ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 27, 2004 22:38:41 GMT -5
Left anti-Communists, have portrayed Marxism-Leninism-Maoism over the years to be a ideology only for power hungry radical intellectuals, which Chomsky and other anarchists seem to express. That we have repressed the masses of oppressed peoples from undergoing “true” liberation, and have not allowed them to move forward; however for all their polemics they have yet to shown a picture in history where the success of their line has ever come. There are many reasons for why they can’t, and I will explain.
Many of these Left anti-Communists, have expressed that a truly liberated society would be controlled by the workers themselves, through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this view is ahistorical and nonfalsiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities and practice of history. It compares an ideal with an imperfect reality, and reality comes far off in the comparison to the ideal. This Ideal remains untainted by existing practice. From these people there is no explanation of how revolutionary society will outwardly look, what are the manifold functions, how will these funtions and superstructures be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage be stopped. How will they deal with the many contradictions left over from Capitalism, the Manual/Labor contradiction, how will they deal with classes, how would they avoid bureaucracy, where will priorities be set, where will resources be allocated too. How will they conduct Distribution and Production. There is no surprise that these people have almost supported almost every revolution in which the claim for “socialism” or “liberty” has been thrown out, except for those which have succeeded in fundamentally changing society. Those which have supported and outright failed, are always the faults of others, never their own.
These people have almost the same rhetoric, that the new society will be created by a “new” people, a society where people have “liberated” themselves, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses by the state (which would be directed by the people directly). There is no bureaucracy or self interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or bad decisions. When this is not met in whole, the people who portray this view condemn the real situation and say they and the “people” have been “betrayed” by this or another revolution.
The ideal is usually tarnished by “evil” communists with their power hungry mind set. They oppose all the communist movements, even the revisionist ones, because of pure simplism that all communists are, is this simple caricature, like some have said here that we are a “cult”. They oppose Lenin-Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Hoxha’s Albania, and other states which fundamentally changed society. To their opposition they place no other historical model opposed to it. Only vague propositions created from their imagination of what society should be. Unlike Communists who rely on scientific approach of Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism, they can only conjure some ideas up that have not been put to practice, while we have historical models, they have their imagination.
Their polemics against the Soviet Union and China, when they remained socialist are possibly ridiculous. They take a one-sided view to it, and twist the other till it does not look as if it recognition of the what it once was. Was at anytime in their view capable of being stabalized without being destroyed? No, it was essential that Lenin and others centralize power before the destruction of their revolutionary societies by internal and external elements; however Anarchists seem to forget that Imperialist nations, many reactionary groups in these countries stood in the way. The constant blame of others as well for their own defeats is endless. They claim many reasons of why revolutionary actions of failed, but it is always the same polemic that the leaders of these revolutions ultimately failed to put “direct action” with the workers. Yet for their same conclusions for the last century, they have yet to muster a successful revolution with the Workers directing the movement.
Take for example the Sandinistas. After the Sandinstas overthrew the Somoza government, an ultra-left group called fro direct worker ownership in the factories. The armed workers would take control of production without the benefits of management, state planners, and bureaucrats, or a formal military. While this does sound very appealing, this syndicalism denies the necessities of State Power. Under such an agreement, the Nicaraguan revolution would not have lasted two months against US-sponsored counterrevolution that destroyed the nation. It would have made the nation unable to mobilize enough resources to field and army, take security measures, or to have economic programs on a national scale. For a people’s revolution to survive and progress through the nation, it needs State Power and destroy the stranglehold on which the ruling class has on the productive forces, than to withstand the attack that usually is to come after such a revolution. This is also the security against internal and external sabotage as well.
Engels offered the account of the Spanish Revolutions of 1872-1873, led by Anarchists. The situation at first look promising as the government of Spain could only muster up ill-trained troops to combat the Anarchists. Yet this rag tag army defeated the Anarchists, which thoroughly parochialized the revolution. Engels tells us “Each town acted on its own, declaring that important thing was not cooperation with other towns but separation from them, thus precluding any possibility of a combined attack[against bourgeois forces]…It was fragmentation and isolation of the revolutionary forces which enabled the government troops to smash one revolt after another.” See decentralized parochial autonomy is the graveyard of insurgency, which may be the reason why there has never been a successful anarchist revolution. The facts are that everyone seems to forget that Internal and External forces are always in motion to smash a revolutionary society, and sabotage it for the worse.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jul 27, 2004 23:35:35 GMT -5
ShineThePath, having carefully studied the rants of Spartacus, has decided to try one of his own...with the same outcome, of course.
