Politics, Fantasy, and Reality

All of the revolutions that were mentioned, including the French one, had BOTH themes and some measure of cult of personality. This does not change the fact that ALL of them worked to remove a corrupt autocracy of some kind. Not only do I agree with this, doesn't it just make sense that this is how it would HAVE to work? For a revolution to work, it would require commitment to change and an organization. Commitment requires some background belief that motivates one to action. Organization means someone will have to move up the chain to command and powerful leaders begin to emerge.You make these things sound like criticisms, when it should just be an acknowledgement of how things have to work in social entities when change becomes important for those within it. Actually it doesn't teach us anything about HOW to do something. That would be accomplished by studying propaganda or other mechanisms of popular movements which occur as much in established governments as it would in a revolution.And I have to disagree with your (and Hambre's) general cynicism with revolutions. Okay I agree that they should NOT be the dogmatic solution to every problem. But they do serve a purpose.To point out that the resulting governments go on to become as oppressive as former governments does not mean that the revolutions were not worthwhile.If anything, what that suggests is (and Jefferson noted this) revolutions may always be necessary from time to time, or that once your revolution is over everyone must make very sure how the next government operates so that a new revolution will not be necessary.For all the criticism of revolutions, the governments must stand just as much criticism. Shall we then throw away government?I view it all as a cautionary tale. Don't rely on either as the solution to the problems of life.This message has been edited by holmes, 09-09-2004 05:36 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I hear what you are saying, but most revolutions (IMHO) are centered around one theme or a cult of personality. For the Bolsheviks it what centered around Marxism and Lenin,

---

My analysis of the historical events is very different indeed. In the first place, the RR was not triggered by the Bolsheviks, nor were the Bolsheviks the numerically or ideologically dominant faction, NOT EVEN among the grouping of revolutionary organs.Thus, what is the basis for attributing the revolution per se to the Bolsheviks in the first place, and describing a causal relationship between Bolshevik ideology and the cause of the revolution? Is there any, or is that just a projection back onto the event?There is no support for this argument at all IMO.This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-09-2004 06:13 AM

quote:

---

That's the same thing that libertarians and free-market hypercapitalists say, but that doesn't make it any less pie-in-the-sky just because you claim Marxism is a more valid philosophy than laissez-faire.

---

Correct, and I am glad you are able to acknowledge that. Hopefully that should put to rest any allegations that Marxism is the advocacy of the big state. That claim is demonstrated to be proagandist misrepresentation.

quote:

---

Marxism is pseudoscientific, as evidenced by its inability to formulate testable predictions as well as the post-hoc rationalizations of its adherents in the face of its demonstrable shortcomings.

---

Marxism has many testable predicstions: that cpaitalist competition necessitates armed conflict; that capitalist economies go through periodic crises; that in the face of crisis, the bourgeois response is to increase exploitation of the proletariat; that capitalist entities necessarily rely on the cult of personality and Utopian arguments, all of which have been verified. THere are some more subtle predictions too, such as Engels remark, on seeing the choking, polluted cities of England, that all the developed world had to offer the undeveloped was the same misery.

quote:

---

If we can't claim that, for example, the old Soviet Union testifies to problems with Marxism (since you claim that state communism isn't a valid demonstration of true communism), then you can't claim that America is an example of capitalism's woes. The capitalists could merely repeat your claim that state capitalism is not true capitalism, and why would we have any more reason to accept their word than yours?

---

In fact I did not say that the USSR was state communism; I said that it was state capitalism. Laissez fair advocates do criticise the state, but I charge they do so hypocritically as at root they all rely on the state to guarantee private property. Marx predicts that the union between capitalist-advocates and the militaristic state is an inherent one.Furthermore, the failure of the USSR does not and did not invalidate Marx predictions as to the course of revolution. The possibility for a notionally communist revolution to install a bourgoeis state both appears in Marx argument and as a real debate within the Bolsheviks. Thus, I have a sound basis for saying that lasissez-fair economists position on the state is a false one, as their own theory depends on its existance for all the rhetoric about freedom, and that the Marxist criticism of the USSR is entirely valid in terms of its theoretical anlysis.

quote:

---

Let's recall that Marx's translation of Hegel's dialectics did indeed call for a dictatorship of the proletariat, the final post-revolution synthesis of political and economic power. In the absence of class struggle, this dictatorship was supposed to wither away as the society reorganized according to principles of egalitarianism and cooperation. It's not surprising that no communist society has made it to this Promised Land, since governments (let alone dictatorships) never operate for any other aim than self-perpetuation.

