Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Rick Ross 187** · 12-30-2010, 07:25 PM

lol ok, ill be on msn

**shakur420** · 12-31-2010, 12:07 AM

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: I dont see the contradiction.

Allow me.

(12-29-2010 07:06 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Chomsky makes a few false statements here

(12-29-2010 07:06 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Chomsky: Lenin was a rightwing deviation from the mainstream socialist/marxist movement

No actually, he was a left-wing deviation.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: The left wing of the Marxist movement that did emerge and criticised the actions of Lenin...

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote:
Quote: Lenin was a right wing deviation of the socialist movement and he was so regarded.

No, he wasnt....LENIN AS A COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONARY, just who, due to the civil war deviated right.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: There were some socialists to the left who completly denouced Lenin. But they were irelevent.

Those to the left who are relevent like Luxemburg, Bordiga etc upheld Lenin.

Chomsky doesn't have a fucking clue? You stated the same thing he did. ObamaNation is in no way "left", not by any definition. Yet, is it not factual to say that he is "left of Dick Cheney"? That he is left of people like Reagan, Bush and Nixon? You started off this convo by claiming he was making false claims. Everything you've posted has in fact showed the opposite. You might be in favor of "benevolent dictatorship". Just because Chomsky isn't, doesn't mean he doesn't describe the facts correctly.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Whats your definition of bourgeois? im certain u must be using a different one.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: You clearly dont understand the concept bourgeoisie.

Bourgeois, from a Marxist perspective at least, refers to those who control/own capital. In the theoretical Marxist society, that means the workers. Historically, that means those who control the party in societies that claim to practice some form of Marxist theory. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" means, in such a theoretical society, that some will rule over others, even if it's 90% over 10%, in the fantasy world in which a Marxist party actually allows workers to retain 100% control over production, it's not democratic and as such is not a classless economy (workers control over production), and never will be. Or am I supposed to believe that workers can have control over production when they don't have the same political weight as others? The math doesn't add up in Marxist theory for me, let alone it's failure to produce such a reality (wokers' control of production).

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: We dont oppose what America's doing because they are "brutal" in what they do, but for the very fact that it is being carried out for the profit of a few at the cost of many.

You claim that opposition to imperialism by Marxists is based on an economic perspective, not empathy for the suffering. What then, I ask, is the purpose of creating Socialism? Why do you care to redistribute capital equally? Because otherwise people suffer, right? The whole idea of Socialism is based on things like equality. You obviously have empathy for those who are suffering. To claim that you want to help others and to do so, they simply have to relinquish self determination to you is authoritarian, and on the path to totalitarian. You seem to understand this. Socialism, or workers control over production, a classless economy, cannot be imposed. This is the reason that Marxism paraded as a working theory of Socialism is inherently flawed - it continues to advocate undemocratic structures. The point was the hypocrisy of rhetoric in the face of the facts on the ground. How do you claim that Marxism, or let's even talk about Lenin's version of Marxism cause I'm a bit more familiar with that, has anything to do with Socialism - workers' control over production, a classless economy? Your conclusions are based on slogans and disproven claims of benevolence. No person in their right mind advocates that Leninism advanced workers' control over production. What it did do was solidify the power of a few people. But because people like Che went around claiming that flawed economic theories were in the interests of the average person, totalitarianism has been romanticized by those who don't want to think for themselves. There are people like you in my country too. They call themselves "Democrats" while they ensure that profits flow to them and their friends. Just because they derive their title from the word "Democracy" doesn't change the fact that they hate the idea of self determination for others. They love it for themselves, but not for the rest of us. Rhetoric is not a basis for practical discussions, it's inane chatter. This is true whether it comes from the right, left, up, down or whatever.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Misunderstood my point. Through the use of the military/CIA they may be able to order coups. But the point is, could the Republicans organise to secretly storm the white house one day? No, they arent organised as such. Theres a reason why a coup is carried out by the military, not political parties.

I didn't misunderstand you whatsoever. I wasn't talking about foreign coups. But to stress my point, coups most certainly don't have to be connected with violence. We can look at Chavez, Mossadegh and the Sandinistas for some quick examples. Yes, that's right, I'm referring you to the dictionary to look up the term. That the use of economic/political warfare to force people out of office, or force them to adopt imperialist-friendly measures, is the same as a military coup. There is no difference, the meaning of the word refers to the transfer of power from one group/person to another, a transfer that is regarded as illegitimate by those who are ousted. The use of physical force is not a prerequisite for using the term. Anyways, let's keep to "domestic coups", of sorts, in the U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us/pol....html?_r=1
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingt...pdate.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22631.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/..._coup.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-ale...27990.html
http://www.observer.com/node/44719
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/us/pol...odayspaper
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/201...and-trade/
http://grayson-green.blogspot.com/2010/0...layed.html