Complete incoherence.
But you did "slip" and insert one practical example...
After the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza government, an ultra-left group called for direct worker ownership in the factories. The armed workers would take control of production without the benefits of management, state planners, and bureaucrats, or a formal military. While this does sound very appealing, this syndicalism denies the necessities of State Power. Under such an agreement, the Nicaraguan revolution would not have lasted two months against US-sponsored counterrevolution that destroyed the nation.
Having consulted your dialectical crystal ball, you "know" this, of course.
So what was the right strategy? The Sandinistas formed a coalition with "Left" Jesuits and "base" Christian communities and set up a traditional Leninist state.
And the counter-revolution won. Today the Sandinistas and the Somoza-istas jointly administer one of the most corrupt regimes in central America.
Something to be really proud of, eh?
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 27, 2004 23:44:04 GMT -5
How so is it complete incoherence? Yet you try to just persue just more rapid attack against me, once again with no historical information to back up claims. I don't agree with what Sandinista did, Sandinista was not a MLM government, and I never said it was, but the fact still remains in this example that to decentralize the system would work against what the Sandinistas were up against with the Contras. Yet have you proved that Decentralization is effective and against Internal and External sabotage and insurgency.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 28, 2004 0:16:57 GMT -5
I read something very interesting in Anarchism and Anarcho Syndicalism, a gathering of slected works, which was very interesting. An Anarchist Historian Edith Thomas says "anarchism is the absence of government, the direct administration by people of their own lives" who would not want that? I Know I sure would, so why has it been so unsuccessful throughout the years, why have you Anarchists and Psuedo-Anarchists not have a successful revolution yet?
Thomas, herself, never says how exactly anarchism will be carried out, unsuprisingly. She does assert though, "anarchists want it now, in all the confusion and disorder of right now"
She notes proudly that the ideal of anarchism, has yet to diminish because as she puts it "[Anarchism] is still intact as and ideal, for it has never been tried." That is exactly the problem. Why in so many hundreds of actual rebellions, including all of the ones led by Anarchists, Anarchism has failed to manifest itself in anyway, why has it been that Anarchism has never been tried or succeeded insurviving for a length of time in an "intact" anarchist form? In the anarchist uprisings in Spain, I fail to mention that Engels described, the rebels, in seemingly violation of their ideology, did not rely on "direct adminstration by the working class", the anarchists themselves found this to be inefficient and unreliable. So they set up their own ruling Juntas to represent a town fo workers, which was an improvement but not a cnetralization the revolution needed at that time.
It is my opinion that the the unpracticed, unattainable quality of the ideal of Anarchism helps it retain its "revolutionary" appeal in the minds of some.
All I ask for Anarchists and Psuedo-Anarchists are specifics in the realm of Historical Materialism, since many anarchists have thrown out Dialectical Materialism with Kropotkin, explain the theory in terms of Historical Materialism instead of vague imaginitive ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2004 0:56:13 GMT -5
...why have you Anarchists and Psuedo-Anarchists not have a successful revolution yet? ... This is a funny question. It seems to come with the implication that Leninists have had a successful revolution. The fact is, Leninism has a failure rate of 100%. Every time it has been tried and the Leninist gained power, all that resulted was a totalitarian dictatorship. Your "workers' states" were never socialist. I'm reminded of part of Anton Pannekoek's great work Workers' Councils: - Workers' Councils Part 2, Ch5 "The Russian Revolution"
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 28, 2004 1:22:59 GMT -5
Yet the question is not anwsered. The French Revolution succeeded of bringing Bourgeoisie at the fore-front of France, and was temporarily defeated. After the first defeat, there were nearly almost 3 circular attempts between feudal lords and the bourgeoisie in the nation. It took till the Civil War until Productive forces were fundamentally changed into capitalist productive forces and ended outright slavery. Great Britian went through a Bourgeois revolution with Olivar Cromwell and took till the Industrial Revolution to be completed. It took nearly 300 years for German Bourgeoisie to come to power, in these years there were numerous failures to overcome the feudal system, yet in each attempt there was a serious lenght of time of provision, and success did not come till 1918. Like always, everything moves a sprial movement and it has just become a regression, not much different from the regresson of Capitalism back to Feudalism, yet I would think if Anarchism were to have a correct line. There atleast be one successful revolution in the name of Anarchism.