---

You have clearly not read, or mis-read, Marx in this capacity.Marx absolutely does not say that the dictatorship of the proletariat withers away - he says that the state apparatus used by the dictatorship of the proletariat as a tool during the transition from socialism to communism withers away. But the dictatorship of the proletariat is the permanent state of the communist society - the direct control of the means of production by the people.This claim is factually false, and its conclusion therefore falls. HOWEVER what you significantly elide is Marx' own discussion of the unwillingness of a ruling class to vacate rule unless impelled from below. It is precisely BECAUSE such a government will refuse to resign that a bourgouis revolution, which seeks to change the FORM of the state, is inadequate to the pursuit of communist goals - the failures of the French and American revolutions are precisely the template to be avoided. All thoise revolutions can only construct a new reuling class, and that is exactly what they did - freedom requires the abolition of a ruling class by instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat - that is, rule of the people, by the people, for the people.

quote:

---

Revolution is the opium of the dogmatist. We're supposed to forget that the American Revolution led to the megacorporate capitalism that needs to conquer the world for garbage dumps, slave labor and rubes to whom it can shill its wares.

---

No we are supposed to REMEMBER that and not make the same mistakes. That is exactly why Communist theory of revolution was developed - to explain why the American and French revolutions had so spectacularly failed to bring about a real popular democracy.

quote:

---

We're not supposed to recall that the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and produced that paragon of egalitarianism, Napoleon.

---

As above, that is EXACTLY what we are supposed to remember, and act upon.

quote:

---

And we can't even mention the Russian Revolution, which led to a disastrous economic program that starved millions and a maniacal tyranny that crushed dissent mercilessly.

---

Except thats nonsense post-facto rationalisation and McCarthyist propaganda.

quote:

---

You say you want a revolution? Count me out.

---

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Running through this ill-informed diatribe about the problems of revolution is a presumption that Marxist theory contains something it does not: advocacy of revolution. Marx observes that revolutions happen; he predicts capitalist societies will experience periodic crises brought about by capitalist competition, and that revolutions are part of the life-cycle of capitalist entities. Thus, Marx does not recommend revolution, he diuscusses how to respond to it and how to act in the face of revolution. You may wish not to have to deal with a revolution, but your wishes are irrelevant - only the decisions of the powers that be can triggger a revolution, and you have no control over that. As Mao observed, once the avalaunche is in motion, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.Now at the beginning of his post MrHambre states that he wanted to deal with the wishful thinking and post hoc rationalisation he sees in leftist argument - and yet, Hambres argument is manifestly ignorant of what Leftist argument actually is, what the conclusions are, or what factors are taken into account. MrHambre is criticising and IMAGINARY Marxism, one that exists not in the real world but only in the wishful thinking of knee-jerk critics.Please note this is not a personal criticism. I'm well aware that the American discrourse on Marxism bears no relation to the actuality and instead is composed almost entirely of fictions drawn from McCarthyist propaganda.This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-09-2004 06:41 AM

quote:

---

On the other hand, when you try to reverse the order in society by overthrowing the establishment, then anarchy ensues followed by a sometimes tyrranical rule by the strongest and most violent hand. This is what happened in the French and Russian revolutions.

