ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 31, 2004 17:36:06 GMT -5
Let me first say that the concept of "Siege Socialism" is a very well used term to imply Democratic Centralism, it used by those against Democratic Centralism. Parenti for one notes the good points and the inefficiencies of "Siege Socialism", actually it is the same concerns you raise flyboy. I agree we need to set your goals high, but we have to be realistic about it as well. I don't want to "merely imitate" Lenin and Mao, they obviously had made mistakes in certain areas, and their situation will be some what more different than ours. I hope that the Masses build on the accomplishments of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Masses and set straight the mistakes.
Also the "Dark Ages" of Europe was the almost complete slowdown of technologival advancement till the Renisannce. The only technological "acheviements" they were faster than Rome was that in weaponry. Compare Dark Ages Europe to the last remnants of Roman Empire, The Byzantines, and tell me which was pushing science and technology. Compare French Advancement to the Middle Eastern Kingdoms, and see where medevial France stands. Also yes, you failed to mention the degressions. Such as mathematical skill, santiation, science, and other advancements were halted or slowed down during this time period. Only did they kept moving in Byzantine and the Middle Eastern World, making it possible for Europe not to be in the dark for long. In many aspects, Leninist dealt with this problem by training a new force from the proletariat itself to replace Petit Bourgeois "trained" workers, Mao built an entire work force in his nation from the ground for Mental Labor, and "trained" work. The "bourgeois right" is a problem that needs to be solved with deep analyse and logical solutions. The solution to this problem is to gradually fight the contradiction of Mental/Manual labor, and also gradually bring Equitiable payment of labor between the two. These suggestions are more suitiable than a complete radical "rupture" from bourgeois right, if so were possible.
The abolishment of "Wages" will not solve Surplus Value, or the Law of Value for that matter. Wage money is not the problem, it is Capital, as Wages are the outward appearence of. So in effect your plan is to destroy immediately the Wage System of Capital? How does this go about with out the harsh economical effects that would follow such an approach. Also the Law of Value is what dominates the Capitalist system, it is fundamental law, it is Surplus Value that Capitalists struggle for. You would have to solve such a problem just to get to the Wage System. The Wage system means nothing, it is commodity exchange and the struggle for more surplus value that is involved with it. The Wage system is just something Capitalists have created recently, it is not fundamental to Capitalism in anyway. The Economical question in your system has yet to be anwsered, and it actually leaves me to wonder if you have the basic understanding of what Capitalism is?
In the aspect of art, you can't "invite" art to be made. If Art has advanced to a point where the artists have under there own free will, creating "communist" art, then there is an accomplishment. Art is manufactured from the shape of its society, so if the conditions are right, there is no need to "invite" Art to be made, it just will be. The continual aspect of freedom of art must continue, and just because Artists are not creating "communist" Art, this does not mean it should be suppressed, it obviously means the enviroment around them has forged it and should be accepted.
The fact is that, in this Imperialist dominated world. The struggles and strife of the Masses has always tried to been sabotaged and destroyed. Even civil governments of other nations, which are not revolutionary, have been sabotaged. It is not just a situation that happened in the USSR, but it has gone on all over the world, and continues to do so. I am living in reality not 1917, but the truth of what will happen. I can't "imagine" 2077 because such "imagination" won't do any good. The analyse of today, analysing the trends of today, and Historical Materialist approach will bring us to a more rational conclusion than "imagination." It is funny, that you name all the Imperial Nations as the Communist nations as well. Implying that Communists won't have to fear because we are the most incrediblly strong anyway.