There has not yet been one nation, that has a steady considerable time under "Anarchism". Why did all the failures occur, if the Anarchists have a correct line, they atleast have a success, as were Lenin, Mao, and others had. While Communists have been successful in Modernizing nations, building economies, in land reforms, defeating Fascism, literacy, health care, and so on. Anarchists have nothing to claim, why is that? Where are the Anarchists success, if you are going to comment that Leninism has proven to be 100% incorrect, than you must make the same comment about Anarchism, because of yet you have not proven it to be sufficient.
Also I raised some questions in my posts, of how things will brought about in specifics, not generalities, but attempts that Anarchism will make to destroy capitalism and install Anarchim. How will you deal with the questions I raised?
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 28, 2004 1:36:24 GMT -5
Also there is a clear difference between State Capitalism and Socialism. One being that State Capitalism, which existed in Lenin's time with NEP, which many acknowledge was acutally a way to revive USSR economy and build the working class from the devastations of War Communism. Under the Stalin period, the accumulation and struggle for Surplus Value in the USSR was not even looked at.
What many confuse Socialism with is the need for planning, which revisionists have proposed. Worker control, is what Pure Socialists have said it to be which is not true as well.
Planning is evident in outright capitalism, Capitalists as well as anyone to determine Trends, Productivity, and other situations besides Profit. Is this Socialism?
Other say worker's participation is socialism, but also in capitalist societies there is worker particpation in the productive forces as well. Sweden's volvo companies have their worker's determine how production will resolve, yet is this socialism?
No, what determines Socialism is the struggle for Surplus Labor, which was non-existent in Soviet Union from the end of NEP to when the revisionists finally pushed their agendas in 1967, making profit an indicator of industry. Same is true with China, Mao admitted State Socialism in the early 1950's but that was only to modernize a backward nation, with backward production forces which was unable to undergo Socialist Revolution till so. The Cultural Revolution was the highest point of Socialist movement against Surplus Value and the Law of Value.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2004 3:04:24 GMT -5
There has not yet been one nation, that has a steady considerable time under "Anarchism". Why did all the failures occur, if the Anarchists have a correct line, they atleast have a success, as were Lenin, Mao, and others had. While Communists have been successful in Modernizing nations, building economies, in land reforms, defeating Fascism, literacy, health care, and so on. We've had all those things under openly capitalist nations, and in many cases with a lot more freedom. I'm unimpressed. I never said Leninism was 100% incorrect, I just said that it fails 100% of the time. Your usual spin of course will be that it was a "defeat not a failure" but that's just nonsense. All the justifications for your "dictatorship of the proletariat" such as "defending the revolution" has been exactly what the Leninist model has failed at. This has not been a defeat from without, it has been a betrayal and failure from within. Anarchism has shown that it can work both in Spain and in the Makhnovists movement in the Ukraine. Unfortunately they both were victims of the betrayal of the so-called "Communists. Defeats from without, not failures from within. It's hard to dig out the questions from that big mess you posted, but I'll try and find them (perhaps it will be easier when it's not 3:30am) But again, the questions are do see seem to come with the implication that you have these answers, no doubt from your "science."
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 28, 2004 3:05:03 GMT -5
"In Germany, where the political and economic crises had brought the class antagonisms to the highest pitch, it reduced the hard class fight to a puerile skirmish of armed youths against similar nationalist bands. And when then the tide of nationalism ran high and proved strongest, large parts of them, only educated to beat down their leaders' adversaries, simply changed colours. Thus the Communist Party by its theory and practice largely contributed to prepare the victory of fascism. "
That is funny, The Communists in Germany led to Fascism? When was this turn of events? Was it not the Communist Ernst Thaelmann not the one who said "a vote for Hindenburg is a Vote for Hitler", was he not right in this statement, in analytical look today, It was the Social-Democrats and other leftists denounced him saying this was "Moscow Lined". If anything it is Bourgeois Democracy that leads to Fascism, the only way in which Communists have contributed to Fascists rise is that in their attempts to bring Proletariat Revolution, they scare Industrialists and Capitalists into brining Fascists. It was through legal means of Hindenburg's government that Hitler rose. Even if Hitler was not there, Hindenburg proclaimed because of the constant instability of German government, he would rbing Military rule.