---

But that is NOT the Marxist argument at all. The Marxist argument is that WHEN capitalist societies collpase into revolution under their own weight, we have a choice: either rebuild the society in the same way, and look forward to going through all this again, or to try and solve the problems we see and rebuild society in a new way.Your depiction sort of applies to the French revolution, but most ceertainly does not apply to the Russian revolution. The Russian monarchy collapsed due to its own inefficiency - the Bolsheviks were merely one group arguing that the appropriate response was NOT to reconstruct that monarchy.

quote:

---

As for Contracycle's idea that a NON GOVERNMENT could ever work is, well, retarded. The book Lord of the Flies, although fiction, is a perfect example of how NON GOVERNMENT fails. As long as there are people who are imperfect, there will arise an equilibrium between freedom and authority, but there will never be freedom without authority.

---

I say "childish baloney" to that. Human societies existed without heirarchy and government for about 100,000 years: the advent of heirarchical societies is particular, just like the developement of a tool. Claims to "human nature" can be ignored as Utopian, especially when they ignore so much of the reality of human existance.

quote:

---

If you've not read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, contracycle, I'm sure you'd like it.

---

I believe so, many years ago as a nipper.

I have already touched on the Marxist analysis of revolution somewhat, but I find it kinda amusing that this conversation is occurring. Because it is this very conversation - why revolutions come about, what they produce, why they so-often reconstruct the society they overthrew - that forms the basis of the Marxist analysis, and why Marxism cxontains a highly developed theory of revolution, social chnage, and the power dynamics of ruling classes.The sad thing about it is that th contemporary participants disucssing it are NOT referring to this very sound piece of analysis, and so here we are re-inventing the wheel a hundred plus years later.

quote:

---

Not only do I agree with this, doesn't it just make sense that this is how it would HAVE to work? For a revolution to work, it would require commitment to change and an organization. Commitment requires some background belief that motivates one to action. Organization means someone will have to move up the chain to command and powerful leaders begin to emerge.

---

Exactly so; this is why Marxism criticises Anarchism for being Utopian. "Smash the state" is not a programme of action. Developing a purposeful group of people, with the organisational capacity inherent to the proletariat as a class, that operates with a consciousness of history and political cause and effect, is a requirement of a revolution that seeks to bring about a real change in society. It's precisely becuase bourgeois revolutions have not exhibited this concsiousness, but for example have instead often been driven by arguments to "rights" or "human nature" or "gods creation" that they have been insufficiently methdologically effective to achieve their own goals.That, then, is the role of the communist revolutionary party: to act as the vanguard of the proletariat, providing an organised and sound methodology and critique during the chaos of revolution proper.

quote:

---

If anything, what that suggests is (and Jefferson noted this) revolutions may always be necessary from time to time, or that once your revolution is over everyone must make very sure how the next government operates so that a new revolution will not be necessary.

---

Yes. Or rather, in the formulation I favour, the revolution as carried out by the populace must become PERMANENT, the new mode of social operation, rather than retiring from the stage and giving control of society to a new ruling class.

Don't mistake me for supporting your position over Hambre's. The above statement is exactly why your marxism is as Utopian as any Anarchist position.Rights and Human Nature (I can't speak for God's creation) are pretty good arguments to use against an autocracy and are hardly "bourgeois".Indeed, the problems have come AFTER such revolutions when jerks with ideological bents forget about rights in order to maximize the ideology. Oh I see, communist revolutionary organization, methodology, and critique is inherently superior? And that is when Hambre's criticism hits a bullseye. Permanent revolution means only permanent distraction from actual living. It is an opiate for the dogmatist in that concentrated form.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Rights and Human Nature (I can't speak for God's creation) are pretty good arguments to use against an autocracy and are hardly "bourgeois".

---

Are rights demonstrable materially? Is "human nature"? Thos are all ideological positions.All you are doing is asserting that something is ideologiucal - you are makiong exactly the same error that theists make when they assert science is a belief.

quote:

---

Indeed, the problems have come AFTER such revolutions when jerks with ideological bents forget about rights in order to maximize the ideology.

---

So don't stop.

quote:

---

Oh I see, communist revolutionary organization, methodology, and critique is inherently superior?

---

Yes. Becuase they are non-Utopian, materially derived, and historically validated. All Anarchism has to offer is another bloodbath.

quote:

---

And that is when Hambre's criticism hits a bullseye. Permanent revolution means only permanent distraction from actual living. It is an opiate for the dogmatist in that concentrated form.

