Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2004 14:20:34 GMT -5
right on readpunk
|
|
|
Post by hopeful on Feb 4, 2004 17:24:00 GMT -5
what he said!
*points to readpunk and sonofrage*
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Feb 4, 2004 17:47:59 GMT -5
I gotta say I deeply disagree with both the content and tone of Readpunk's remarks. Let me explain.
He writes: "if you think that some black clad, pistol carrying fuck...is going to punish me in anyway for standing on a street corner yelling whatever the fuck I want, then I certainly want nothing to do with any political group you may be involved in."
I don't support banning religion -- and think that the struggle over religion should be waged through debates and education in a friendly and protracted way.
But the real point of this post is that you think no activities and speech should be restricted. And that is (quite simply) wrong.
If men have a right to yell at and harass women on the street, will women actually be free from second class status?
If Klansmen can march on the streets, will Black people ever feel like the weight of racism is lifted?
In the sharp struggle to consolidate a new society, will we allow all the Oliver North commando fucks, long-time Christian fascist activists, etc etc to keep organizing -- without saying "no, your days are over"?
And there are clearly religious movements (specifically Christian Identity white racists, and also some rightwing pentacostal imperialist churches) who are really, defacto political networks -- and they too need to be disbanded and (if necessary) suppressed (just like the Klan, which is essentially what they are etc.)
If you don't understand that revolutoin involves stopping some people and reactionary movements from grabbing for political power -- then you don't understand how social change is made.
There can be no real freedom for the oppressed, unless some of the former oppressors stop "saying and doing whatever they want." There is no absolute freedom -- it is contradictory. And their "freedom" is our oppression.
So yes, the revolution will involve some sections of the population exercising power over other sections of the population.
And if you view all this, from the point of view, of just yourself and YOUR freedom (to do whatever you want) then you will be deeply confused about what is needed and necessary.
Readpunk writes: "Now with that I want to take a gun and ram it down you anti-freedom types throats and make it clear that I can't stand someone denying me personal or collective egalitarianism and freedom."
This tirade is indistinguishable from classic rightwing All-American bully boy macho bullshit. And i am frankly disappointed that people on a site like this would applaud this crap. This is Green Beret Logic and Speech.
Read punk calls the following "some facts": "I don't know when the words "communist" and "marxist" in regards to religion became divorced from what they used to mean. Going way back of course a "communist" was someone who believed in the final extension of what Marx felt was the final evolution after the revolution. A "marxist" was someone who took the word of Marx to a near but not complete fundamental truth in their heart."
This is wrong and very confused. Marxism is the ideology of the communist movement. Communists are Marxists. Marxists (who uphold the ideology of communism) are communists. There is no difference.
Marxism is not "the word of Marx" -- he founded marxism but died over a century ago. Marxism has developed far since Marx, and is now known as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Several things Marx thought are no longer part of "Marxism" (in the modern sense) because our understanding (after a century of experience, revolution and socialism) has developed. His understanding (for example) of how socialism would work, the class alignments of the transition period, and even how (exactly) revolutionary power would be seized and held -- were necessarily very very primitive, because Marx wrote in the period before those things had happened.
Readpunk wrote: "Over time though, the distinction between a "marxist" and a "communist" strengthened to mean different things. A major difference was religion. To be a "marxist" meant that one was almost certainly an atheist. A "communist" on the other hand was usually one who could not be bound to a party or group as easily."
This is not "facts". Here are the facts:
Marxists are atheists -- because marxism is a materialist ideology that rejects objective idealist notions of "spirit giving rise to matter." Marxists see that there are no gods etc. Communists (being marxists) are also atheists. And it could not be otherwise.
Readpunk writes: "For the "communist", the commune is a spiritual experience. It is something powerful, that is beyond a logical and scientific rational."
This is gibberish. It is wrong on every level.
Readpunk goes on to describe a bourgeois novel that had communist characters (and acts like this classic school assignment is the "real deal" to be accepted by the rest of us on this site).
He writes: "Point being the book illustrates the "communist" and spirituality (of some kind) and the "marxist" and athiesm/science rather well."
Point being: you don't know anything about communists, and think that what you wre told about it in high school was right.