It was Social-Democrats who refused the Communist party's proposal to form an elventh-hour coalition against Nazism. As is other countries the Social Democrats would have rather allied with the reactionaries in a common cause against "Reds". In 1924 Social-Democrats officials in the Ministry of Interior used Reichwehr and Free Corps fascists paramilitary troops to attack left-wing demonstrators. They Imprisioned seven thousand workers and suppressed Communist newspapers. It was the Communists who were the first victims of Hitler, who burned the Reichstag, and used it as rational to kill his fundamental enemies off
It was the Federazione Industralie and the King of Italy that brought Mussolini and his black shirst to power. Even though Fascists constituted less then 20% of the government at any time from 1921 to 1923. It was in reaction to Communist movement that this happened, it was Mussolini who was a former Union Socialist, and became corrupted by the Capitalist elements. It was he who said "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society".
Fascism is inherent in Bourgeois Society, when the threat to the Industrialists, and Capitalists are at its pivotal movement. Without them Fascists are nothing. It is also the wish of the Bourgeoisie to rule through Bourgeois Democracy, but when the system starts to gradually change to a more revolutionary mood, and the system stops profitting them. Capitalists turn to Fascism to keep it alive. It is Capitalists who boss the Fascists around, and not the other way around. Fascism is a bulwark against Communism, and proletarian revolution.
When Stalin and his foriegn minister Litinov pleaded with the West to ally with him against Hitler, the West turned him flat on his back. Hitler was their creation to move against the USSR, it was Western backing that put him power. It was Hearst who announced throughout the media pronounced them as great men. It was DuPonte, ITT, Ford, and General Motors that gave aid to Hitler. Rockefeller, a man which H.G. Wells proclaimed as a great social-wroker gave and facilitated aid through its office in Paris in Vichy France.
The Nature of Fascism is much deeper, and should be examined. I ask all to question it with me. With claims that Communism facilitated the Rise of Fascism, we need to see where this Reaction comes from.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 28, 2004 3:20:13 GMT -5
"We've under all those things under openly capitalist nations, and in many cases with a lot more freedom. I'm unimpressed."
The difference with the achievements with Working class here in a nation that presents "freedom" is actually less. The reason for those achievements has much to do with the fact that all our achievements comes from the open oppression of other nations, open Imperialism. Your education is funded by the blood of foriegn nationalities. Much like Pax Romana, which allowed criticism against the Roman Empire, but achieved its gains by butchering Gothic People, and other tribes through out the land. Yes you have more freedom, but the price is severe repression of those in the third world, where a leader like Mao Tsetung and Lenin's Russia would be a dream. It certainly was for the people of Chile, and still is. This is a dream of the people of Nepal and they are moving foward to it.
"Anarchism has shown that it can work both in Spain and in the Makhnovists movement in the Ukraine. Unfortunately they both were victims of the betrayal of the so-called "Communists. Defeats from without, not failures from within."
No it has not, then it obviosuly shows it is incapable of internal sabotage, which I expressed before. If history teaches us anything it is the absolute failure of Anarchism in everyway. You excite that they showed they worked, when actually shows the opposite. Why is that the Bolsheviks were able to defeat 14 Imperial Nations, White Russians, Mensheviks, and your Makhnovists? Because simply de-cenetralization early in an revolution dooms the revolution to failure. Also once again as I explained in the Spanish Civil War, all groups were guilty, and ocne again Negrn was not a Communists, he was backing was Leftist Republicans and Socialists. You also forget about POUM that was at your back. Also I think the Makhnovists had a right to be defeated, they had to be crushed because ultimately their line would have led to destruction of the whole revolution. Their destruction by Internal forces only shows it is not capable of standing, imagine and external force such as Germany, Romania, Hungary, Poland, and other Fascists eastern European states would have done.
So anwser my Questions in the morning when You have the time.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jul 28, 2004 11:49:53 GMT -5
ShineThePath wrote: How so is it complete incoherence?
Because that's always the outcome of a rant. You make a huge number of highly dubious assertions containing a large number of unspoken assumptions, many of which are palpably untrue.