---

No, it means living as a free person. You yourself acknowledge that the problems come AFTER a revolution; the solution therefore is to keep operating in the mode in which you conducted the revolution. After all, if you were powerful enough, organised enough, purposeful enough to brush aside the state, you are also sufficiently capable of running society.Your response is contradictory and based largely on semantic counterpoints. Its not adquate to construct criticisms based on manipulating jargon and launching groundless allegations of Utopianism - especially as what you are crticising is essentially a developed and reserached version of your own argument.Edit: and furthermore, its clear that MrHambre is not particularly well equipped to level his criticism, as his description of Marx text is blatantly innacurate.This message has been edited by contracycle, 09-09-2004 11:13 AM

quote:

---

Thus, what is the basis for attributing the revolution per se to the Bolsheviks in the first place, and describing a causal relationship between Bolshevik ideology and the cause of the revolution? Is there any, or is that just a projection back onto the event?

​

There is no support for this argument at all IMO.

---

You may be right. I am not an authority on Russian history, and I tried to offer these only as an opinion from someone with limited knowledge of the events. My views on the RR may very well be colored by the ultimate outcome many years later. My memory is a little hazy, but I do seem to remember that the Bolsheviks only came to power after the Czarist government was overthrown. Would you say then that there were multiple factions with different ideologies all striving to overthrow the Czar?Another issue that seems to come to mind is the rise of the Nazi Party and Adolph Hitler. World War I ruined the autocracy in Germany, acting like other revolutions at the time that threw out autocracies in other countries. Is the rise of the Nazi party, through nationalism and fascism, somewhat like the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia after a power vacuum was created there?

No to the first, Yes to the second. I'm uncertain how you can say there is no such thing as demonstrable "human nature" and then cite Marx. His entire theory rests on human nature.Rights are not an ideological position. They are a description of what you are claiming for yourself. I guess if you believe God gave them to you and so that is why you are fighting for them... then THAT would be ideological. This is the dogmatic position I believe Hambre was suggesting. Unless you are going to never settle down to BUILD something, then I guess revolution all the time makes sense.But it makes no sense to me, and seems contrary to actually living life. One does not have to despise and seek to over throw others as a lifestyle in order to keep the yoke off.And I am still nonplussed with suggestions that a MARXIST system is not getting a whole other yoke placed on me. You may call it a permanent revolution, but it sounds like a government of constant purges to me. First of all, let's avoid the anarchist thing. I AM an Utopian Anarchist, and I ADMIT it is an unreachable state. It does NOT have to be a bloodbath, but in the end it won't be very functional. So we can skip a debate on anarchy and focus on Marxism.Other than those assertions above, I have not seen anything beyond Utopian monologue, pie in the sky solutions, and no historical validation EXCEPT MAYBE at the local level. Yes I acknowledged problems come after the revolution. I guess you missed the part where I acknowledged that permanent revolutions... never settling on a government... were equally problematic. NO. And perhaps this is your problem. You actually think that the mechanisms necessary to tear down a government's control are the same mechanisms for building/running a society? Of that an ability in using the first set of mechanisms shows one has an ability to use the second?It takes different mindsets and methods to build and run a society. You know I really don't see one actual argument in there. It's all ad hominem, or assertion. If you want to attack mrH then write him, not me. Also, I could care less if his or your Marx "knowledge" is completely accurate. I am uninterested in debating what Marx did or did not exactly say.I am more interested in the topic of revolution as a mechanism for change, and whether it is necessary or self-defeating.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

You may be right. I am not an authority on Russian history, and I tried to offer these only as an opinion from someone with limited knowledge of the events. My views on the RR may very well be colored by the ultimate outcome many years later. My memory is a little hazy, but I do seem to remember that the Bolsheviks only came to power after the Czarist government was overthrown. Would you say then that there were multiple factions with different ideologies all striving to overthrow the Czar?