Puleez.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 4, 2004 19:22:36 GMT -5
roadpunk wrote: Redstar, if you think that some black clad, pistol carrying fuck bearing your communist party emblem on his right arm is going to punish me in any way for standing on a street corner yelling whatever the fuck I want, then I certainly want nothing to do with any political group you may be involved in.
roadpunk, if you think I'm going to put up with being irritated by some loud-mouthed, obnoxious, reactionary asshole yelling some superstitious bullshit in my ears while I'm waiting for the bus, "then I certainly want nothing to do with any political group you may be involved in".
roadpunk wrote: ...I want to take a gun and ram it down you anti-freedom types throats and make it clear that I can't stand someone denying me personal or collective egalitarianism and freedom...
Preach a gospel; go to jail!
roadpunk wrote: For the "communist", the commune is a spiritual experience. It is something powerful, that is beyond a logical and scientific rationale.
That is just meaningless babble...unless you are speaking of "religious communists" like the Hutterian Brethren.
And I don't think I've even heard them speak of their communes as "a spiritual experience." Their view is that Christians simply ought to live in the way that the Jerusalem Church is described in the "Acts of the Apostles".
roadpunk wrote: Also a note of interest, Jesus Christ, who in his day was very much a revolutionary...
Not really. He was a "country preacher"--a kind of a Jewish "revivalist" who tried to reaffirm a "simple rural faith" in the face of the increasingly sophisticated Judaism of the Temple hierarchy in Jerusalem--heavily influenced by Greek philosophy as it was.
The best summary of his message is probably "Repent! For the Kingdom of God is at hand."
To suggest that he was any kind of political or economic "revolutionary" is false to the guy's own ideas. His "Kingdom" was not "of this world".
roadpunk wrote: My point being is that spiritual people as well as religious people can be revolutionaries.
They may become "revolutionaries"--though the odds are heavily against it--but they cannot become communist revolutionaries.
In fact, almost always, they are reactionaries.
What else would you expect?
|
|
|
Post by readpunk on Feb 4, 2004 19:36:21 GMT -5
If men have a right to yell at and harass women on the street, will women actually be free from second class status? With no parameters of what stage of revolutionary socialism we are at I can't really answer this question fairly. The problem isn't that men have the "right" to yell and harass women. The problem is that men are socialized into thinking that they are superior and women are a commodity which can be owned, used and sold. If Klansmen can march on the streets, will Black people ever feel like the weight of racism is lifted? I doubt as a whole Klansmen would be revolutionary participants in our decentralized and freely federated collectives. If our collectives are strong and working properly they would be so ridiculously insignificant that most people would not give them a second thought. Continuing with that, how could we ever draw a fair line? Regarding what activity is acceptable and what isn't? Would it eventually be pushed to the point where only the party line would be acceptable? In the sharp struggle to consolidate a new society, will we allow all the Oliver North commando fucks, long-time Christian fascist activists, etc etc to keep organizing -- without saying "no, your days are over"? No, they will fight with the statists and hopefully we will win. And there are clearly religious movements (specifically Christian Identity white racists, and also some rightwing pentacostal imperialist churches) who are really, defacto political networks -- and they too need to be disbanded and (if necessary) suppressed (just like the Klan, which is essentially what they are etc.) If we are fighting for true liberation and they are on the other side then we absolutely most fight them. If a revolution is over, and there are racist groups still around I will absolutely not stand for anyone infringing on their right to speech. If I am going to spill innocent blood (a revolution is definitely going to mean that innocent people will die on both sides) I am going to do it in the name of freedom and egalitarianism. They go hand in hand. If I or anyone else is above these racists and able to completely silence their opinions through the use of an organized hierarchical social institution then what prevents them from silencing mine? If you don't understand that revolutoin involves stopping some people and reactionary movements from grabbing