Anyone who attempts a coherent response would have to quote you "sentence by sentence" to "de-construct" all the babble.
Take for example the title that you chose for your thread: Left anti-Communism; Anarchism and Pseudo-Anarchism.
I know what the word anarchism means; I have no idea what "left anti-communism" refers to or who those "pseudo-anarchists" are...presumably not "real" anarchists. (?)
Your "reasoning" appears to be: (1) Anyone who wants to actually establish a real communist society after the revolution is an "anti-communist" while (2) only those who propose not to establish communism are the "real communists".
Nonsensical assertions like that are very characteristic of "internet rants". They are presumably intended to "stir people up" rather than actually make sense.
Or consider this "sentence"...
Many of these Left anti-Communists have expressed that a truly liberated society would be controlled by the workers themselves, through direct participation, instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions.
Was Marx a "left anti-communist"? After all, his version of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" made workers' control of everything explicit.
And as for myself, I have explicitly stated that I do not think any of the 20th century Leninists were "evil" or "traitors"...I just assert that they were wrong.
Do you understand the difference between "evil" and wrong?
Or this sentence...
It compares an ideal with an imperfect reality, and reality comes far off in the comparison to the ideal. This Ideal remains untainted by existing practice.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
A communist wants to establish communism. If I see someone else who claims to be a communist but does not, in fact, establish communism or even make any attempt to establish communism, am I supposed to just accept that?
No, I compare reality with what I want...and if reality doesn't "measure up", then I seek to change reality until it does.
It's what revolutionaries do.
Another thing that revolutionaries do is that when they post to message boards, they at least attempt to make thoughtful, coherent arguments in favor of their views.
Since I've seen much evidence that other supporters of "MLM" on this board can do that, I don't see why I or anyone should accept less from you.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 28, 2004 16:14:57 GMT -5
Redstar2000: know what the word anarchism means; I have no idea what "left anti-communism" refers to or who those "pseudo-anarchists" are...presumably not "real" anarchists.
Ok first, there are many Left-antiCommunists, but specifically I was addressing Anarchists and Psuedo-Anarchists. Notice why I put this nifty grammatical mark here --->; and then put Anarchism and Psuedo-Anarchism. Yes the genius of the Semicolon. Also Psuedo-Anarchism, is something that presents itself not as Anarchism, as something else, usually "communism" like the PLP, but in reality the theory is more aligned with Proudhoun thought and other Anarchists theory.
Redstar200: Your "reasoning" appears to be: (1) Anyone who wants to actually establish a real communist society after the revolution is an "anti-communist" while (2) only those who propose not to establish communism are the "real communists".
No, my reasoning is those people are not Marxists are realistic in that matter. Yet have the "straight-to-communist" theorists and Anarchists provided historical evidence for the success of such a de-centralized nation, after initial revolution with Capitalism. They provide no specifics of how the society's functions will look like afterwards. What are the specifics of how the condradictions of Class society will be met, and how to accomplish their agendas without Internal and External sabotage. So far, every De-Centralized nation has yet to survive for a period of time, in a capitalist dominate globe with complete success.
Was Marx a "left anti-communist"? After all, his version of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" made workers' control of everything explicit.
It is funny, It seems Marx was against Anarchist thought, and Psuedo-Anarchists I remeber reading The Poverty of Philopshy, but did these words mean nothing upon what he thought of such madness. Also I think Marx's writting about The Paris Commune made it obvious upon what he thought of the situation and were it was leading. Engels is clear and is critical of Anarchists in the Commune and makes it clear that Centralization in Germany was the most important part in the revolution "...If the Prussians are victorious the centralization of state power will be helpful for the centralization of the German working class; furthermore, German predominance will shift the center of gravity of West European labor movements from France to Germany. And one has but to compare the movement from 1866 to today to see that the German working class is in theory and organization superior to the French. Its domination over the French on the world stage would mean likewise the dominance of our theory over that of Proudhon, etc."
In which In my first post I said: It compares an ideal with an imperfect reality, and reality comes far off in the comparison to the ideal. This Ideal remains untainted by existing practice.