---

There were several groups in Russia that were active during the long fall of Tzarism from 1905 to 1917. The biggest were:
Narodniks - popular peasant grouping
Mensheviks - popular proletarian grouping
Social Revolutionaries - social democratic/bourgeois group
The Cadets - bourgeois reformists
The Bolsheviks - proletarian grouping
... plus sundry other smaller groups.At the moment at which Tzarist legitimacy was lost - the firing on the crowd lead by Father Gapon - the Bolsheviks were the smallest of these major groups, as I recall, with the Mensheviks being the biggest. The Bolsheviks eventual, rather than initial, rise to dominant revolutionary faction came about on the basis of their ability to articulate and implement a programme of action, and for making good calls in the heat of the moment. There was no conspiracy.

quote:

---

Another issue that seems to come to mind is the rise of the Nazi Party and Adolph Hitler. World War I ruined the autocracy in Germany, acting like other revolutions at the time that threw out autocracies in other countries. Is the rise of the Nazi party, through nationalism and fascism, somewhat like the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia after a power vacuum was created there?

---

Erm, yes and no. Yes, inasmuch as both Bolsehviks and Nazi's do fill a sort of power vaccuum, but we are really talking about a crisis of legitimacy. The German state still commanded the means of coercion it had controlled before, the army and police, but had lost command of popular consent. Essentially, Bolshevism and Nazism are the two main responses to the collapse of social democratic legitimacy, for whatever reason. The two outlooks on the world and society are diametrically opposed of course, and founded on different principles; BUT Nazisms reliance on easy Idealisms such as Volk and Vaderland can make it attractive, especially in the context of declining confidence in the status quo. It's also much less challenging to the bourgeoisie than socialism, as it does not threaten property rights et al, so usually garners quite a lot of support, wealthy and empowered support. Nazism is best seen as a reformist bourgois political front; Nazism rose to power much more by co-opting the existing system than by bringing it crashing down, as the Russian revolution did.It is correct to see them both as the main outcomes of a crisis in a social democracy; they are the counterpoint trends that social democracy has birthed. But it is not correct to see their material conditions or strategic actions as even similar.

quote:

---

I am more interested in the topic of revolution as a mechanism for change, and whether it is necessary or self-defeating.

---

Holmes, thats fine, but then do not resort to accusing a proposition, such as that of permanent revolution, by assuming stupid things like it means never stopping to build anything. If you are going to react in a knee-jerk way to the terminology merely becuase of its marxist origin, then we cannot have any discussion.

quote:

---

No to the first, Yes to the second. I'm uncertain how you can say there is no such thing as demonstrable "human nature" and then cite Marx. His entire theory rests on human nature.

---

Because "Human Nature" is ideologically determined. According to a Christian, its Human Nature to be born with original sin. If you construct a political programme based on the presumption of Original Sin, it cannot be anything other than Utopian. All arguments to human nature, without exception, are Idealistic - and Marx' argument is most certainly NOT based on any such argument about human nature at all. Its an argument about the structure of scoiety.

quote:

---

This is the dogmatic position I believe Hambre was suggesting. Unless you are going to never settle down to BUILD something, then I guess revolution all the time makes sense.

---

WHY do you say its dogmatic? You are saying that before we have even discussed it; you are using that accusation to avoid discussing it. I cannot debate with you if you are going to perpeptually demand I concede all ground to your presumptions as a starting point.How and why is it dogmatic? Do you even know who coined the term, or when? No you probably don't - you just DOGMATICALLY accuse it of dogmatism.

quote:

---

And I am still nonplussed with suggestions that a MARXIST system is not getting a whole other yoke placed on me. You may call it a permanent revolution, but it sounds like a government of constant purges to me.