"If you say there "can't be communism" until "the whole world is equal", you've just postponed communism indefinitely." First I have said that there needs to be atleast Equity(not equality) amongst trade relations in atleast Socialist Societies, between Capitalist nations there is no possiblity of this. I believe a Communist World is not possible if there is remnants of Capitalism and there is Socialist nations as well. A "communist" society would have to be equitable in productive forces throughout the nation. The contradiction between Town and Country is only escalated on a mass scale between Imperial Nations and the Third World, and since this is an International struggle, on that simplified basis, how can there be communism? The Soviet Union had to build industry just not in Russia, but in the the other Autonomous States, the same is true with China.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jul 31, 2004 22:18:40 GMT -5
RosaRL wrote: His whole discussion of crime does not really distinguish between the condition pre-revolution, during the revolution, post revolution and during the transition to communism and communism. All these situations are treated as identical by RS2000 making for one big fuzzy confused mess. (to put it nice)
Well, I am trying to respond to ShineThePath...who leaps from period to period with almost every sentence. I apologize if my responses have not always been clear.
Most crimes in class societies are crimes against property, crimes against established authority, or crimes against "morality". That such people will be amnestied in the course of the revolution itself goes without saying.
And, in practical terms and given the sentiments characteristic of revolutions in general, I expect the prisons and jails to be emptied more or less "at once".
Ok...what happens then? A fair number of those guys are going to go right back to the behavior that got them locked up in the first place.
Since there will be little or no public authority at that point, how will people respond? No doubt there will be public militias in the process of organizing as order is restored...but there's nothing in the way of "established procedure" to detain and try suspects according to "rules of evidence".
Therefore, I think it's reasonable to expect a period (brief though it might be) of "vigilante justice". Criminals "caught in the act" might well be summarily executed; in other cases, a suspect might receive a brief, informal trial...with perhaps a small assembly voting guilt or innocence. Prejudice against those strongly identified with the old order will be wide-spread...if you're an ex-cop, ex-boss, etc., you're probably dead meat.
As you know, revolution "is not a dinner party".
As the new society "digs in", procedures will be gradually introduced to provide for "fair trials"...though they will still have a very different character from bourgeois legality. There will be much greater concern with "what actually happened" and the "tricks" of high-priced lawyers or the intrigues of professional police will not be permitted...indeed, neither lawyers nor police will likely even exist. (There will be professionals who deal with the "detecting" functions that police perform now...experts in forensics, for example.)
Meanwhile, much of what is "criminal" now will no longer be so (drugs, for example)...and there will be little material incentive to engage in "property crimes".
For minor crimes, I'm in favor of "jails" that would have the "look and feel" of ordinary apartment buildings except you couldn't leave...sentences would mostly run around a year and certainly not more than three years. Humane treatment and rehabilitation would be the top priorities. First offenders might almost always receive probation.
For serious crimes (violent crimes against people, including counter-revolutionary violence), the alternatives are much grimmer. Exile would be the humane option, if some place can be found willing to accept such an individual. Otherwise, it's "the needle of death".
ShineThePath finds this "terribly barbaric"...though he thinks "the labor camp experience" is "just fine".
What he (and many) overlook is that any kind of elaborate prison or labor-camp system requires guards and overseers. What kind of political outlook do people with such jobs inevitably acquire?
Can you say fascist thug?
Bourgeois social scientists have actually performed some rather terrifying experiments along these lines. They divided a group of college-age volunteers into "guards" and "prisoners"...and within three days, the "guards" were exhibiting sadistic behavior towards the "prisoners". The experiment had to be terminated.
Do we want that?
RosaRL wrote: RS2000, despite everything he has said has now presented us with a human nature argument! He would have us believe that it is impossible to ever reach a point in society where men do not abuse and rape women!
Perhaps it is not "impossible"...what I actually said was: For reasons that we don't understand, there is a small percentage of humans who actually enjoy hurting people...and I see no reason why that would not always be the case, even in communist society.
Yes, that is a "human nature" argument...and it may be just as wrong as most such arguments turn out to be.
But I know of no evidence to support the contention that there will be "no rapes or abuse of women" after the transition to communism has been completed.
It would be "nice", but...
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jul 31, 2004 22:53:26 GMT -5
flyby wrote: I think that even in revolutions we have to have ways of making sure that we don't (out of the best intentions) carry out our own injustices.
We can't "make sure" of things like that; revolutions are enormous and semi-chaotic events...injustices are inevitable.