Redstar200 replied I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
Obviously I am saying, you compare the reality with an ideal that is conjurred up with no Historical backing, or materialist view. You have lost sight of Historical Materialism and have slipped into Idealism. It is essential to move anywhere to be Realistic. However to argue that The Mental/Labor Contradiction could possibly be solved through forcing art to move in a place that you want it, is not realistic. You made that comment once before.
No, I compare reality with what I want...and if reality doesn't "measure up", then I seek to change reality until it does.
Well great, I do the same. The difference is I do it in a historical manner, and a realistic hope of changing the realm of society. Merely just putting up reality to your "ideal" does not solve anything, there has to be ways to get to the "ideal" in a rational scientific manner that is not just pure nonsense. Use specifics how do we get there? Do we get there just by destroying the thing in itself and replacing it with a new system? Never has been the case as of yet. Immediate Revolutions are not going to place Communism or Anarchism in place of Capitalism, struggle is going to have to take place to get to Communism. Yet has there been a Drastic change from one Economic Mode of Production to another. We can't go from Capitalism to Communism, the only thing that will come from this is an economy that is irrational, that will lead back to capitalism.
Redstar2000: Another thing that revolutionaries do is that when they post to message boards, they at least attempt to make thoughtful, coherent arguments in favor of their views. Since I've seen much evidence that other supporters of "MLM" on this board can do that, I don't see why I or anyone should accept less from you.
Wow immature insults move places, Funny none the less. I also like this way of talking, picking apart things of a writting that I don't nessacrily agree with and writting upon that. While I don't address anything else that was written prior, it is very productive Redstar, thanks for showing me.
|
|
sanpal
New Member
??? ????? ?????
Posts: 13
|
Post by sanpal on Jul 28, 2004 20:46:30 GMT -5
![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) The first time I've heard these abracadabra of words (the "left anti-communist" and the "pseudo-communist") some months back in the forum of www.cprf.ru in the issue between the marxist and the stalinist. Who knows Russian language, pls: f.forum.msk.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4541&start=90If to be following the Stalinist's logic Stalinism = Left anti-Marxism (or pseudo-Marxism) because stalinism appeared as a misunderstanding of marxism ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jul 28, 2004 20:59:13 GMT -5
ShineThePath wrote: Also Pseudo-Anarchism is something that presents itself not as Anarchism, as something else, usually "communism" like the PLP, but in reality the theory is more aligned with Proudhon thought and other Anarchist theory.As I understand the post-revolutionary perspective of the Progressive Labor Party, their idea is to replace the state apparatus with the party apparatus.Everyone will have to be a member of the party and be subject to party discipline. Party leaders will be appointed for life. The army will be part of the party to keep things "under control". And, from one of their ex-members, I understand they also plan to send women back to the kitchen and the nursery as well as re-criminalize homosexuality. Their "communism" is fake!As to your reference to Proudhon, while his followers probably constituted the majority of activists in the Paris Commune, contemporary anarchists usually agree that his views were essentially reformist.Though, to be sure, there are anarchists who unknowingly follow Proudhon -- namely, the "shadow economy" anarchists. ShineThePath wrote: No, my reasoning is those people are not Marxists, are [un-]realistic in that matter. Yet have the "straight-to-communism" theorists and Anarchists provided historical evidence for the success of such a de-centralized nation, after initial revolution with Capitalism. They provide no specifics of how the society's functions will look like afterwards. What are the specifics of how the contradictions of class society will be met, and how to accomplish their agendas without internal and external sabotage. So far, every De-Centralized nation has yet to survive for a period of time, in a capitalist dominated globe with complete success.On what basis are you so "sure" that a "de-centralized nation" cannot survive "internal and external sabotage"? Simply because it hasn't happened yet? But wait! Your hyper-centralized Leninist states have also failed. Specifically, they rotted from within -- the party apparatus became a new capitalist ruling class.So who is being "unrealistic" here? Communists who think we should go "straight to communism" or Leninists who want to replicate a failed experiment?As far as "specific measures" are concerned, many ideas have been put forward...even a few by me. Crime & Punishment--Some Brief Notes on Communist JusticeCommunist Society -- Some Brief ReflectionsNo doubt they will seem very "unrealistic" to you. That can't be helped. If you're really intent on being Minister of the Interior ("chief cop") of a post-revolutionary Leninist state, then all arguments against such a position will inevitably strike you as "unrealistic". That don't make it so. ShineThePath wrote: Engels is clear and is critical of Anarchists in the Commune and makes it clear that Centralization in Germany was the most important part in the revolution "...If the Prussians are victorious the centralization of state power will be helpful for the centralization of the German working class; furthermore, German predominance will shift the center of gravity of West European labor movements from France to Germany. And one has but to compare the movement from 