for political power -- then you don't understand how social change is made. I prefer to allow them to grab for power. A real revolution leaves no power left to be grabbed. There can be no real freedom for the oppressed, unless some of the former oppressors stop "saying and doing whatever they want." There is no absolute freedom -- it is contradictory. And their "freedom" is our oppression. Of course absolute freedom is a contradiction. I'm not advocating that, I never have. What I'm advocating is absolute freedom of thought and expression. I'm not inclined to believe that I should be so "free" that I can kill someone or do something of the sort. So yes, the revolution will involve some sections of the population exercising power over other sections of the population. Maybe yours. And if you view all this, from the point of view, of just yourself and YOUR freedom (to do whatever you want) then you will be deeply confused about what is needed and necessary. This tirade is indistinguishable from classic rightwing All-American bully boy macho bullshit. And i am frankly disappointed that people on a site like this would applaud this crap. This is Green Beret Logic and Speech. Actually it is distinguishable. "egalitarianism" being the word that makes the difference. Glad you cornered me, I am obviously a Green Beret'esqe person. Even though Green Beret's believe in the state and I do not. Even though Green Beret's believe in economic inequality and I don't not. Even though... oh yeah! Political systems are made of a social system and an economic system and I share no agreement over either with any Green Berets! Could it be our political views are almost as different as the Spanish CNT and Joseph Stalin! I think so! This is wrong and very confused. Marxism is the ideology of the communist movement. Communists are Marxists. Marxists (who uphold the ideology of communism) are communists. There is no difference. You should ask all the anarchists that USSR slaughtered if they were "communists" or "marxists". They probably wouldn't call themselves "marxists" even they were the only ones working towards the real revolutionary goals that Marx laid down. Marxism is not "the word of Marx" -- he founded marxism but died over a century ago. Marxism has developed far since Marx, and is now known as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. How could there be Marxism without "the word of Marx"? By saying "is now known as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism." you are dictating that someone can no longer be just a "marxist". I think you mean most branches of old "marxism" have developed into "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.". Several things Marx thought are no longer part of "Marxism" (in the modern sense) because our understanding (after a century of experience, revolution and socialism) has developed. His understanding (for example) of how socialism would work, the class alignments of the transition period, and even how (exactly) revolutionary power would be seized and held -- were necessarily very very primitive, because Marx wrote in the period before those things had happened. Yes, Marx was wrong on some of his ideas. This is not "facts". Here are the facts: Marxists are atheists -- because marxism is a materialist ideology that rejects objective idealist notions of "spirit giving rise to matter." Marxists see that there are no gods etc. Communists (being marxists) are also atheists. And it could not be otherwise. Once again, I believe in complete economic egalitarianism as many do and I don't believe in hierarchical social institutions nor most of Marx's teachings. So I am a communist and not a marxist. This is gibberish. It is wrong on every level. Readpunk goes on to describe a bourgeois novel that had communist characters (and acts like this classic school assignment is the "real deal" to be accepted by the rest of us on this site). It's not the "real deal". It illustrates my point. Surprisingly enough even a CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation can write a book that accurately portray's communists/marxists/leninists/jovial hipsters, whatever. Besides, casting a book as "bbboooougggeee" just because it illustrates a point I agree with is pretty unfair. Point being: you don't know anything about communists, and think that what you wre told about it in high school was right. Puleez. I didn't read it in high school. Did you read what I actually said? I made the reference to California schools because to the best of my knowledge there are 14, 15, 16 and 17 year old people on this message board who may be in a school right now that might be trying to shove the book down their throat.