Perhaps if you had listened to what Chomsky was saying instead of concentrating on (unsuccessfully) defending Lenin, you would have picked up on how he used the word "coup", and how he equated it to Lenin. Obviously, if you read about the 1917 revolution, you find out that it included heavy involvement of the working class, the people, and it was not, per say, "organized from above". That doesn't mean that once Lenin and his cohorts were in power, they didn't try to ensure that Socialism, worker's control over production that is, would never see the light of day. He hijacked the revolution, not the former leaders' positions, that's what Chomsky makes clear is his contention. But you have to actually pay attention to words in order to understand what people are trying to say.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: ...They wernt dissolved. it was deemed necesary for them to be able to be overrided...

The Soviet councils were actual Socialism, you know, where workers had control over production. Why then, am I supposed to believe that moves to marginalize them are in the interest of Socialism? And by the way, check those links from the other post. There's a letter from Stalin (and some other guy) to Lenin asking to dissolve specific Soviets, among other things. At the bottom, in the notes, it refers to Lenin's reply to proceed immediately. From the Marxist website, should be credible from your perspective at least.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Although militarily the communist won, in the end they failed in the sense that their support base and democratic institutions of the party were decimated.

This was predicted by those who paid attention to what Marx, Engels and Lenin were actually saying - that we can have economic equality without Democracy. You seem to be supporting Chomsky's view to the letter.

Anyways, that was my point with the Iraq analogy. Every form of authority will try to gloss over it's inherent contradictions. For example the "Department of Defense" is responsible for waging war. Dropping bombs brings "peace". Self determination and Democracy are gained by relinquishing your ability to make decisions about your life. It's an old game, and I'm not going to fall for it just because it comes from the "other side", my "enemy's enemy". You seem to agree that Marxism in theory and practice is not Democratic. Explain in this thread how you think workers can have self determination, economically speaking, if they don't have the same level of political equality. The argument has been made throughout history that anarchist methods of achieving Socialism are not backed up by scientific, mathematical equations, by practical realities that must be addressed. In fact, at the moment, that is the only scientific theory on social/economic organization that makes sense to me, and that has actually worked as far as actually moving towards Socialism.
http://wiki.infoshop.org/Historical_over..._anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_c...gh_history
http://libertariannation.org/a/f21l1.html
http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html
http://libertariannation.org/a/f72h2.html
http://radicalarchives.org/2009/11/23/ho...kibbutzim/
http://stason.org/TULARC/ideology/anarch...t-soc.html

It's fine to say a benevolent dictatorship is better than what we have today, and that is the goal of Marxism, but where people loose credibility is when they claim it's socialist, forgetting to answer how a classless economy can be created and maintained without pure Democracy.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Same can be said about people who defend Iran then scream dictatorship when the USA does little bits of censorship etc.

Who does that with Iran? Maybe Iranian politicians, are they hypocrites? Yeah, sure. But I think you might be confusing stating the facts for "supporting Iran". Or perhaps supporting the people of Iran in their right of self determination for support for "Iran's government". Just like people who claim that Chomsky "supports" Pol Pot and HAMAS, when he simply states the facts he's discovered in the documented record. So yes, when we point to the "little bits of censorship" in the U.S. (lol) and ignore it elsewhere, it's hypocrisy. Of course, it's the same when Marxists call their theories Socialism and ignore the Democracy question. What's your point? You basically repeated what I said.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: The main left wing of the Marxist movement that emerged was the Italian Communist Left around people like Aramdo Bordiga. THEY UPHELD LENIN AS A COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONARY...

They "upheld" Lenin as a "Communist revolutionary", nobody said they represented working theories of Socialism. Chomsky said they were left of Lenin, that's it. You said that was false and then proceeded to say the same thing. That's all I pointed out. I don't agree with anybody who thinks that Marxism or any deviation of it can achieve workers control over production, let alone maintain it. I'm simply addressing your comments that Chomsky made some false claims. According to your explanations, though, he didn't. What you're trying to do is shit on him because you can't address the elephant in the room that has been there since the International became divided (yeah, I have read about it, it might surprise you but all my information on Socialism does not come from Chomsky). Marxists ignore political realities and their connection to the economy. Left socialists address these issues and are deemed "irrelevant" by those who fall for the slogans and rhetoric of "revolution" because they think it's romantic to pick up a gun and fight in the jungle. Revolution means to change things, not to fight to put different people in power, from a socialist perspective of course. That change may come about through a physical uprising, economic fighting, education, digital dominance and a million other things. Lenin is no god, just cause he claimed that change had to come at the end of a gun and economically organized from "enlightened" sectors of the population doesn't make it true. Where is his proof? His historical success with his theories? Non-existent, that's where. On the other hand, economic revolutions (or socialist societies) that have been successful have proven that Democracy is integral to economic equality.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Sorry but Pannekok was little more than an intellectual, not a major player in the Labour movement.