Naturally, we'd try to minimize them...exerting whatever influence we had to see that some kind of informal justice took place. One thing we'd have to keep a sharp eye on is the "settling of old scores"...workers who had personal grudges against other workers making totally unjustified accusations. It might be useful to suggest that worker vs. worker charges should always be judged by a workplace assembly.
flyby wrote: Do we simply uphold summary execution for reactionary acts in general?
I think there'd be a strong prejudice in that direction...though non-violent counter-revolutionary activity should be considered a minor crime.
flyby wrote: All-American frontier justice of "hang 'em high" has a long history -- and it is not a good one, or one that we want to imitate.
It's something that I think will happen regardless of our opinions. Conscious communists will, to be sure, encourage the working class to adopt procedures that will make for "fair trials". As things settle down, vigilante justice will "wither away"...not least because most of the potential targets of that justice will be either dead or in exile.
flyby wrote: But is it correct (or revolutionary) to simply suggest that women open fire on those who beat them, and that this be celebrated by the revolution and the society?
Yep! We might even have "Inez Garcia Day"...I think that will do a lot more to "transform men's attitudes" than any number of lectures.
(I should explain: Inez Garcia was a young Chicana in California who hunted down one of her two rapists and shot him to death. After several highly-publicized trials, she was finally acquitted.)
flyby wrote: This view that redstar proposes seems rife with potential for miscarriages of "justice" -- and it also seems like a recipe for "pointing the spearhead down" (i.e. treating backward sections of the people as if they are the main target of the revolution, and the dictatorship of the proletariat). It is not a view based in a class understanding, or a correct view of resolving "contradictions among the people" (including in cases where those contradictions involve real and intolerable oppression.)
Well, if "real and intolerable oppression" is involved, where do you "point the spear"?
If some jerk is always making sexist jokes, treating women in a disrespectful way, generally acting like an asshole...then by all means talk sense to him as much as you can; women will probably ostracize him and for good reason. Should women vote to throw his sorry ass out of the workplace for good...that's fine with me.
But once he crosses the line to physical abuse of women, then he is "the enemy". The time for talk is over.
flyby wrote: It is similar to RS's view that anyone who made a serious revisionist error should be permanently stripped of their posts, or any standing in society or the revolution.
(In fact, in my view, RS repeatedly makes revisionist ideological and political errors -- and I think we should work patiently to help him see why this is wrong, to transform, and play a positive role in coming events.)
Thanks for that vote of confidence...I think. #nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jul 31, 2004 23:39:42 GMT -5
ShineThePath wrote: The solution to this problem is to gradually fight the contradiction of mental/manual labor, and also gradually bring equitable payment of labor between the two. These suggestions are more suitable than a complete radical "rupture" from bourgeois right, if such were possible.
The problem with your "gradual" road to communism -- however "reasonable" and "realistic" it sounds, is that those at the top will always find "good reasons" to "slow things down even more"...until the idea of communism is finally abandoned.
Proceed slowly and carefully, says the reformist.
And you echo him.
Why?
ShineThePath wrote: The economical question in your system has yet to be answered, and it actually leaves me to wonder if you have the basic understanding of what capitalism is?
With the abolition of wage-labor, money, the market, commodity exchange, and, most basic, the production of commodities for profit, all of the economic characteristics of capitalism are gone.
I do not know how fast this can be done...but the faster the better!
ShineThePath wrote: ...and just because artists are not creating "communist" art, this does not mean it should be suppressed...
You seem to be obsessed with "suppression"...I never suggested that non-communist art should be suppressed.
ShineThePath wrote: It is funny that you name all the imperial nations as the communist nations as well. Implying that communists won't have to fear because we are the most incredibly strong anyway.
Um, yeah...if Marx was right, that's how it will happen.
ShineThePath wrote: I believe a communist world is not possible if there are remnants of capitalism and there are socialist nations as well. A "communist" society would have to be equitable in productive forces throughout the nation. The contradiction between town and country is only escalated on a mass scale between Imperial Nations and the Third World, and since this is an international struggle, on that simplified basis, how can there be communism? The Soviet Union had to build industry just not in Russia, but in the the other Autonomous States, the same is true with China.