|
|
|
Post by readpunk on Feb 4, 2004 19:46:23 GMT -5
roadpunk wrote: Redstar, if you think that some black clad, pistol carrying fuck bearing your communist party emblem on his right arm is going to punish me in any way for standing on a street corner yelling whatever the fuck I want, then I certainly want nothing to do with any political group you may be involved in.roadpunk, if you think I'm going to put up with being irritated by some loud-mouthed, obnoxious, reactionary asshole yelling some superstitious bullshit in my ears while I'm waiting for the bus, "then I certainly want nothing to do with any political group you may be involved in". roadpunk wrote: ...I want to take a gun and ram it down you anti-freedom types throats and make it clear that I can't stand someone denying me personal or collective egalitarianism and freedom...Preach a gospel; go to jail! roadpunk wrote: For the "communist", the commune is a spiritual experience. It is something powerful, that is beyond a logical and scientific rationale.That is just meaningless babble...unless you are speaking of "religious communists" like the Hutterian Brethren. And I don't think I've even heard them speak of their communes as "a spiritual experience." Their view is that Christians simply ought to live in the way that the Jerusalem Church is described in the "Acts of the Apostles". roadpunk wrote: Also a note of interest, Jesus Christ, who in his day was very much a revolutionary...Not really. He was a "country preacher"--a kind of a Jewish "revivalist" who tried to reaffirm a "simple rural faith" in the face of the increasingly sophisticated Judaism of the Temple hierarchy in Jerusalem--heavily influenced by Greek philosophy as it was. The best summary of his message is probably "Repent! For the Kingdom of God is at hand." To suggest that he was any kind of political or economic "revolutionary" is false to the guy's own ideas. His "Kingdom" was not "of this world". roadpunk wrote: My point being is that spiritual people as well as religious people can be revolutionaries.They may become "revolutionaries"--though the odds are heavily against it--but they cannot become communist revolutionaries.In fact, almost always, they are reactionaries. What else would you expect? I'm tired after writing my last response. My definition of the commune as a spiritual experience is being taken to literally to mean that every communist feels that way. I should be making it clear that my point is that being a communist simply means believes (and working towards) economic egalitarianism. That is possible under so many different idealogies, including Marx. A note, you want laws against the loud mouthed reactionary. That is what I am against. I don't care if you personally don't put up with it or not. I am against the organized authority of a government over my idea's and thoughts. Cutting off my quote makes it seem like that is what I said. When in reality I characterized my rant that way. Thanks. I hope those reading that part do catch that. I'm shocked you would take something in the past and change it for those now to read it in a different way. Do you or have you ever supported a "communist government"? Quit biting their style *zing*. The rich man passing through the eye of a needle like getting into heaven blah blah balh I'm too tired to quote it directly but it's fairly apparent that following the word means economic egalitarianism which what the main tenet of communism is. Maybe it is the fear of a church leader having pull over revolutionaries that is scaring everyone so much. Wouldn't want two opinions to be floating around in people's heads, only the party leader's doctrine and nothing else of course. Grammar wasn't a priority here, sorry if it is repulsively painful to read.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 4, 2004 21:01:05 GMT -5
roadpunk wrote: Cutting off my quote makes it seem like that is what I said. When in reality I characterized my rant that way. Thanks.
On the internet, you "rant" at your peril...no one knows whether to take what you say seriously or not.
Some people, to protect themselves from being misunderstood, actually use brackets: [rant]blah, blah, blah[/rant].
As it happens, I'm one of those "straight to communism" heretics who is against the establishment of any centralized state apparatus after the revolution...so your feelings about repressive "laws" are not that different from my own.
Nevertheless, I anticipate a sharp struggle against reactionary currents of opinion after the revolution, formal and informal.
I am not "tolerant" of just "any old idea".
roadpunk wrote: The rich man passing through the eye of a needle like getting into heaven blah blah blah I'm too tired to quote it directly but it's fairly apparent that following the word means economic egalitarianism which [is] what the main tenet of communism is.
Well no, again not really. There's no doubt that "Jesus" expressed a certain hostility towards the wealthy...perhaps because they were identified in the popular mind with the sophisticated versions of Judaism that he preached against. But he was not unwilling to be a dinner-guest of the rich...and he evidently had at least one wealthy follower who donated a tomb for him.
If "Jesus" were really a kind of "primitive communist", then it's curious that not once does he explicitly urge that on his disciples.
He could have easily said "Share with one another as I have shared with you" or words to that effect--the "feast" of the "loaves and fishes" would have been a perfect opportunity.
He didn't do it because the idea never occurred to him. Communism is a fairly sophisticated idea...it's unlikely to have fallen out of the sky and into the head of an itinerant country preacher.
It's not as if he had read Plato and decided on a "Jewish" version of Sparta.
roadpunk wrote: Maybe it is the fear of a church leader having pull over revolutionaries that is scaring everyone so much. Wouldn't want two opinions to be floating around in people's heads, only the party leader's doctrine and nothing else of course.
