|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Member (Idle past 1422 days)  Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Politics, Fantasy, and Reality | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Thats absolutely great. That really is all I ask for from you and Hambre.
quote: Perfect. Any argument I make is becuase I think its valid, not because it appears in a particular book by a particular author.
quote: Yes but. Lets say, its extremely good and healthy to make arguments from Anthropology and Sociology. It is not good argumentation to to say things like "human nature makes X impossible". Referring to "human nature", as if the term were uiversally understood in the same terms, is always pointless in my experience. So lets agree that if we think a certain characteristic of observable human behaviour is an issue, we agree to discuss that behaviour, rather than imply the behaviour through the term "human nature".
quote: It would. But NoBalls has not offered any counter evidence, and has not attempted to discuss or dissect the argument out of which this conclusion emerges. So the dogmatism is undemonstrated.
quote: Thats exactly what I am attempting to do. But, its kinda hard if the starting assumption of the other side is that I believe this stuff dogmatically, and that therefore my analysis can be discarded. That essentially is NoBalls tactic at the moment.
quote: Because history shows that that leads us back to reigns of terror and bloodbaths. If the status quo was willing to compromise, then the revolution would not have been necessary in the first place. Once the revolution is under way, then the victory of that revolution must be total.
quote: Well in the first place, I'm not sure that all of those things are universally necessary. But secondly, the point is that in order to conduct the recolution, such organs had to be constructed already. If you had to raise and move an army, feed cities, produce weapons and war materiel, then you have already developed an autonomous structure that clearly operates BETTER then the prior system. Why would we then sit down and compromise with the enemy, and reconstruct some or all of the system we just overthrew?
quote: Yes I am. Thats exactly why I think a compromise solution is a bad idea; becuase then the criticism must be, can only be, that the incumbents were morally responsible, and therefore should be subject of punishment. But that only applies if we accept the system and criticise the people - what I propose is that we change the system, i.e. not abandon the revolutionary process already undertaken.
quote: Holmes, what has PERFECTION got to do with anything? Has any argument I or Marx ever advanced mad this claim? Why do you keep attributing this stuff to my argument when nobody is making it?
quote: Well, sure - the Russian Revolution. All of 5 people died during the transition of power - the workers soviets assumed control of the railways and the telegraph offices and thus prevented the Tzarist forces from mobilising to put down the uprising. Workers took over the factories, farms et al. Of COURSE we can use these tools - as well as democratic fora such as the council of workers and soldiers deputies - to implement solutions to the kind of problems we used to use governments to solve. Would you like to explain to me what you think the mechanisms of revolution are and why they would not be suitable to these uses?
quote: Now thats the kind of thing that makes me suspicious; firstly its an argument to consequence, and secondly if you define success in bourgeois capitalist terms, its gonna be abit difficult. So what is it that you want to see?
quote: Umm, how is a discussion between Marxists propaganda? I am trying to discuss revolution with you by referring to the documentary evidence we have from prior revolutions. The point of that extract was to show an articulation of the argument that not only is the revolution demobilising itself a bad idea, its actually (we think) an impossible idea: becuase even if you thought that it would be good to stand down the revolutionary forces, YOU COULDNT DO SO. A revolution premised on the idea that the revolutionary forces will dislodge the incumbent powers and then pack up in favour of the same system with new incumbents is not at all plausible - and I think a programme of action based on this impossibility is necessarily Utopian. It cannot achieve its own goals. If you build half a revolution you dig your own grave, as they say in the classics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote:But it's okay for you to discard our criticism on the grounds that we're all right-wing racist scum who have been brainwashed by McCarthyist propaganda. Gotcha. quote:Against what evidence? You believe that Marxism is a viable political philosophy, despite the fact that the systems that have been inspired by Marx's philosophy have been responsible for as much slaughter and repression as the capitalist ones. If you have evidence that Marxism in practice promotes freedom and equality, let's see it. regards,Esteban "Marx Brother" Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: If you make a factually incorrect criticism, its factually incorrect. Nothing I can do about that to rescue your pride. All I can do is make arguments to and from the text - you could too, if you cared to. I resort to McCarthyism to expliain the curious phenomenon that Marxism is so widely misrepresented. And yes, I think the US is the most propagandised, ideologically manipulated state on the planet today. I'll make you an offer though. I will stop referring to McCarthyism, if you you agree to substantiate claims about what Marx says from Marx actual words. Or Trotsky's or Lenins or whoever you chose to quote.
quote: NoBalls, are you ever going to have the guts to enagge in this debate. YOU began this thread to DEMONSTRATE the illogic of "leftist dogma". But all you have done is say over again that this is your belief. OK, so its your belief - its got nothing to do with reality. If you want to actually persuade, or argue, you are going to have to show some sort of problem or contradiction that demonstrates your case. You are advancing the claim - you must show why you think it to be true. You say above, Marx philiosphy is responsible for much slaughter. I can easily riposte to that and say no, the state CAPITALISM in soviet Russia brought about much slaughter. Does that help anyone? Is that discussion, mere statement and counter-statement with no discussion? Quite obviously, I disagree with whatever it is that you see as cause and effect. Merely asserting your perception helps nobody at all - especially when I believe it to be false. If you think your argument is as coherent as you appear to do, trap me in a logical bind. Give me a problem that emerges from Marxism that I cannot answer. Show me a reading of Marx that I have missed, or misunderstood. Don;t persuade me - persuade the audience reading these posts. Go on, I dare you. That is what you created the thread for, right? Are you going to put up or shut up? This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-10-2004 11:16 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days)  Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
That really is all I ask for from you and Hambre. Why would you ask this of me if nowhere along the line did I say I was addressing what marx actually said on any topic? But in any case, I'm glad you're satisfied?