So...in order to begin the transition to communism, we need: (1) No remaining capitalist countries at all; (2) "Equity" of productive forces among all countries; (3) "Equity" of productive forces between urban and rural areas in each and every one of those countries.
You know what I think? I think communism is just an impossible dream to you...like the "second coming of Jesus" to Christians. Your real priority (much like the Christians) is a "benevolent" despotism.
You will, no doubt, continue to consider yourself "realistic"...self-flattery is ever present among so-called "realists".
There will come a time when the working class will decide who is "realistic" and who is not. But if you think that you will "short-circuit" that decision with a well-planned coup...please recall my remarks on vigilante justice.
It ain't 1917 no more.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 1, 2004 3:13:54 GMT -5
Quantitative changes lead to Qualitative changes, a basic rule of Marxism. Suggesting that I am a Social "reformist" merely because I disagree with the absolute profound chaos of what you plan to implement, if it ever to succeed in initial revolution against the Bourgeois State. Radical Ruptures are needed against the Capitalist System, but the Capitalist System leaves its remnants and contradictions for us to deal with to move to Capitalism. The Proletariat inherits a society with profound differences everywhere in the world that must be dealt with to lead us to Communism. The differences of Mental and Manual Labor, Town and Country, a society(Nation) in which the surrounding world where commodity and money relations continue to play an important role in social production in which Imperialist powers are dominant. They inherit a society where an untrained Proletariat on its own can not handle and there is an essential need for a State. Radical Ruptures against the Capitalist world can only be made in such a way.
Your anwsers to the Economic questions are put intot he simplist form without detail, you have said all these need to be abolished, but you have yet to touched on how can you abolish them in a quick percise manner without economic catastrophe. You also not have not addressed the Law of Value which is the dominating law in Capitalism. How do you undergo the payment for the employment in society as well without the?
Marx wrote that "Socialism" will be achieved in all Capitalist countries, and he saw that the Capitalist Nations of Europe would build the Capitalism in the Third World, when it has been the opposite of retarding the development. Communism can only be achevied in a World in its "transitional stage", with the productive forces at some level with each other. With contradictions being dealt with in the "transitional Stage."
In the question of art, if large amounts of artistic work is made painting current society in bad light without you touching it of course, what will you do? Do you think that Art tells us the situation in society and expresses the circumstances in which it was made, or is it simply a cognation of the Artist's imagination?
No, I don't care what your personal impressions are. When the working class will never be able to judge "fully" who is "realistic" until they have been trained to do so, and as I see it, most still believe in God. Compraing me to a Christian waiting for the Second Coming is funny, hey did you not say we would not see communism in our life time anyway. SO according to you, whats the point in waiting? I must be one of the most Fundamental Christians then, believeing that by putting Jews into the occupied lands of Palestine, Jesus will come.
Yes it is not 1917, but it is not 2077 as well.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 1, 2004 3:33:23 GMT -5
I forgot to address
"So...in order to begin the transition to communism, we need: (1) No remaining capitalist countries at all; (2) "Equity" of productive forces among all countries; (3) "Equity" of productive forces between urban and rural areas in each and every one of those countries."
Simply Yes, with a little more. There would be no nations any longer as they would disappear under Communism, so it would not between countries.
Also I don't apprieciated being "misqouted". I never said that Stalin's "Gulags" and "Labor Camps" were "just fine", but in "comparison" with your "system" it is much of an "improvement".
Your problem is that you make Personal Attacks against people for their situation or behavior, there is many reasons why people have feelings they way have them, and it deals with the System or enviroment they are around themselves. My mother, for example cut my throat wide open, but I am not going to kill her for it because she is not naturally "evil", she had a problem. If men in a communist society still have chauvinist attitudes, it is not a problem within the person itself, because that is sort of metaphysical saying that person is just naturally a "bastered". There must be reason to this and we should fight what has made this person have such problems that make them violent and make them have reactionary attitudes. Discriminating against people who disgriminate leads no where, in fact you just create a situation in which there would be more reaction.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 1, 2004 12:02:21 GMT -5
ShineThePath wrote: They inherit a society where an untrained proletariat on its own can not handle and there is an essential need for a state.