If you've read some of my other posts, you already know my opinions of "party leaders".
But in a way, you're right. The influence of a prominent and charismatic religious leader can be catastrophic...history has a horde of examples.
Still, it is superstition itself that is the real enemy...not the people who may hold those views at any particular point in time.
Perhaps a good current metaphor would be: superstition is like the "back door" that some viruses establish on your computer if they infect it.
The virus writer may never attempt to access your system through the "back door" and "take over your computer for his own purposes"...but you remain vulnerable.
Another name for believers is: those who can be used. It may never happen...but it can happen.
And I simply propose not to let it happen.
|
|
|
Post by little timmy on May 19, 2004 2:21:15 GMT -5
I doubt as a whole Klansmen would be revolutionary participants in our decentralized and freely federated collectives. If our collectives are strong and working properly they would be so ridiculously insignificant that most people would not give them a second thought. Continuing with that, how could we ever draw a fair line? Regarding what activity is acceptable and what isn't? Would it eventually be pushed to the point where only the party line would be acceptable?
That's right. Fascists and reactionaries have absolutely no interest in being "revolutionary participants" they will do ANYTHING they can to re-assert the old system and it's bullshit. Their form of thinking will not die without an intense struggle throughout society. Dirt doesn't sweep itself. Reactionaries won't give up because you ignore them and label them irrelevant. If you let them propogate their venomous bullshit it WILL take root, because the old ways of thinking and doing things persist as a FORCE OF HABIT if you don't consciously struggle to smash them down.
Do you think a "revolutionary participant" in a socialist society would sit there and let some neo-nazi piece of shit advocate fascism or would they refuse to accept that kind of reactionary garbage in ANY form? I say they can go to a re-education camp and unlearn that shit or fucking DIE trying.
|
|
|
Post by little timmy on May 19, 2004 2:34:46 GMT -5
I think it's important to uphold the people's right to practice religion. I agree that it should essentially be banned from public life. Bourgeois governments often use secularism as a disguise to persecute minorities. There are plenty of examples where it has been used to attack muslim women and sikh men. People should be allowed to practice their religion but not preach or propogate any sort of religious books or paraphernalia outside of a church or temple. Clergy should be required to have real jobs and not be allowed to make a living off of their congregation's donations. All donations to a religious institution should be allocated for the maintainence of their designated church or temple space only. Religious people should not be allowed to join the Communist Party because it will affect their ability to do their job properly. Meanwhile the struggle should be carried out broadly to discourage them from engaging in religious activities and start living in the real world instead of chasing ghosts.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on May 19, 2004 13:27:17 GMT -5
No churches, no temples, no mosques. Demolish them all, starting with the ones that are "big & famous".
Send a message! Propaganda in stone will yield to the proletarian wrecking ball!
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on May 19, 2004 14:06:46 GMT -5
No churches, no temples, no mosques. Demolish them all, starting with the ones that are "big & famous". Send a message! Propaganda in stone will yield to the proletarian wrecking ball! You can not just make people's religious beliefs go away on a demand. Think about it. You will be facing millions of people who have been raised with and trained in religious beliefs, many that will cling to those beliefs for quite some time. The vast majority of these people will not be our enemies and we should not treat them as enemies. (this is different than talking about the christian fascists) I do believe that eventually people will discard their religious beliefs, but it wont be overnight. They will have to be won to discarding those beliefs through a process of struggle.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on May 19, 2004 21:06:03 GMT -5
RosaRL wrote: You can not just make people's religious beliefs go away on a demand.
I quite agree and I don't propose to do that.
It is the public symbols of belief that I propose to eliminate; what people privately believe is of no concern to me.
Except for one thing: indoctrinating their kids!
Children have no intellectual defenses against religious propaganda and are predisposed to believe what their parents tell them.
Though it can't be done "overnight", I think we should aim for the goal that religious indoctrination of children shall be considered felony child abuse.
RosaRL wrote: The vast majority of these people will not be our enemies and we should not treat them as enemies.
Doesn't Maoism have a formula that goes "unite with and struggle against"?
We will unite with different people around different struggles; and our allies in one struggle could be our enemies in another.
