'll remind that violence is just a 'means' -- it cannot overshadow the 'ends', which may be socially justifiable, or they may not be socially justifiable. (It depends on the *specifics* of each real-world instance.)
    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.
  23. #20
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default Dissidence under Communism?

    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...
    it’s impressive that a doctrine literally caused the depression - who knew that markets were so weak and feeble. It’s doubly impressive that the influential Keynesian texts weren’t published until 7 years after the depression.

    Yes, you don’t know history. Either that or you don’t know what “literally” “caused” or “doctrine” mean. Keynesian policies could be seen as ineffective in the global slump of the 1970s, this is the switch to neoliberal policies. At any rate, neoclassical, Keynesian, and now neoliberalism failed to “solve” the problems of the market... (hint: because crisis and destruction are inherent to capitalism)



    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.
    “you are entire reasoning for this...” ???

    Cars increase in value as they age? Did you mean price? Are you being sarcastic? I can’t really tell.
    Last edited by Jimmie Higgins; 29th January 2018 at 17:19.

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