I don't know who the fuck this guy is. I still don't. But I did spend about 30 min. or so looking him up in relation to Lenin. Sorry, but what I did come across (as you would've seen had you checked the links I posted) seems to coincide with what Chomsky says. On top of that, Chomsky is one of the most respected scholars in the world - respected by the underground, that is, not mainstream, so I'm sorry, but your opinion hardly contends with his. Given his track record for meticulous research and sources, stuff I have personally looked into while reading his books, it stands that he would apply the same standards to qualify claims about things like abortion, chronic, taxes, the Tea Party and Socialism. If he can be honest and factual about the Sandinistas and the illegal aggression against them, as well as with about every other political/economical/social topic in the last 100 years or so, he undoubtedly holds more weight than you or me.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: ...i dont see accusations of Totalitarian as at all relevent. Its a buzzword.

What you see as a "buzzword" is to some people the essence of their lives - to have Democracy, and destroy any form of totalitarian institutions. Most people may not realize it, but they are Anarchist, as they do not believe in unqualified forms of authority. It's fine for you to give up your self determination, but to profess for some to rule over others as a platform for the workers is a joke. It's completely transparent. Unless I'm missing some of Marx's long-lost works about Democracy and self rule.

(12-30-2010 03:29 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Communism is revolutionary totalitarianism.

(12-30-2010 05:50 PM)Boboulas Wrote: No real leninist will say that bolshevism is from the bottom up. They admit it and even lenin admited it, their arguments are for "democratic centralism" not democracy.

So, I ask. Why would anybody interested in equality (worker's control of production), freedom (Democracy), justice or any other similarly related concepts, support or join Marxists/Leninist/Communist movements?

(12-30-2010 07:21 AM)kaka Wrote: ^ Marx/Lenin economic system were not based on burgeois ruling the masses, but the opposite of it.

No, it's based on turning the workers into the bourgeois - and ruling over anyone that disagrees with those who claim to represent this "new bourgeois" class. That, I've read from Lenin's works. I'll try to find it if anyone want's to seriously claim otherwise, but I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in the links I threw up in the last post.

**kaka** · 12-31-2010, 01:14 AM

^ No, it's based on the rule of the proletarian (not turning the workes into burgeoisie). By bourgeoisie Marx meant the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. And the rule of the proletariat would be the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’. The proletariat would assume state power aiming to eliminate the old relations of production. It would replace these relations with a class dictatorship which would both place the productive forces under proletarian control and pave the way for the abolition of class distinctions culminating in a classless society. The Communist Manifesto stated that the result would be ‘an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’.

**shakur420** · (This post was last modified: 12-31-2010 06:41 AM by shakur420.)

(12-31-2010 01:14 AM)kaka Wrote: ^ No, it's based on the rule of the proletarian (not turning the workes into burgeoisie). By bourgeoisie Marx meant the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. And the rule of the proletariat would be the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’. The proletariat would assume state power aiming to eliminate the old relations of production. It would replace these relations with a class dictatorship which would both place the productive forces under proletarian control and pave the way for the abolition of class distinctions culminating in a classless society. The Communist Manifesto stated that the result would be ‘an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’.

Are you sure about that?

Quote:Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another...

- Chapter I: Bourgeois and Proletarians, Communist Manifesto

Obviously, "freeman", "patrician", "lord", "guild-master" and "oppressor" represent the historical bourgeois. The "slave", "plebeian", "serf", "journeyman" and "oppressed" represent the proletariat. The beef being that historically, the proletariat produces the capital and the bourgeois ensure that it flows to them. We wanna change that so that those who put in the work, get the benefits. That makes sense. Where it becomes a transparent power grab, and the very same "petty bourgeois" that Lenin claimed to detest so much, is when we look at the "solution", the Marxist method of achieving such economic/social organization.

Quote:...the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class...

...The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class...