It is not good argumentation to to say things like "human nature makes X impossible". Referring to "human nature", as if the term were uiversally understood in the same terms, is always pointless in my experience. So lets agree that if we think a certain characteristic of observable human behaviour is an issue, we agree to discuss that behaviour, rather than imply the behaviour through the term "human nature". This is semantics. If between you and I we decide to always discuss "behavior" rather than "human nature", that's fine, but it does not invalidate other people using that term... it only depends HOW they use it. In the end my point was valid then, just we were using different defs. That happens all the time. Instead of getting freaked out and demanding you are right or stating something is not useful (because of what someone else uses as a definition for a word) just offer a term and definition.
So the dogmatism is undemonstrated. So what? Whether he has proved something is dogmatic or not, does NOT MEAN that is not what he was calling dogmatic. All I was doing was saying X is what I believe he was calling dogmatic. I then launched into my own criticism of your position, and why in the form you seemed to be describing it would be dogmatic.
Because history shows that that leads us back to reigns of terror and bloodbaths. If the status quo was willing to compromise, then the revolution would not have been necessary in the first place. Once the revolution is under way, then the victory of that revolution must be total. This seems stretched. History shows periods of violence and periods of relative peace and prosperity. Some of those times of peace and prosperity are pretty extended. The fact that it can be shown that when governments encroach too far, the people eventually overthrow the government in revolution, does not suggest that the answer is to stay in revolutionary mode to avoid governments ever encroaching again. That is to ignore the great periods of peace and stability when governments have been established. Or someone could even use your own logic and say since the longest periods of peace and stability have been under status quo, that shows we should suppress revolutions of all kinds. I think both sides are extremist and dogmatic. All history tells me is that there are periods of status quo and there are periods of violence and revolution. There are problems in revolutions when the violence is extreme and ill-considered, and there are problems in status quo governments when too much power is ceded or taken. I see no mandate for maintaining either, other than to keep both in check.
Well in the first place, I'm not sure that all of those things are universally necessary. NOTHING is NECESSARY besides food, and shelter. But that is not exactly what I find a good life. I think everything I stated is necessary for the quality of life I desire and the general growth of human culture.
But secondly, the point is that in order to conduct the recolution, such organs had to be constructed already. If you had to raise and move an army, feed cities, produce weapons and war materiel, then you have already developed an autonomous structure that clearly operates BETTER then the prior system. Why would we then sit down and compromise with the enemy, and reconstruct some or all of the system we just overthrew? This is where we begin to see the cracks in your model. A revolution requires ONLY the organs necessary to produce weapons and war material and feed those WITHIN the revolution. There is no concept, or force of neccesity, to drive any environmental or scientific programs, nor even intellectual programs beyond dogma. Neither are there concepts of oversight bodies to build infrastructure. Most revolutions, in fact all that I know of, use what was built by the "status quo" government, in a parasitic fashion (note that that is not supposed to be a morally loaded term). They do not ADD to infrastructure, except in temporary piecemeal fashion. I would add that you MUST sit down with the "enemy" at some point, unless you are commiting genocide, or going through routine purges.
if we accept the system and criticise the people - what I propose is that we change the system, i.e. not abandon the revolutionary process already undertaken. More abstract generalities. Accept the system? not abandon the revolutionary process? What in concrete terms does this have to do with the french revolution and the reign of terror? I might add I notice you completely avoided discussing how the US would have been better off sticking with a revolution and never adopting a form of government.
Well, sure - the Russian Revolution. All of 5 people died during the transition of power - the workers soviets assumed control of the railways and the telegraph offices and thus prevented the Tzarist forces from mobilising to put down the uprising. Workers took over the factories, farms et al. Of COURSE we can use these tools - as well as democratic fora such as the council of workers and soldiers deputies - to implement solutions to the kind of problems we used to use governments to solve. This does not sound quite like the actual history of the revolution, but let's say it is just for argument's sake. What you showed was a mechanism for preventing an attack against a takeover, and a takeover. Okay. THEN WHAT? You took something over, then you have to do something with it. In addition, because we are talking about large cities and nations and not tribes, whatever is taken over will have to be run in a coordinated effort with other "things" which have been "liberated", so that life can move on and go forward. Just because "the people" did it, does not mean coordination will be met through some sort of giant esp-like groupthink. Leaders and leadership councils will have to emerge, and regulations for how they work will be instated. If this is not done, there will be no coordination, and people WILL DIE (we can see this in the wonderful examples of Chinese attempts to have a permanent revolutionary structure. If such things are done, then you can call it anything you like, but it is still the establishment of a new government. And unless all the people have a voting system in that government, it will be a nondemocratic, perhaps even a nonrepublican, totalitarian system. We can see both the initial failure of poor coordination, then a rise of a totalitarian state (in the name of revolution) as it tried to establish a government without "sitting down with enemies", in the Russian revolution. The aftermath of the US revolution, and even the Civil War, did NOT see the same level of problems of mass starvation and poor productivity due to terrible miscoordination and confusion. I don't believe the French Revolution did either, but I could be wrong.
Now thats the kind of thing that makes me suspicious; firstly its an argument to consequence, and secondly if you define success in bourgeois capitalist terms, its gonna be abit difficult. So what is it that you want to see? I want to see examples of a revolution that continued to use ONLY the mechanisms/organs of the revolution to SUCCESSFULLY run the country after overthrowing the government, with no need for legal bodies or entities or compromise with the "enemy". "Successful" I will limit to good coordination of resources and programs so that people remained better off physically than under the previous system, and the nation was able to move forward competitively with other nations. And that competition does not have to be militarily or economic, but cultural and intellectual.