---

Well then why don't you ask "what do you mean by permanent revolution" rather than imposing a meaning for the phrase on me, then attacking that straw man of your own invention?Lets try this, then: the failure of the American revolution was not in small part due to the fact that it conceded to a narrow group the power to create the constitution. If the revolution had instead stayed in place, rather than demobilising itself and appointing a government, this would not have happened. The American revolution won the day... and then quit. And the state that it built is thus extremely reactionary.Thus my argument is that we must not just overthrow a status quo to replace it with another one - we must replace this stultifying and remote society with one in which we are engaged, involved, purposeful, productive.Whats so wrong with that? Why do you insist on twisting this into "purges"? For there to be a purge, you need state authority and power, and the legitimacy to decide who can live or die - that is the very opposite of a permanent revolution.

quote:

---

Other than those assertions above, I have not seen anything beyond Utopian monologue, pie in the sky solutions, and no historical validation EXCEPT MAYBE at the local level.

---

But thats not suprising seeing as you are dogmaticlly hostile to any marxist terminology. I reckon if I made exactly the same argument without marxist jargon, you would not insist on spinning things like permanet revolution into purges. If you won't look at the historical record, if you will not read what I write without distorting it, then no its not surprising.

quote:

---

NO. And perhaps this is your problem. You actually think that the mechanisms necessary to tear down a government's control are the same mechanisms for building/running a society? Of that an ability in using the first set of mechanisms shows one has an ability to use the second?

---

Yes exactly. Because they are the same mechanisms, and the same techniques.

quote:

---

It takes different mindsets and methods to build and run a society.

---

Why?What are they?Are you going to get past simply stating your views and reach the point of trying to explain your views? Are you ever going to make an argument to history to support your views?

quote:

---

If you want to attack mrH then write him, not me.

---

You were citing him, I responded. But I'm quite confident that mrH will not in fact engage with this thread - I suspect he's far too comfortable "knowing" what marxists think than actually discussing what marxists think with marxists. He might get his reassuring delusions punctured, and that would be a terrible, terrible thing. For similar reasons, I'm not expecting any input from Paisano either.

quote:

---

Also, I could care less if his or your Marx "knowledge" is completely accurate. I am uninterested in debating what Marx did or did not exactly say.

---

So you claim, and yet you leap on the opportunity to criticise any bit of marxist jargon, even before you know what the jargon refers to. And you claim not to be interested in what Marx said, and yet seem willing to accept any criticsm of Marx even if its fictional. I think I'm perfectly entitled to point out when Hambre is factually mistaken, and if you are levelling a criticism based on Hambre's error, then demonstrating that error undermines your criticism."To imagine that it is the business of Social Democrats to enter a provisional government and lead it during the period of revolutionary-democratic reforms, fighting for them to have a most radical character, and relying for this purpose upon the organized proletariat and then, after the democratic programme has been carried out, to leave the edifice they have constructed so as to make way for the bourgeois parties and themselves go into opposition, thus opening up a period of parliamentary politics, is to imagine the thing in a way that would compromise the very idea of a workers’ government. This is not because it is inadmissible ‘in principle’ putting the question in this abstract form is devoid of meaning but because it is absolutely unreal, it is utopianism of the worst sort a sort of revolutionary-philistine utopianism." - Leon TrotskyThis message has been edited by contracycle, 09-10-2004 05:25 AM

quote:

---

MrHambre is criticising and IMAGINARY Marxism, one that exists not in the real world but only in the wishful thinking of knee-jerk critics...I'm well aware that the American discrourse on Marxism bears no relation to the actuality and instead is composed almost entirely of fictions drawn from McCarthyist propaganda.

---

The truth is that there's only imaginary Marxism to criticize. It exists in the wishful thinking of its adherents, and nowhere in the real world. Just like Christianity, there are as many concepts of communism as there are communists, and every one is based on the dogmatist's selective reading of history. You've done nothing but quote from your holy books and your saints, as if the events of the last hundred years would not have altered their analysis. You tell us Marx's observations were testable predictions, and that his writings contain a program for post-capitalist society that it manifestly does not. You tell us our opinions are irrelevant, since the objective truth can only be your interpretation of your chosen dogma. And most insultingly, you assume that the only reason we don't share your fanatical faith or respond to your tired rhetoric is because we're right-wing racists brainwashed by McCarthyist propaganda.regards,
Esteban "Comrade" Hambre

quote:

---

The truth is that there's only imaginary Marxism to criticize. It exists in the wishful thinking of its adherents, and nowhere in the real world.