I've seen this actually happen on message boards. I will have a bitter dispute with someone over some issue...and then freely turn around and unite with that person against somebody else.
Look at how MIM sarcastically comments on the "Redstar2000-RCP alliance"...against the nutball economics of MIM. Does this mean that we don't struggle with each other?
Obviously not. Therefore, I think that religious believers that "join in the struggle" against capitalism and imperialism should not be dismissed out of hand...but neither should we pretend that superstition is other than fundamentally reactionary and an enemy of proletarian emancipation.
When proletarian revolution takes place, all kinds of people will participate with all kinds of motives...some of them pretty unsavory.
The role of communists, as always, is to encourage and support "the good stuff" and struggle vigorously against "the bad stuff".
Religion is very definitely part of "the bad stuff".
RosaRL wrote: I do believe that eventually people will discard their religious beliefs, but it won't be overnight.
Some will, some won't. In the struggles of the 1960s, very few people concerned themselves with religion at all...there was too much of interest going on in the real world.
That may be even more the case when a real proletarian uprising finally takes place.
But I don't think we as communists should be "complacent" about this issue...or just assume that it will "take care of itself". As long as religion still has a "public presence" and people are still pounding that crap into their kids' heads, religion ain't going to just go away. Instead, it will serve as a reservoir of all kinds of reactionary ideologies...that will "seep" into public life in post-capitalist society.
The counter-revolutionary effects of Catholicism in Poland and Lutheranism in East Germany (just to name two examples) are pretty well known.
So I think we will have a real struggle on our hands. Protracted it may be...but struggle it must be.
|
|
VolPatsyOHara
New Member
Republican Socialist / Syndicalist
Posts: 34
|
Post by VolPatsyOHara on Jun 28, 2004 3:33:25 GMT -5
This is a really interesting thread. Cheers to everyone who contributed.
I have mixed feelings I have to say. Much of what Redstar says I agree w/. Yet then I think as Readpunk said, what about the times when religion has been part of resistance?
Such as AIM Ghostdances or Fr Des Wilson in Ireland?
I admit that examples of revolutionary religions are truly rare.
The Catholic Church has more blood on its hands than anyone, and will always be a counter-revolutionary force. Castro is right to ban it there.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jun 28, 2004 12:30:22 GMT -5
VolPatsyOHara wrote: The Catholic Church has more blood on its hands than anyone, and will always be a counter-revolutionary force. Castro is right to ban it there.
It's not banned there. Quite the contrary, it is "quietly" flourishing. Not long ago, Castro himself presided over public ceremonies on the occasion of the re-opening of a completely renovated convent (how many run-down workers' apartments could have been repaired with those resources?).
A few years ago, there was the infamous visit by "Pope" John Paul II, the Polish anti-semite (in the 1930s) and present-day crusader against women's reproductive freedom.
On that odious occasion, one of the Cuban bishops (yes, they still have those too) actually got up in public and said that the Batista era was "the golden age of Cuban Catholicism".
The Cuban approach to religion (copied from the USSR) is to regulate it...much like the Securities & Exchange Commission "regulates" the American stock market -- and with the same outcome. The SEC "plugs the loophole" after the newest fraud has been successfully completed.
The Cuban "Ministry of Religion" occasionally jails an openly counter-revolutionary cleric after his poisonous ideas have been spread.
At such time as America reclaims its Caribbean colony, the bishops and their wretched followers will be leading the cheers for the U.S. Marines in downtown Havana.
Don't be surprised if they try to canonize Batista!
|
|
|
Post by iskra on Jul 6, 2004 3:53:06 GMT -5
Redstar2000, for all your Stalin/Mao phobia, it's strange that you'd wholeheartedly embrace the bourgeois characiture of "their" approach to religion! For all your "anti-authoritarianism", you're advocating some pretty top-down and heavy-handed tactics. Anyway, I honestly thought you might find this RW article interesting. Read the whole thing @ www.rwor.org/a/1227/dp-religion.htmThere is also a good article regarding the French imperialists' banning of Islamic headscarves @ www.rwor.org/a/1234/wtw-veil.htmThis was actually a reprint of a CP of Iran (MLM) article.
|
|