I am trying to discuss revolution with you by referring to the documentary evidence we have from prior revolutions. The statement by Trotsky contained absolutely no EVIDENCE of anything. It was a statement of opinion.
If you build half a revolution you dig your own grave, as they say in the classics. So if you build a revolution that never ends and never compromises, someone will dig your grave for you? That's classic. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I don't really uncerstand what you are getting at; the the thread topic is politics, fantasy and reality rather than the role of revolution in social developement. That sounds to me like it should be its own thread. Of course seeing as NoBalls and Paisono have fled the scene, I think I can confidently claim victory in this regard. These two should take tnotice that if they are not able to conduct their argument here, in a thread specifically created for the purpose, then allegations of Leftist "idealism" will not be tolerated sny further.
quote: I've never encountered "human nature" that is not ideological. I can see no use for the term myself.
quote: OK - lets examine those, then. Are you looking at "periods of peace and prosperity" as those periods characterised by the absence of an external war? Even working with that, what is the longest peace of Western history you can find that fist the criteria? Secondly, I would not accept that the absence of external war is the only indicator of peace; Fedualism was based on a perpetual and standing conflict between the nobility and the peasantry. I argue that capitalism is based on a similar hostolity, and I see neiother system as having contained a day of peace in their entire existences. The wars and revolts are merely the large scale expressions of such endemic conflict, but still, a proposal for the longest period of peace and prosperity you can find in a governed state would be an interesting exercise.
quote: You are confusing the process of revolution with the process fo war-fighting. Seeing as my proposal for war-fighting is the general strike, mist of these apparatus would not fall into the ctageory of primary revolutionary tools.
quote: Oh there are, abslutely - without such concerns, the revolution cannot command legitimacy. If the triggering crisis were say a war that is not going well, then one of the revolutionary agendas must necessarily be a position statement on the war, what the group proposes to do once in power. All of these things are just as necessary to a revolutionary movement as they are to a formal state: they contstcruc and procure legitimacy, consent and support from the public.
quote: I think that must clearly be false, becuase deomcratic parliaments are essentially the invention of revolutions. That is, the system they advocated, and employed in order to carry out their uprising, transitions into the status quo that then follow. But I fear you are still not engaging with what I meant by permanenret revolution at all, and that this may have been a topic too far.
quote: Yes I did but thats becuase you are mostly acting to semantic manipulations on "permanenent revolution" and there is still a huge gulf between our premises. The French revolution stopped being a popular force when the populace dmeobilised in favour of a new, bourgeois rather than monarchic, leadership. As I have already said, becuase this criticism is not about the place or role of government, but about the moral responsibility of the incumbents, punishment is the only viable course. But only if we accept the need for government in the first place. Similarly, the American revolution nominally sought to overthrew and interventionist parasitic state, and has replaced it with... an interventionist parasitic state. As you know in your domnestic arguments over taxes, the Republicans have recently increased the tax burden on the lower and middle classes than the top - that is, the citizens are still being taxed at the behest and befit of the lords. So the American revolution was a spectacular failure, its liberal underpinning thoroughly betrayed by the warlike and parasitic state that America has become.
quote: Of course. That's the whole point of the exercise. What do you think power is if not the capacity to exercise real control over the means of production, the necessary infrastructure, the tools and processes with which we maintain ourselves. "state" and "government" are means, not ends.
quote: Umm, of course? In th Russian context thats the soviet, or workers council. And that is the primary means of revolutionary organisaiton.
quote: Ah I see - so your argument is STILL based on the semantic conflation of any structure with government. Now in this and other threads, I have pointed out that communism des not say "no leadership", it does not say "no organisation", it does not say "no structure" nor "no large bodies". What it say is, no heirarchy, no private property, and no coercive mechanisms employed by national apparatus. If you insist on turning any group of people who get together, say, to plain the date for moving the cows into the uplands a "government", then indeed any such structure must be a "government". But that is just a word game; in every material respect the two forms of social organisation are distinct.
quote: Erm, my whole argument is that in the Russian revolution, they DID sit down with their enemies, and DID disband the revolution proper, and that is precisely why the USSR was totalitarian. But also that in the RR the permanent revolution was unacheavable, due to the failure of revolutions in other states (notably Germany). Can you explain you basis for thinking they did NOT do so? I mean, their own documentation SAYS they did, so what are you basing your analysis on?
quote: Russia was invaded by 17 foreign armies during the revolution, at the invitation of the Tzarist whites, including Americans. The White armies practicied a wholesole policy of burning the fields. Again, any thorough reading of the material conditions deals with these issues, and these issues were the very pressure that compelled the party to abandon its own methodology in the name of survival. the idea that there is a causal relationship between some sort of policy and these starvations is, I'm afraid to say, simply McCarthyist propaganda again. At the very least, if you are going to make this claim, giving some kind of discussion about what sort of problems you are referring to would help.