---

NoBalls, you're not doing yourself any favours. In this thread, you are supposed to be ARGUING that that is the case, not merely ASSERTING it is the case. But I suspect that you have no alternative but to state and restate your assertions becuase you believe them, as a faith, but do not understand them. And that is why you cannot explain them.Once again, Capitalist ideaology is Idealistic. In its cosmography, Communism is Satan, and its snakish head must be crushed. NoBalls can make no argument to history, offers no analysis, and refuses to engage in any debate. He has, in short, no credibility, But like a True Believer, he preaches and rants and appeals to the heavens and damns us all to hell.

quote:

---

Just like Christianity, there are as many concepts of communism as there are communists, and every one is based on the dogmatist's selective reading of history.

---

Show that. I mean, seeing as this is never claimed to be an Inspired text, there is no reason to expect it would not be heavily interpreted. But you claim the use of selective history - show it. Its much more prevalent in Capitalist theology; for example, the role of communism in bringing the first world war to en end is largely elided in most western state histories. None of the respondants on this topic show much familiarity with the course of the Russian revolution at all but instead resort to a sort of Disney reduction.You've made your charge repeatedly - start showing why there is any reason at all to take your wild ranting seriously.

quote:

---

You've done nothing but quote from your holy books and your saints, as if the events of the last hundred years would not have altered their analysis.

---

I see no reason to believe that the last hundred years would have altered Marx analysis at all - what has happened is pretty much what he expected, I would think. Excpet, of course, there is the well known fact that Marx did not expect a revolution in Russia - and that was much discussed by the Russian communists.But of course, you choose to ommit that historical fact in order to make your pathetic analogy to theism, don't you NoBalls? Your argument is structurally identical to most of creationism - the deliberate ommission of disconfirming evidence.

quote:

---

You tell us Marx's observations were testable predictions, and that his writings contain a program for post-capitalist society that it manifestly does not.

---

Erm, I NEVER said that Marx work contains a "progranmme for post-capitalit society" because Marx specifically refused to provide such an outline. His position that only the people who had passed through the social revolution would be in a position to make that analysis.

quote:

---

You tell us our opinions are irrelevant, since the objective truth can only be your interpretation of your chosen dogma.

---

Thats nonsense, Hambre - as you keep demonstrating, you don't know enough about Marx work to give ANY interpretation. If you would like, for example, to provide a piece of text and propose an interpretation of it, I would be happy to discuss it with you, but I'm sure that would be far too rigorous and evidence-based to survive your preconceptions.I have told you, and correctly, that criticisim communism on the basis of X, when communism never says or advances X, is grossly dishonest. Yes its true there can be conflicting interpretations - and we can discuss them. But you have not presented any for discussion - you have only made FACTUALLY incorrect claims about the actual text. That only shows you have not done basic reading.

quote:

---

And most insultingly, you assume that the only reason we don't share your fanatical faith or respond to your tired rhetoric is because we're right-wing racists brainwashed by McCarthyist propaganda.

---

Pretty much. You don't much like your own abuses thrown back at you, do you? The FACT of the matter is the American dogma demonstrably misrepresents Marx; the only surprising element is that so many people who in any other field would do some basic research before opening their mouths and making fools of themselves do NOT do so in this case. Its quite clear from your mistakes that you have obnly ever read second hand accounts of Marx work, and yet you arrogantly presume to be able to determine that its "idealistic". You. Don't. Know.This is your thread, Hambre. The topic is Politics, Fantasy, and Reality. So far your attempts to show that Marxism is a fantasy have backfired, becuase in fact the view of Marx you are relying on is a fantasy. If you are willing to engage with the REALITY, I'm more than happy to meet you half way.But the fact that you have not made a single argument to or from evidence speaks volumes, doesn't it?