I believe your ambition is already clear for all to see.
All you have to do is convince that "untrained proletariat" to accept your despotism.
Maybe they will, but I predict they won't.
And what are you going to do then?
ShineThePath wrote: In the question of art, if large amounts of artistic work is made painting current society in bad light without you touching it, of course, what will you do?
"I" won't do anything. What the working class might do is speculative...I suspect they'll simply ignore it.
There are tons of bad bourgeois art in existence right now...but that don't mean diddly to me. I wouldn't have it around if they were giving it away...much less pay for it.
ShineThePath wrote: When the working class will never be able to judge "fully" who is "realistic" until they have been trained to do so, and as I see it, most still believe in God.
In western Europe, they mostly don't believe in "God" any longer...one important reason why they are ahead of us!
But that is secondary. You obviously intend to "take command" of the "untrained" working class since they "cannot" judge who is realistic.
You lust to be a boss.
ShineThePath wrote: My mother, for example, cut my throat wide open, but I am not going to kill her for it because she is not naturally "evil"; she had a problem.
If you are still living with her, move at once!
Aside from this personal advice, all I can say is that in a post-revolutionary society, people who cut other people's throats without provocation are likely to have very short life-spans.
Not many people are very tolerant of someone with that kind of "problem".
Nor should they be.
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Aug 1, 2004 16:05:57 GMT -5
rs writes: "But once he crosses the line to physical abuse of women, then he is "the enemy". The time for talk is over'
Ist it really that simple?
A man slaps a woman, and there is no "time for talk" -- he is just an enemy? And execution is appropriate?
This is wrong, and a muddle. Not because the slap is tolerable (it isnt!) Such things are part of what we make revolution to end forever. But because it confuses things.
One key thing in dialectics (which RS denies, with visisble results) is that different contradictions need to be handled differently.
RS writes: "Well, if "real and intolerable oppression" is involved, where do you "point the spear"?"
Well, in the social transformation of society we need to "point the spear" at those who have the power to defend and enforce a WHOLE SOCIAL SYSTEM OF OPPRESSIVE RELATIONS -- under capitalism, we "unite all who can be united against the real enemy." Under socialism we point the spear at "those in power taking the capitalist road."
There are, at the same time, many backward and reactionary forces who carry out oppressive and backward acts -- tyranies and even great outrages. Wife beating, rape, murder of neigbors, racist attacks, etc. but the lowlevel backward people who carry these things out need to be confronted, identified, struggled with and stopped. But they can't be seen as the "target of the revolution" or as the equivalent of "the target of the revolution."
On a fundamental level, backward men are acting against their own interests. They can (in many cases) be struggled with, won over, and transformed. They are nt the ruling class and top agents of that class.
This is not to say (to repeat and make clear) that we don't struggle with them, or stop their bactward acts.
But that the methods and assumptions and context of that struggle is different from how the revolutin views and treats the ruling classes. And also it is a recognision that if the attention of the masses of people gets FOCUSED on the madness and conflicts *among the masses* -- then the revolution itself gets forgotten, derailed, and that larger struggles ends in defeat.
Inthe cultural revolutin there was sharp struggle: is our enemythe petty tyrants who bug us in so many ways (foremen, local professors, lowlevel party officials) -- or is there a much larger struggle going on, over the very direction of society. Being clear on this was a life and death matter (even while no one would or should argue that the petty tyranies were ok, or that they shouldn't be criticized, ended etc.)
You need dialectics, RS, because without it "everything becomes everything" and it becomes impossible to make necessary and living distinctions.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 1, 2004 23:35:15 GMT -5
flyby wrote: A man slaps a woman, and there is no "time for talk" -- he is just an enemy? And execution is appropriate?
That does seem "extreme", doesn't it?