quote: Erm, well with the usual confusion over terms like 'legal bodies' and 'entities' I cannot respond to your request. You don't seem to follow what I am getting at at all - you seem insistent on portraying "permaqnent revolution" as something wholly different than the term suggests. Also, my argument is limited to industrial socieities, so of course the sweep of history is not available. Lets try this, then. The revolutions and civil wars that replaced sundry European monarchs sought by and large only to replace them with a better, more kindly or moral, monarch or dynasty. Inevitably, then, these actions cannot CHANGE society, but merely replace one rulership with another. The French revolution did succeed in replacing Monarchy with demoracy, for the most part. The American revolution, by contrast, replaced only one parliament with another - and one that was even explitly modelled on Rome. Even the French revolution, without a serious criticism of class rule, only resulted in forming a new ruling class, but the American revolution never even tried to avoid it. The Russian revolution was at least TRYING to avoid these fates, but failed in the attempt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
contracycle rants:
quote:Ho hum. Actually, I'm still waiting for you to present what I specifically requested: an instance of Marxism's success in the political or economic real world in fostering the freedom and independence we agree capitalism doesn't deliver. So far all we've heard is name-calling, hundred-year-old rhetoric, and your snake-oil sales pitch for an eternal revolution. We have every historical reason to suspect that this unprecedented proletariat love-in will not include freedom and independence for us right-wing racist scum and Uncle Toms and everyone else with the audacity to question your dogma. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Are you looking at "periods of peace and prosperity" as those periods characterised by the absence of an external war? I wish you had asked this before launching into your answer on an assumption. My answer is no. While absence of war is definitely "peace", our discussion was about conditions internal to a nation, and not between one nation and another. Actually this does bring up another point. In addition to being unable to properly manage resources for internal construction, a nation at eternal revolution is also unlikely to manage its resources against external enemies. Since you are a student of history you should be aware external conflicts, when they are going to be one, usually involves periods where a nation sets aside internal conflicts and adopts an almost hyper status quo situation to fight a fellow enemy.
Fedualism was based on a perpetual and standing conflict between the nobility and the peasantry. I argue that capitalism is based on a similar hostolity, and I see neiother system as having contained a day of peace in their entire existences. You can certainly make this argument, and you can even create definitions to make it undeniably true. However, according to my definition of peace and prosperity it includes "conflicts of interest" and "competition" as that always happens... even in a fully communist nation. The question is whether there is a fight or aggression between the populace and the government, or whether they are working together to complete projects and manage a status quo. Since you have defined revolution as being against the status quo, I can only assume you agree that staus quos have been managed (despite the infighting you mentioned) and they are the absence of concerted rebellion/revolution.
Seeing as my proposal for war-fighting is the general strike, mist of these apparatus would not fall into the ctageory of primary revolutionary tools. Are you telling me that in all cases the general strike will be effective? If so, then why is this the case? If not, then isn't war making and construction of war materials the only NECESSARY organs of the revolution? But as far as your claim, the mechanisms of a strike are not further construction nor coordination of materials and services for everyone else in the nation. Thus the mechanisms would not be enough to run a state. I want to add that it was YOU who mentioned fighting a war and delivering materials (not to mention troops) as an example of the mechanisms a revolution wields and so can be used to run the government.
then one of the revolutionary agendas must necessarily be a position statement on the war, what the group proposes to do once in power.All of these things are just as necessary to a revolutionary movement as they are to a formal state: they contstcruc and procure legitimacy, consent and support from the public. A position paper? Please. I am talking about the necessity of having organizations with clear lines of control which set standards, and coordinate activities. That is a proactive group and not a reactive group, and it is one with written guidelines and not grow them as you need them. Tell me how a nation in revolution will deal with an emerging outbreak of a contagious and deadly disease. Tell me how a nation in revolution will develop power (especially efficient power) to all its citizens. How about the creation of efficient means of transportation.
I think that must clearly be false, becuase deomcratic parliaments are essentially the invention of revolutions. You misunderstood me. I was saying that revolutions and revolutionary organs have historically not produced any PHYSICAL things (roads and factories etc etc) and instead have only used the ones constructed under status quo systems. They have for temporary uses, but in the end are "parasitic", rather than "creative", when it comes to physical infrastructure.
Yes I did but thats becuase you are mostly acting to semantic manipulations on "permanenent revolution" and there is still a huge gulf between our premises. Open the curtains contra. Define, and I mean CLEARLY DEFINE, what you mean by government, and permanent revolution.
Similarly, the American revolution nominally sought to overthrew and interventionist parasitic state, and has replaced it with... an interventionist parasitic state. As you know in your domnestic arguments over taxes, the Republicans have recently increased the tax burden on the lower and middle classes than the top - that is, the citizens are still being taxed at the behest and befit of the lords. So the American revolution was a spectacular failure, its liberal underpinning thoroughly betrayed by the warlike and parasitic state that America has become. This is so laughable. First of all they created a nation free of a SEPARATE parasitic state. When you leach off of yourself it is not parasitism. The current tax burden is not similar to what the revolution created. Times have changed and so has the nature of our government. Ironically in trying to address poverty and other social issues, the nation increased what you call "parasitism". It seems then that you agree with the Republicans. They'd be fine with doing away with taxation altogether if they could. The question of them shifting the burden from the rich to the poor is real. However it has nothing to do with a "failure of the revolution", but a nation (well all societies) which have not figured out how best to deal with allocations of resources, including how to generate government financial resources.
"state" and "government" are means, not ends. Anyone can agree with that statement and NOT believe in "permanent revolution". I would add that there is a vast gap between "capacity" to run a nation, and "ability" to run a nation. One has all the required elements, the other has them organized in a sufficient manner. A revolutionary movement has the capacity, but not the ability. Only some form of government has the ability.
is STILL based on the semantic conflation of any structure with government... What it say is, no heirarchy, no private property, and no coercive mechanisms employed by national apparatus. No. It is not just any structure, but a heirarchical structure. I have no interest whether private property exists or not, as there are plenty of tribal governments in history that lacked concepts of property. But yes the structures, if they are going to coordinate and manage resources will have to involve some sort of heirarchy, and they will have to have at least a small measure of coercive power. I'm trying to imagine a nation without any of the above, also having some sort of criminal justice system. How?