1866 to today to see that the German working class is in theory and organization superior to the French. Its domination over the French on the world stage would mean likewise the dominance of our theory over that of Proudhon, etc."Yes, Engels screwed that one up pretty badly. You do recall the consequence of "German domination" of socialist theory, don't you? It was called social democracy...and its performance in 1914 remains the biggest disgrace in the history of the modern proletariat. Beyond this, of course, you have to remember the historical period in which Engels (and Marx) were writing. Centralization was seen then as "the wave of the future" and "therefore" inherently "progressive". That's no longer the case. ShineThePath wrote: Obviously I am saying, you compare the reality with an ideal that is conjured up with no historical backing or materialist view. You have lost sight of Historical Materialism and have slipped into Idealism.I don't see on what you base that criticism. There obviously have been working class insurrections without Leninist perspectives...in fact, with perspectives much closer to what I want. Are you saying that because they were defeated, that "means" that they were "idealist"? But the Leninists have also been "defeated"...so how come I'm an "idealist" while you are a "realist"? Objectively, it seems to me that my perspective is much more "in tune" with historical materialism than yours...I continue to insist that successful proletarian revolutions are only possible in advanced capitalist countries. You, on the other hand, entertain fantasies of "socialism" in Nepal!The Leninist assumption that objective material conditions can be overcome "by act of will" on the part of a "conscious minority" seems to me to far more fundamentally idealist than anything I've ever written. ShineThePath wrote: [Never] yet has there been a drastic change from one Economic Mode of Production to another. We can't go from Capitalism to Communism, the only thing that will come from this is an economy that is irrational, that will lead back to capitalism.You realize, of course, that when it comes to "leading back to capitalism", Leninists are the world-class experts.And, of course, there have been periods of rapid transformation in the relations of production.One that comes to mind immediately took place in Russia throughout 1917 (without a vanguard): the Russian peasantry spontaneously expropriated the landed aristocracy and became rural petty-bourgeois in a single year.But as I've noted elsewhere, no sensible person denies that there will be a "period of transition" between capitalism and communism after the proletarian revolution. It is the political character of that transition that is in dispute. Will it be "administered" by a conscious and tightly-organized elite using a state apparatus, police, prisons, labor camps, conscript armies, etc.? Or will it be done directly by the working class as a whole? Which option would you choose?
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 28, 2004 22:38:14 GMT -5
The PLP does argue for a Vanguard to lead initial Revolution; however they, like you, also want to go straight to communism. That is why they are Psuedo-Anarchists.
Complete Lunacy, Redstar2000 writes in his “specific” papers, he writes “I don't think that there's much doubt that the entire existing legal system would be instantly abolished. A general amnesty would probably be issued, releasing everyone.” Incredible, people still have not learned when steps like this are taken. Yes I have the same encounter within the RCP who disagree with me on this point, but similar steps were taken in Eastern Europe following the fall of the Eastern Bloc. In 1989, when millionaire playwright Vaclav Havel became president of the nation of Czechslovakia, he took the same ignorant step. He granted amnesty to about two-thirds of the prison system. Havel assumed that most of the “victims” were political prisoners and should have been released. The New York times reported that most of these figures were right involved in crime again, and were thrown back into jail. I would argue, that there is a need to look into why people are in prison, not just generally give people amnesty. This is not a position of the RCP but my own. This paper is nuts, filled with quick execution, a lofty law superstructure. This paper is more Brutal then the crimes that the West claims Stalin is guilty of . For example “I reluctantly conclude therefore that when people violently attack others, commit forcible rape, or murder...that the rest of us are better off if those individuals are executed. As I noted earlier, I think that in the long run forensic evidence (rather than human testimony) will come to be used to ultimately determine guilt or innocence...and thus sharply reduce the chances of sending an innocent person to death. There's a marked trend in that direction even now. Finally, and this is difficult to measure, humans do seem to have a basic sense of justice that they want to see happen. Those who injure, rape or kill others "should" be made to suffer or die. Since I am opposed to making people suffer, I prefer the death penalty. I think it's actually more humane than what we do now...imprisonment for decades.” Alone from the sickening barbaric nature of this whole process (it might as well be the revived Hammurabi code), once again there are no specifics, only guesses, thoughts, and effortless babble. Example “I think that in the long run forensic evidence”. Marx fought Proudhon with the aid of the dialectical method and proved that since every thing in the world changes, "justice" must also change, and that, consequently, "immutable justice" is metaphysical nonsense. Your legal system, even at the barbaric nature now, will be outmoded quickly, so 3 pages of legality is not going to work. In fact it will be constantly changing in order to “keep” up with justice of the masses. Re-read Poverty of Philosphy, Redstar2000.