But if he can "slap" and get away with it, why not on the occasion of his next fit of anger, punch? Or kick?
And if women persist in refusing to yield to his demands, why not rape? Or murder?
What right do you or I or anyone have to place women at risk because we're busy "pointing our spears" in some other direction?
And what does all our yap about "a new world" actually mean if we can't pay attention to the masses' real needs?
flyby wrote: There are, at the same time, many backward and reactionary forces who carry out oppressive and backward acts -- tyrannies and even great outrages. Wife beating, rape, murder of neighbors, racist attacks, etc. but the lowlevel backward people who carry these things out need to be confronted, identified, struggled with and stopped. But they can't be seen as the "target of the revolution" or as the equivalent of "the target of the revolution."
I note that you used the word "stopped". That, it seems to me, is "what we can unite on". Anything less than that is unacceptable to me.
flyby wrote: On a fundamental level, backward men are acting against their own interests. They can (in many cases) be struggled with, won over, and transformed. They are not the ruling class and top agents of that class.
This is not to say (to repeat and make clear) that we don't struggle with them, or stop their backward acts.
Fine. A guy who slaps a woman can do a six-month term in one of my "humane jails" and we can "struggle with him". But if he does it again? And seriously injures his victim?
Sure, on each occasion he may express "real remorse" and promise to "never do it again". Millions of battered women have heard that shit. For the most unlucky women...it's pretty close to the last words they ever hear. (!)
I'm not against "struggle" with backward elements...but I do think that communists should be clear about what is acceptable and what is not.
If we are "flabby" about things that have an immediate effect on people's lives, why should they care about our "fine rhetoric" and "grand promises"?
Indeed, if an articulate capitalist-roader comes along who makes even better-sounding promises...why shouldn't they listen to him instead of us?
flyby wrote: But that the methods and assumptions and context of that struggle is different from how the revolution views and treats the ruling classes. And also it is a recognition that if the attention of the masses of people gets FOCUSED on the madness and conflicts *among the masses* -- then the revolution itself gets forgotten, derailed, and that larger struggles ends in defeat.
In the cultural revolution there was sharp struggle: is our enemy the petty tyrants who bug us in so many ways (foremen, local professors, lowlevel party officials) -- or is there a much larger struggle going on, over the very direction of society. Being clear on this was a life and death matter (even while no one would or should argue that the petty tyrannies were ok, or that they shouldn't be criticized, ended, etc.).
I suspect this is an incorrect analysis...because it is not really focused on the masses.
Let's face it. If the masses really thought that Mao's thought was worth defending, Deng's counter-revolution would have set off a civil war.
Perhaps the reason that didn't happen is precisely because the masses did not see anything to fight for...the "petty tyrants" were not eliminated by the anti-revisionists.
What the masses actually saw in their daily lives didn't really change. So they were passive...none of the people contending for the top positions had anything of interest to say to them.
(Much as Russian workers were passive on-lookers in the "great struggle" between Stalin and Trotsky.)
There seems to be a kind of "built-in" assumption in Maoist thought that if "the line at the top is revolutionary" then "therefore" the practice at the base "will be" revolutionary.
Experience suggests that assumption is not justified. A revolutionary line "at the top" is necessary but not sufficient unless it actually gets implemented in your workplace and in your neighborhood and even in your own family.
If ordinary people do not "feel liberated", then all our rhetoric about liberation will fall on deaf ears.#nosmileys
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 1, 2004 23:56:14 GMT -5
You caught me, An ambitious new Caesar, and your the heroic Brutus trying to stop me. I never knew that my hidden "ambition" would be revealed for all to see. But you have taken off the mask from me, how Noble of you.
Well lets skip the kidding and name calling and see why the Proletariat needs to be trained. Simply the Proletariat is not able to just start analyzing situations and epochs of time in order to come to rational conclusions that will advance society, the ever prevelant situation at this moment is the Imperial structure beginning to further under develop their skills. There is a need for the Proletariat to be trained in these skills, and the Cultural Revolution did that, in presented the skills of Revolution to the Proletariat by making Revolution. Instead of cramming students with useless facts on every subject, they were taught the ability to analyze situations in their subjects and to learn how they developed, but me looking it this way some how deals with me lusting to be a "boss".