Can you explain you basis for thinking they did NOT do so? I mean, their own documentation SAYS they did, so what are you basing your analysis on? Oh their own documentation says so. Well plenty of creationist documentation says what they say too, that must make it accurate? The russian revolution showed increasing measures of factionalization... indeed artificial factionalization. The party created splinters within itself and then refused to deal with them and punished them. If you want to act as if these splinters were not real or that the massive pogroms against them were not real, and that that was "sitting down with the enemy", then I have no idea what you are talking about. For the Russian revolution, define who the revolutionaries were and who were their enemy. Define who they sat down with and so ended their revolution.
Again, any thorough reading of the material conditions deals with these issues, and these issues were the very pressure that compelled the party to abandon its own methodology in the name of survival. In the NAME OF SURVIVAL it had to CHANGE ITS METHODOLOGY? What is IT and why would IT need to change its methodology to anything else, if revolutionary methods are superior? I believe this is checkmate.
a causal relationship between some sort of policy and these starvations is, I'm afraid to say, simply McCarthyist propaganda again. Uhhhhh... I no like McCarthy. Me no listen to McCarthy. You full of McCarthy every time you mention McCarthy to me. If you thought I meant that there policy was to starve people, then you got me wrong. What I was saying is that the instruments of organization were so poor that starvation and poverty were the result. If you have a problem with that then you are listening to some propaganda of someone else. The fact is I handed you two examples. Russia and China. You can talk about the wars Russia had to fight in the midst of their revolution, but China's problems really began after the fighting had ceased (with outside invaders) and they tried wholly groupthink agriculture and industry. Eventually the whole methodology had to be disbanded. I believe that is even according to THEIR documentation.
Also, my argument is limited to industrial socieities, so of course the sweep of history is not available. I'm not sure why it must be limited to industrial societies, but let's assume it must. Then what you are saying is in spite of all of your claims that we must look to history for proof that you are right, all we have is a series of NEGATIVE claims. That is "look these things didn't work" and since they did not so what you say they should have done, it must be that yours is the right methodology... not because you have proof it works, only that none other has proven to work either. Of course this misses the rather vast evidence that industrial countries without revolutions have by and far much better living standards, even among the poor. While there are still inequities and issues to be resolved, it is hard to say they are not superior to the systems that they replaced. I do think many are starting to slip into authoritarian regimes in the name of security and establishment of "culture", but that is an issue with a specific government and not necessarily government at all. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: NoBalls, you claimed that Leftist politics were IRRATIONAL. Please fond some sort of reason to support this ludicrous claim. Thats what the purpose of the thread is - I didn;t start the thread, you did, please provide the rationale. As to communism specifically, you understand it so little that I don't even know where to begin asnwering your "questions"; you clearly are not familiar wnough with the topic to understand the answers. That is why it is best for both of us if you show how this argument is irrational, instead of appealing to a stupid argument to consequence. Edit: I can only conclude that in fact you have NO argument that shows Marx' (or Lenin's) claims to be illogical or internally contradictory. the fact that an attempt to implement this theory failed is not indicative that EVERY attempt will fail, any more than the failure of the first social democratic revolutions did so for democracy. This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-13-2004 11:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
contracycle said here:
quote:Marxist critiques of capitalism are one thing, but presuming to know exactly what a communist system would look like (considering what self-proclaimed communist systems actually have looked like) is quite another. Idealistic terms like freedom can and have been used by virtually every political theorist to mean whatever he intends them to mean. The fact that you have not pointed to one real-world instance of Marxism in practice, but have only dismissed all criticism as right-wing racist McCarthyist propaganda, speaks volumes about the idealistic nature of your political philosophy. quote:Unless there's some conceivable real-world falsification criteria that can be applied to Marxism, it is pseudoscientific. quote:I said no such thing. Thanks for making it clear that your argument consists solely of name-calling and misrepresentation. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: OK, great.
quote: No, it does not at all - otherwise all democracies would have defaulted back to Monarchy as soon as they encountered military conflict. But lets forget about the point for now.
quote: That is correct, but that can ALSO be the tirgger for an internal revolution - such as in Russia. That is, external war is one of the crises that is inherent to the mode of production enforced by a ruling class. External warfare is only a subset of capitalist competition.
quote: Granted. But the criticism here is that conflicts of interest between producers is qualitatively different to conflict of interest between producers and exploiters. So for example, the use of troops ti suppress a strike in support of the national economy or whatever could not occur in a communist society, as the absence of a military body prevents an exploiter group being able to enforce its will on the working majority. That is, in all class-divided societies there is a perpetual class war inn which people die; in a class-less society, that obviously can't happen.
quote: IMO that can only be a temporary arrangement in a class divided society; capitalist competition tends to increase the exploitation of the worker such that it explodes in violent resistance. In a communist society, any "government" is filled by the same people who are workers, so they necessarily work together.
quote: Quite true. Nothing mechanistically inevitable about communism at all. Capitalism can't avoid crises, but it can manage crises... arguably, mass media gives capitalism a capacity to do so it never possessed before.