If you are going to react in a knee-jerk way to everything just because it's origin is not your keyboard then we cannot have any discussion.I have no predetermined hostility toward marx or his writings. Indeed I am not commited to any specific economic arrangement, though at present I find socialism with a healthy free market as the best compromise between needs and means.I am not fond of what I have heard of social arrangements under marxist doctrine, but have no set antagonist position against him.Up front I am NOT an expert, or even an average scholar on marxism. As such I will trust whatever you say he says is what he says. But I WILL debate points of what he says if it doesn't jibe with reality in that it is impractical.If there is some terminology which is vague, and I misunderstand it, just explain what something means and we can go from there.I don't care who said it... I'm treating it all like its all coming from you. Why? It seems like basic human instincts and social organization is understandable in an objective sense. Agreed, but that is a straw man. Why does one have to approach studying human nature from a biased perspective? Oh I see, that mere assertion clears everything up. I'll add that I'm a bit puzzled how one reaches an understanding about the structure of society and how it will work or not, without understanding human nature.If that weren't true then wolf packs and bee hives and humans could be discussed equally. Read again jackass. It says I believe this is the dogmatic position mrH was referring to. To believe that revolution MUST be a part of a social system and stick to it in spite of observed issues or counter evidence would be dogmatic. Not being psychic I have no way of knowing what you mean, but must deal with what you write. Misunderstanding and miscommunications occur.Instead of immediately jumping down a person's throat, why don't you instead correct any misunderstandings you see and we can move on from there.I did not intend to impose any meaning. That has to be the most meaningless mumbo-jumbo I have ever read.1) What are you defining as the "revolution"?2) How were people at that time period supposed to conduct negotiations on any large area issues, other than through representatives in a form of congress?3) What was wrong with the Constitution... especially as it was NOT the first government, which when it was not working, was replaced with the Constitution? If 'revolution' is not about violence but analyzing government and changing it as needed, then it seems our system was working just fine.4) What the on earth do you mean by not demobilizing the revolution, and...5) how would that have saves us from the terrible effects of this "constitution", give me an example of what people would be living like in this ongoing revolution? Well my argument is that we must replace stultifying and wasteful society of revolutions with a society in which we are engaged, involved, purposeful, productive together.See how easy it is to assert something? How about explaining what you are talking about instead of these glittering generalities.Revolutions are about FIGHTING something... usually an opposing group. That takes a measure of time, energy, and resources. It also sets up antagonistic relationships which cannot compromise. Why is it not worthwhile to set aside fighting and attempt to build something through compromise?Especially, how are people supposed to organize physical structure building, like city and intrastate infrastructure, largescale environmental and scientific programs, as well as a consistent judicial system, without stable government entities? Are you unaware of the reign of terror? Unless you are using some very vague definition of "revolution"? You reckon wrong pard'ner. When I mention marxism I am talking about how I have seen it being used. So far I have seen nothing different different in your own language.You appear to be using monologues instead of dialogues and making pie in the sky claims about how "wonderful" life will be, when in fact we will never reach some state of perfection... or near perfection. THAT is the historical record. That just about says it all. I was actually going to write something, and then I read THIS... For a guy who has to my knowledge NEVER moved past assertion to any coherent argument, and consistently (on this subject) keeps saying "look at history", this is a funny criticism to make.I'll tell you what... I'll show you mine if you show me yours.You actually show me what you think the mechanisms of a revolution are and how they are used to build and operate a government, as well as all the institutions necessary for modern life, and in addition HISTORICAL examples of this, and then I'll do the same.And before you start... I don't want listings of failures. I just want successes. Well you can call yourself a Tomatoist for all I care. I am only dealing with statements about social policy NOT statements about who says what. You can DO what you want, but you are not logically entitled to do anything, specifically correct mrH on a subject I am not even discussing.If you think I am not addressing marxism, then what the hell were you doing replying to MY POST? I was only addressing mrH on the specifics of revolution, and it was pretty clear what def of revolution I was using. Why? There was a whole lot of asserting going on there, and hyperbole. As far as I could tell, no substance, just propagandizing.And by the way I have nothing against Trotsky either. In fact that has to be the first thing I ever read if his. I assume most of it has to be better.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)