It seems to me to be a questionable claim, that MOST people in Europe don't believe in a god, I actually like to see a statistic on that suggesting they don't. The last Statistics I read upon religion in Europe is the estimate that 90% or more believe in a god or a "supreme" being. I think your just assuming this, so please bring some evidence of this.
On art, If tons of Bourgeois reactionary art are still coming in a "communist" society, should that not be a hint that this is not "communism". How could art from a reactionary class point of view still be prevelant in your "communist" society?
There is no need for you to give any advice on my situations, and please hold from doing so. Saying that the main word was "had" and "problem", the problems can be solved through help which should be provided, simplizing everyone who abuses relations to just being "evil" into an absolute situation where that can be no solution, is mechanical thinking. The fact is that situations and enviroment shape the Human being, quick fix solutions like "executing" them does not solve the problem because you have yet to solve the enviroment from which the person developed, and the cycle will still continue. Not many people are tolerant of "communism", what is your point?
Also you have yet to anwser my questions upon the Law of Value being diminished in your "transitional period", please address this question.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 2, 2004 0:46:43 GMT -5
ShineThePath wrote: Simply the proletariat is not able to just start analyzing situations and epochs of time in order to come to rational conclusions that will advance society; the ever prevalent situation at this moment is the imperial structure beginning to further under develop their skills.Capitalism makes workers "more ignorant" the longer it exists...is that what you're trying to say here with that phrase "under-develop their skills"? *Shakes head in disbelief* I thought your remarks on Pol Pot and Cambodia were really bizarre...but you have topped yourself with this one. ShineThePath wrote: Instead of cramming students with useless facts on every subject, they were taught the ability to analyze situations in their subjects and to learn how they developed...Evidently the teaching was extremely poor...as the resistance to Deng, et.al. after Mao's death was virtually zero.ShineThePath wrote: It seems to me to be a questionable claim, that MOST people in Europe don't believe in a god, I'd actually like to see a statistic on that suggesting they don't.www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htmwww.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac.htmGoogle was not very helpful here -- the figures are from 1991...though the second link is good evidence for how much pro-religious views are overstated by respondents who lie.ShineThePath wrote: On art, if tons of bourgeois reactionary art are still coming in a "communist" society, should that not be a hint that this is not "communism"? How could art from a reactionary class point of view still be prevalent in your "communist" society?I don't think that would happen; it was you who asked me "what I would do" if it did. Geesh! ShineThePath wrote: Also you have yet to answer my questions upon the Law of Value being diminished in your "transitional period", please address this question.The "law of value" states that the exchange value of a commodity is equal to the socially necessary labor time to produce it. As communism is introduced in one part of the economy after another, exchange itself "withers away" and with it the old capitalist "law of value". People no longer "buy and sell"...they produce and use. As I noted earlier, there's no way of telling how "fast" this can be introduced...but the faster the better.ShineThePath wrote: You caught me, an ambitious new Caesar, and you're the heroic Brutus trying to stop me. I never knew that my hidden "ambition" would be revealed for all to see. But you have taken off the mask from me, how noble of you.Neither heroism nor nobility were required...just an attentive reading of your posts and their implications. ShineThePath wrote: There is no need for you to give any advice on my situations, and please hold from doing so.You brought it up...but, I agree, it's your throat at risk, not mine.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 2, 2004 1:18:40 GMT -5
I brought it up making an example, not because I was wanting of your help or symphaty. Your sarcasm is also not apprieciated. Social Skills seem to a problem with you. Then again, I am a person aiming to be a new "boss", so I don't expect respectable comments.