quote: I can't read the future so do not know. But the general strike in Britain that compelled the state to sign the WWI Armistice even took nearly all the london police as well. My argument is we-the-people de facto have material, physical control over all the infrasrtucture of the state and can use it to achieve our goals - if we are sufficiently organised. Actual physical conflict may become necessary, but is unlikely to be a determining factor. I coinsider war-fighting to be an admission of failure, although do not rule it out.
quote: Only in reponse to your depiction if revolution as war, and only to indicate the proportional power relatins. If the revolution has overcome the opposition - by strike or war - then it is more powerful than that opposition and able to command more resources.
quote: Organisations must of course have clear lines of control, but they only recruit members if those members agree with them. If you don't discuss your claims to legitimacy, all you can be is a little clique self-important terrorists carrying acts that you see fit. If you seek to lead a popular revolution, you HAVE to do what then populace wants, and you HAVE to argue that your position is the correct one to adopt. Equally, I disagree that these lines of control must be constructed before hand. That sounds like a coup, not a revolution. Without consent, your movement is nothing.
quote: It seems to me that presumptions about what "ih revolution" mean are hampering you; I am reminded of the Monarchic criticism that a society run by democrats would be just as helpless. You do it by the same mechanism by which you seize power - direct control of the means of production,. The factories, the hospitals, the farms et al. Its merely a resource allocation problem as it would be anywhere else.
quote: OK, but I don't think its going to heklp you in the short term. The state is the representative body of the ruling class, acting to eliminate or suppress class conflict through the exercise of armed force against the populace, and enjoying legitimacy in the prevailing rulking class ideology. A permanent revolution is the maintenance of revolutionary methodology in the period subsequent to the conquest of state power.
quote: Capitalists are not workers; capitalists parasite on workers. All the Amercian revolution did was enshrine that parasitism - and one of that revolutions cardinal sins was the establishment of private property as a constitutional item.
quote: Really, not similar in what way? And the only need for taxation to address poverty is becuase our system redistributes wealth from creators to owners; that is, those social democratic systems are attempt to remedy systematic and endemic parasitism by capitalists.
quote: Yes. Just let free people produce and trade freely.
quote: Wrong IMO - that is the very purpose of modern capitalist states - to protect the wealthy, and to guard their extraction of wealth from the producing populace. All capitalist states, without exception, defend the parasitism of capitalists, and have only been compelled toexplore measures to ameliorate the poverty they create by class conflict.
quote: Do you then claim any heirarchy is a state? Is the social authgority a parent weilds over their child an example of state power? It is quite possible to have structured organs that do not have the ccoercive apparateus that define the state. The various layers of factory, local, regional and all-russian soviets were what appeared in Russia - please note, spontaneously, and not according to Marxist doctrine.
quote: Is such a thing necessary? I know it seems obvious to us, but it is not really - as you know, many tribes that you alluded to above without property rights would not have any standing legal justice system. Thats a broader argument about why we are overthrowing the state in the first place; one of my main aims is to dispose of such a system, as it is the primary means by which the state applies force for the maintance of heirarchy. And incidentally, "nation" is not an appropriate term either; communism cannot happen in one nation.
quote: How bizarre - its solid scientiifc praxis to review the notes of the experimenters, not secondary comment about those notes.
quote: You admitted above you are not a student of the revolution - I suggest you are conflating periods seperated by over a decade. Please be more precise about what factions you are referring to.
quote: I'm sure you don't. Is that, for example, the purge of Trotskyists who criticised the revolution for failing to be permanent and who were persecuted from 1927? Yes, at that point, the Bolshevik party had sat down with the enemy, instituted market practices, and assumed the coercive power ofd the state. Does that help?
[quote]
For the Russian revolution, define who the revolutionaries were and who were their enemy. Define who they sat down with and so ended their revolution.[quote]
Mostly the Kulaks, in the farming reforms which reintroduced capitalism to primary agriculture. This re-established much market-oriented praxis; furthermore the bulk of revolutionary proletarians were dead by this point, and so the revolution lost its coherence.
quote: Holmes, thats ridiculous - you are conflating a general law of revolutionary praxis with specific conditions, and you don't even know how they interact becuase you are familiar with neither. The many many problems that beset the Russian revolution arise despite the theory, not because of it - and the Bolsheviks were only partially in control for much of it. The revolutionary PRAXIS succeeded far beyond the goals of the Bolsheviks. Its an open question - even in Bolshevbik circles then and now - whether material conditions would permit the revolution to succeed, or even survive. The answer was no.
quote: Then prove it, and stop reciting McCarthy's dogma.
quote: Thats McCarthyist dogma I'm, its a gross distortion of events. Once again, you could try doing some actual research instead of just gullibly swallowing this stuff.
quote: Haha... If Russia was thought by Bolsheviks to be, becuase of its low industrial base, a bad place to try for coommunism, how bad do you think China was? China fought a ware of national liberation, more than a revolution. But even so, its an argument to consequence and indicative only of bad research - by this token I can and will point to the first and second world wars as evidence of where capitalism gets us, and the perpetual catalogue of ongoing wars and invasions that capitalism indulges in, and we can then both agree that politics is a serious business, no?
quote: Correct. That rather eats into the McCarthyist "dogmatic" argument, eh? They clearly were not so dogmatic they could not change their mind, reverse out of changes, or be selective about what changes to implement or otherwise. Remember, as mentioned before, nobody has ever advanced a claim to divine inspiration here.
quote: Becuase communism is an argument about industrial societies!!!!!! Sheesh, have you not reserached the first thing about the idea?
quote: OF COURSE!!!! Its an argument about a FUTURE organisation, not about one that is idealistically universal and happy clappy. It doesn;t mean that there is nothing to learn from history - very very far from it - but it does mean that people who demand exmaples of "a working communist society" have completely and totally failed to engage with the discussion in the first place. It is however classic MacCarthyism.