“The Leninists on this board favor "labor camps"...the reduction of criminals to slave laborers and, inevitably, the creation of a massive police and guard apparatus to make that kind of thing "work". Does any sensible person here agree with that?”
But apparently just murdering them is better, Instead of trying to bring them to terms with society. Although, apparently I want to be a chief cop, you have no problem murdering criminals in cold blood. Does this not sound like pure Beria to anyone?
Your second paper starts off as well ” While it could be 50 years or more into the future before major proletarian revolutions (most probably in western Europe) actually begin to build communist societies, we still love to speculate about the possible features of such societies.”
So the beginning of this Paper starts of, speculating what society will look like, which I read, and has no active look at the historical context. Just pure assumptions
“This is the kind of "phase-change" that is quite beyond the imagination of Leninists and bourgeois socialists alike. They see the future as a simple linear extension of the present; the word "revolution" may or may not be in their vocabulary, the concept literally "makes no sense" to them.”
Funny, “Phase Changing” is beyond our imagination, even though that is one of the main points of dialectics. Yet we can just easily assume, as you, what society will look like with out any evidence. Basically the second paper works of the High Mystics of “technology" that we will just be a happy bunch because in the future, like if it were a Jetson cartoon, people have technology do it for them. All you have to do is press a button. X-Boxes and technological development, it will be mysterious in the future. Yet not in any of these papers have specifics been named that convinces me of anything, all assumption that the “future” will be a brighter tomorrow. I have yet to see were any way the contradictions of society are address and how you will radically rupture from them.
After the proletariat seizes power, the new transitional society doesn’t emerge clean and pure. It has the remnants, what Marx called the “birthmarks” of the old society. Such things as the commodity system, differences in income, the division of labor, can be described as “bourgeois right” that is, part of the economic relations which characterize bourgeois society. These “birthmarks” are closely tied to the continuing existence of divisions between town and country. Between workers and peasants, between mental and manual labor. Unless these divisions are consciously narrowed and bourgeois right restricted under the Centralization of a Vanguard, the divisions will not only continue but will increase. I have yet to see where de-centralization has kept a nation moving during the initial revolution and afterward. Some how as I noted before with the Spanish Juntas, who refuse to see that. You have to shown how internal and external sabotage can be stopped, and how you will deal with this. The fact is as long as your in a dominated capitalist world, as we are in. You are going to have to rely on centralization or “Siege Socialism”, De-Centralization cannot help revolutionary movements, only destroy them. Do me a favor and solve the situation of 14 imperial armies, a Cossack led White Russian attack, all the while there is a famine, workers control “directly” production, A volunteer army, a technologically backward nation, and see what you come to with in a decentralized position like that.
Redstar2000: One that comes to mind immediately took place in Russia throughout 1917 (without a vanguard): the Russian peasantry spontaneously expropriated the landed aristocracy and became rural petty-bourgeois in a single year.
Yes, but that was not Socialism and never was. They broke Feudal ties of aristocrats no the capitalist ties of Wage Slavery. Social Revolutionaries were in control of the nation, and unlike the Mensheviks, who claimed “communism” and “socialism”, Social Revolutionaries were Social Democrats, the 1917 revolution was a revolution for the bourgeoisie, it was not a proletarian revolution, even President Wilson supported it.
Also it just seems peculiar to me, how would Workers control every aspect of society without the help of “trained” labor. I do not think that Workers can systematically lead Medical, Chemical, and other scientific work in these spheres when they have yet to have experience with them. So there is bound to be a Bureaucracy, you can’t have “direct” worker control, it is just illogical.
|
|