Capitalism underdevelops their skills in understanding, and that can be seen with the more cuts in social programs throughout the wolrd, especially for education. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, there is no need to keep up the farce. It would be really stupid for the Bourgeoisie to start training the Proletariat to be self reliant from them, and make further quantitative changes to move to socialism. Yet your solution just bringing communism in, does not solve Law of Value. There is a need to solve the contradictions from Capitalism and the "transitional period" in order to make such "produce and use" possible. Especially the contradiction of Town and Country would need to be solved.
Bringing back Pol Pot again, even though I explained why I said it. It was in reference to your Beria comment. Which You said, there can't be a possibility of being brutal and not being able to deal with external and internal sabotage. I made the example that Pol Pot was unable to deal with external and internal sabotage, no matter how brutal he was.
It is also funny that 9 out of every 10 people in the United States believes that we should not take the word "under god" from the pledge of allegiance; however your stats say that only 64% believe in god, without any doubts. Besides the fact that this information predates the Fall of the Soviet Union, this analyse is based on people having "no doubts". For example the poll says Phillipines have 86.25 belief of God without a doubt, but also 60.95 belief in evolution. As if the Proletariat was to be assured this and confirmed that "God has to exist." Is the status of Imperial Nations enforcing the training of the Proleatriat to reinforce such ideas? Is it not in fact turning backwards throughout countries like the United States, where people are trying to bring "Intelligent Design" idiocy in the schools and take the word Evolution out.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Aug 2, 2004 20:12:24 GMT -5
ShineThePath wrote: Social skills seem to a problem with you.
If you say so. *yawns*
But as long as we're being "brutally honest" with one another here, your willingness to advance a coherent argument with relevant reasoning...leaves much to be desired.
I've done my best to respond to your "shotgun" questions and your indifference to or perhaps simple incomprehension of my responses.
Looking back over your posts in this thread, there is "a rant-like edge" to all of them...after a while, it becomes boring.
If "MLM" appeals to you, that's your concern. But you should examine the way people like flyby, kasama, etc. advance their views...they are rational in their arguments, expositions, etc. I may disagree with them very strongly, but at least we can understand each other's contributions to a discussion.
I'm losing patience trying to understand yours.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 3, 2004 1:09:27 GMT -5
Yes pathetic sarcasm is always rational.
Still for all your statements, the weakness is the economy. Of course Communism would eliminate the Law of Value, but without the destruction of the Law of Value first, we can not have Communism. There is procedure to move to Communism, by trasition toward, socialism. Law of Value can not be immediately destroyed and will never will without going transitional phases to reduce its power and wipe it out. Under Stalin, such steps were taken. For example surplus value was irrelevant in all State Enterprise, being that profit was not even a main indicator in SOviet Union till the reforms of the revisionist. This as well holds true with Mao's China. The Law of Value in these two great socialist nations was being undermined and real transition was taking place, this has to be placed on the accoplishments of Socialism and Democratic Centralism, in more than one sense the "direct worker" control can not moe against the Law of Value without being "trained". Majority of Workers are yet to fully understand what is needed for communism, but that will be undercut over time.
In many thoughts of the Working Class would be their class benefit as well, it would be more lustrous to a few to have a hand and foot Welfare Nation, then to keep undergoing revolution. There would be presence in de-centralized "worker directed", that have yet to enter communism, to persist Capitalist relations in an non-expansioness way, as long as people get suited what they want. Such petty ideals have to be struggled against, yet with no leadership, who will it be to outline revisionist tendicies that try to undercut the Revolution?
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Aug 3, 2004 20:08:43 GMT -5
Dear STL:
I think that when someone makes a criticism, it may be better to listen, not simply dismiss it.
Yes, RS2000 is often sarcastic. Yes, I too have struggled with him over many of his views and over his method.
But when he says you rant, and that your method of argument is not honed to win people over -- perhaps you should respect that he took the time to help you by criticizing you.
Surely you (as an MLMer) understand that it is important to listen to the interrogation of others (even those whose political understanding has, in your view, important flaws.) RS2000 may be wrong on the way socialist transition works, and on the need for a vanguard -- but he may be right in what he raises about your approach and method. And you might learn something by listening to criticism -- we can all learn that way.
|
|