quote: That is such a non-sequitir I really do not know what you are getting at. All the modern social democracies have all the problems that Marx predicted Capitalism would bring them. The ones with the least problems are those most influenced by communist criticism.
quote: Phew, at last, a clear point of disagreement. I do think that is inhgerent to any auhtority structure, and so accept only voluntary structures. -- These messages have become hoplessly rambling and confused. I'd suggest you prppose a sub-topic and we have a disussion of that sub-topic. Or, you can ask me for a marxist perception on an issue and I will respond as best I can. Its clear to me that we are still failing to communicate in large part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I'm well aware of that NoBalls, which is why I have already corrected you once: Marx makes no such claim and specifically refutes it. So, what are you talking about? But you have not supported this groundless allegation any more than you have the others. Your Faith protects you from doubt, doesn't it?
quote: Exactly so.
quote: Not only is there no Marxist communism in practice, but here has NEVER BEEN, despite what various powers may claim for themselves. So the fact that you call for an event which is IMPOSSIBLE - marxism in a local state - and which has not yet happened - only demonstrates that you your only interest is to engage in manipulation and distortion. And the fact that you cannot demonstrate a single contradiction, error, or problem inherent to the theory only makes you looks like a shame-faced fool.
quote: Its a model; the model is based on methodologically sound observations. The failure of the rate of profit to decline would be a good indicator that there something profundly wrong with the theory, for example. Hambre, you talk a good game, but fundamentally you're just flinging shit about. Your ignirance of the theory is now confirmed; you ability to diagnose its errors, or post hoc rationalisation, is denied becuase you simply don;t know what the theory argues. You have imputed thiings to the theory that are not there; you rely on argument to consequence. all you have, and all you have ever had on this topic, is bluster and bravado. And thats why I'm so confident we'll win; if ouur opposition had anything to offer, they would have by no. But instead, all they can resort to is violence and abuse. We have you on the run. This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-13-2004 12:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
AdminNosy Administrator  Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
One more use of stupid names for others will result in a suspension (applies to contra or anyone else).
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 09-13-2004 01:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
OK, but I don't think its going to heklp you in the short term. The state is the representative body of the ruling class, acting to eliminate or suppress class conflict through the exercise of armed force against the populace, and enjoying legitimacy in the prevailing rulking class ideology. A permanent revolution is the maintenance of revolutionary methodology in the period subsequent to the conquest of state power. You were right. These definitions were meaningless generalities.
Yes. Just let free people produce and trade freely. That's spelled Utopia. There are limits to resources and limits to transportation and limites to production.
You admitted above you are not a student of the revolution - I suggest you are conflating periods seperated by over a decade. Actually I said I wasn't well studied on marx or his writings. I'm certainly not an expert on the russian revolution, but I do know a bit about it from its historical side. I would not deny that the events I talked about were separated by decades. I am not understanding why that would make a difference. You blame results of revolutions over 100 years past.
you are conflating a general law of revolutionary praxis with specific conditions, and you don't even know how they interact becuase you are familiar with neither. The many many problems that beset the Russian revolution arise despite the theory, not because of it - and the Bolsheviks were only partially in control for much of it. A law with no positive evidence besides theory is called NOT A LAW. A law with no positive evidence besides theory and when counterevidence is produced gets disregarded as "despite" rather than "because of" is called BS.
Thats McCarthyist dogma Do you know what McCartyism is and what it involves? The same shit you are shovelling, and the shovel you are using my friend. I am not reciting anything, nor am I labelling communism or marxism wrong because I think it just "is wrong", and a "dirty word", and that capitalism is the greatest invention ever. It'll stand or fall on its own just like any other system. Apparently it has never stood on its own because the conditions have never been right. That is one delicate system you got there. How you generate laws and comments like "proven in history" is beyond me and that's all I'm fighting. I don't see the tools of a revolution or a strike managing anything. By the way have you ever been part of a strike at all, or managed anything? I have, both sides, and I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
In a communist society, any "government" is filled by the same people who are workers, so they necessarily work together. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... oh please, you are killing me. You knock the idea of "human nature" and then assert that because people are workers they will work together? That statement is spelled Utopia. And if you are about to tell me that the only reason why people have conflicts is because of capitalism, or class systems, then you are really floating in the clouds man.
That rather eats into the McCarthyist "dogmatic" argument, eh? They clearly were not so dogmatic they could not change their mind, reverse out of changes, or be selective about what changes to implement or otherwise. Yeah, yeah it does, which is why I am not listening to McCarthy or spouting McCarthy. But you fail to note something, they dropped the revolution shtick of no government and put in place government organs... right? That solved the problem, right?
OF COURSE!!!! Its an argument about a FUTURE organisation, not about one that is idealistically universal and happy clappy. It doesn;t mean that there is nothing to learn from history - very very far from it - but it does mean that people who demand exmaples of "a working communist society" have completely and totally failed to engage with the discussion in the first place. Asking for evidence is avoiding discussion and being McCarthyistic? What a bunch of garbage. YOU claimed there were laws. YOU claimed there was mountains of historic evidence to back your claims. All I did was ask for positive evidence. That is what is required for support of a theory... especially one that could be called a law. Unless you are going to go work for the Discovery Institute, negatives claims aren't going to get you anywhere. If you want to say, look at all these failures, maybe here is a way to get around them, and then deal SPECIFICALLY with the problems people bring up, that's fine. Saying, look at all these failures that is proof my system is right and to question it is McCarthyism, is not fine. It is BS.
and so accept only voluntary structures. ALL governments are voluntary structures. ALL revolutions are people no longer volunteering to stay in the original structure and trying to establish a new one. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Holmes, if those are generalities, can you provide anything specific?
quote: I didn't say there were NOT, did I? Please address the argument I make.
quote: *BOGGLE* Erm, well, the major players change, proportional power changes, and the current ideological argument changes. But I guess this degree of realism is threatening to your cartoon-like "analysis" of communism.
quote: But there is plenty of positive evidence; the RR went off much as Marx had predicted. Certainly, not other extent theory of social evolution comes even close.
quote: Yes.
quote: But why then are you resorting to McCarthyist propaganda such as: communism is characterised by a big state; communism is Utopian; communism suppresses individuality; communism is a dogma. When and if you are prepared to abandon these nonsense an propagandist assumtpions than I will agree you are not simply a mouthpeice for McCarthy's ghost. Otherwise, if you insiste on disseminating falsehoods without even doing enough reserach to back them as legitmiate opinion, I can only call you "liar".
quote: Yes - and no. The theory worked. The revolution was correctly described. The communist party kicked into gear and provided a huge input to the process. The RR validated the theory completely. But becuase you insist on seeing it as a proposal of utopian government rather than a model of social evolution, this is not sufficient for you. Thus you impose invalid black/white criteria of manifest destiny and fail to acknowledge that evolution is a start-stop process.
quote: Well what am I supposed to do with that. You don't see it. Apparently you don't believe it is possible for a strike committee to raise money for its members. Or to organise a picket. Or to send delagates ot other groups of workers, or procure support. I really do not understand what our problem is here.
quote: WTF? Are you locked in violent struggle with your co-workers, red in tooth and claw? I work in a company of 60-odd thousand, and to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever killed anyone over a parking space. OF COURSE people can work together, our very society depends on it daily.
quote: Your apparent description of non-Utopian reality is blatant fiction, and I can't imagine why you want to pretend that people are inherently incapable of cooperative behaviour. And you presume to appeal to human nature for this lunacy? Puh-leez.
quote: Then I' suggest you stop spouting McCarthy. I am waiting.
quote: It solved some of the immediate problems of survival. It did not solve the situation in any meaningful sense. But then again I'm not applying a Utopian view of the realities in Russia, in the midest of the first world war and pretending it should all be organised like an afternoon tea-party.
quote: Asking for evidence of things the theory does not claim is deliberately manipulative, yes. If you were not engaged in replicating propaganda, then one would expect you to enquire about the theories ACTUAL claims and arguments.
quote: Aha. Now I can answer that becuase it does not ask manipulative questions. The evidence is in the archeiology and sociology of social change. The theory of class rule, and the transitions of societies, are heavily supported by anthropological and archeological research. So much so in fact that for example Timothy Earl's "Bronze Age Economics" contains not a trace of apparent Marxism but reads like a Marxist text from the turn of the last century. The structural/political model that Marx proposed to explain class rule, the construction of legitimising ideologies, and the process of transition between them are now firmly established. In order to demonstrate that Marx theory is badly wrong, you would need to tackle the bulk of this data. you would need to explain, for example, the distribution of animal bones in Peruvian villages and why only the inferior cuts are apparently consumed in the locus in which the animal is butchered. Or why Hawaii develop a specific symbol of kingship in the feathered cloak, both of which are discussed in Earls work. And it is exactly because this theory is so robust that the likes of Hambre are reduced to argument to consequence and the propagation of outright falsehoods.
quote: But I can't! Every time I do so you claim its nothing but Marxist propaganda!
quote: But I'm not saying that at all: I'm saying, look at these lies, some reason needs to be given to explain why otherwise well intentioned people expound lies. There is no denying there was starvation in Russia. The McCarthyist prescription that that was BECAUSE of Marxist policies is just stupid propaganda that completely fails to take into account the material conditions.
quote: Really, you think government is a voluntary structure? OK, try witholding your taxes, dodging the draft, or contravening the states law. You'll rapidly discover its NOT voluntary at all; indeed, if they were voluntary, he provision of the 2nd amendment in the US constitution would be senseless. And is there any reason to think that they are voluntary? What states in historical terms have been voluntary? Going back as far as Mespotamia and Egypt, we see military kings. And of course, therefore endemic and perpetual war. In the modern period, we have a mythology of the voluntary, democratic state: but when push come to shove, the state asserts its right to expend human life, to conscript, to execute, to imprison. These states are in FACT no more voluntary than any other, and all of them are protection rackets. Start dealing with the FACTS and you'll get on with Marxists just fine. This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-14-2004 04:56 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
contracycle Inactive Member |
I see. Name-calling is unpardonable but racism was cool and the admins saw no need to remark or intervene. That must be the deluxe, high-end, plush and double-sided moral standard.
If this is to be applied then I must ask that alleged criticisms of Marx argument be restricted to Marx actual argument as well. It's well established here that atheists can and will resort to quoting biblical passages, or scientific articles, to make their case. In arguments about the moral or logical contradictions of the biblical claim, nobody feels any compunction about going to the actual sources. I want the same to be applied here. I have now shown several of Hambre's claims to be false, based either on ignorance or lies. I charitably assume ignorance, but none of this would be necessary if people would only make arguments to and from the actual argument as it exists, instead of the version that was popularised in the American mainstream (what I refer to as "AirWolf communism"). If stupid names are impermissable, then deliberate distortions should also be impermissable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