...The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

- Chapter II: Proletarians and Communists, Communist Manifesto

So here, we clearly see what the definition of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is - the replacement of the current ruling class, a class defined by Marxists as those who, in simple terms, profit off the work of others, by a new ruling class, namely, those who are enlightened enough, or "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class" to belong to the party who says that it is working in the interests of the proletariat. In Lenin's theories and practice, the communists deferred the decision making to the top of this party, and therefore enhanced even further the idea of elite rule. Tell me, how is this different than classic Republics when the inherent belief is that the new leaders "have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding"? How is it different than the elite rule of the enlightened proposed by Locke and Rousseau? How can it be describe in a way other than a sector of the population claiming to represent the proletariat masses, becoming the new bourgeois? Either Lenin was trying to become the bourgeois or you have to believe that he was too dumb to see the inevitable outcome of trying Marxism with elite rule. Considering he had discussions with Anarchists, I'd have to rule out the latter as he most certainly was aware of the reasonably predictable consequences of creating a new bourgeois class. And before you try to claim that it is not a "new bourgeois" class, rather the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", drop the rhetoric and explain in real terms, how the proletariat has a hand in making decisions in Leninism - a significant hand, more than simple representation, which is what we have in Republics and Parliamentary Democracies. How do they have control over production when there is a party who makes decisions for them, a party run by an elite group of people?

**Rick Ross 187** · (This post was last modified: 12-31-2010 11:34 AM by Rick Ross 187.)

(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: Obviously, "freeman", "patrician", "lord", "guild-master" and "oppressor" represent the historical bourgeois.

Absolutly not. These are different classes. The bourgeoisie only became a ruling class in the ~1600s (there much debate about the specific time, but most agree roughly around then). To view every ruling class in history as the "bourgeoisie" is transhistorical and compleltly the opposite of what Marx was getting at.

(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: The "slave", "plebeian", "serf", "journeyman" and "oppressed" represent the proletariat.

Again, no way. A proletarian is a worker who is deprived of access to production to sustain his own existance, and thus must sell his labour power to survive. Such groups have existed in history (there was a proletariat in Rome), but they only came to start making up the majority of workers in society (well, West Europe atleast) in ~1600s.

A slave does not sell his labour power, but is forced through direct coecrian and violence to work. The Serf has access to his own means of subsistance, yet must pay rent. They are not proletarians.

(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: The beef being that historically, the proletariat produces the capital and the bourgeois ensure that it flows to them.

Shakur, i really dont think ur getting Marx. Capital is accumulated wealth used to accumulate yet more wealth. This again has only existed on large scales since the ~1600s

(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: So here, we clearly see what the definition of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is - the replacement of the current ruling class, a class defined by Marxists as those who, in simple terms, profit off the work of others, by a new ruling class, namely, those who are enlightened enough, or "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class" to belong to the party who says that it is working in the interests of the proletariat.

I dont know how u came to this conclusion. You are mixing Lenin's writings on ORGANISATION with Marx's on post-revolution.

I really dont know how to repsond to this because its so confused.

Your viewing the term "ruling class" transhistoricaly as alway meaning some sort of elite. No. What a ruling class is, is the economic class that has supremacy over production.

(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: In Lenin's theories and practice, the communists deferred the decision making to the top of this party, and therefore enhanced even further the idea of elite rule.
Tell me, how is this different than classic Republics when the inherent belief is that the new leaders "have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding"? How is it different than the elite rule of the enlightened proposed by Locke and Rousseau?
How can it be describe in a way other than a sector of the population claiming to represent the proletariat masses, becoming the new bourgeois?

DID LENIN OWN CAPITAL? DID HE DERIVE HIS INCOME FROM EXTRACTING PROFITS FROM OTHERS LABOUR?

look, no offense but your pretty confused on marxism.

(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: was aware of the reasonably predictable consequences of creating a new bourgeois class.

what the hell are u on about

(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: And before you try to claim that it is not a "new bourgeois" class, rather the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", drop the rhetoric and explain in real terms, how the proletariat has a hand in making decisions in Leninism - a significant hand, more than simple representation, which is what we have in Republics and Parliamentary Democracies. How do they have control over production when there is a party who makes decisions for them, a party run by an elite group of people?

I think your problem is your viewing everything in parliamentry style politics.

Dictorships of a class are an abstarct thing.

(12-31-2010 12:07 AM)shakur420 Wrote: Chomsky doesn't have a fucking clue? You stated the same thing he did. ObamaNation is in no way "left", not by any definition. Yet, is it not factual to say that he is "left of Dick Cheney"? That he is left of people like Reagan, Bush and Nixon? You started off this convo by claiming he was making false claims. Everything you've posted has in fact showed the opposite. You might be in favor of "benevolent dictatorship". Just because Chomsky isn't, doesn't mean he doesn't describe the facts correctly.

Chomsky doesnt.

He constantly refers to this mythical "mainstream marxist" movement to thge left of Lenin yet can only produce the names of Pannekok and Luxemburg?
But i pointed out that Pannekok is no body. wrote a few nice pamphlets, great. Not part of the movement.

The only relevent name to the left of Lenin he named is Luxemburg. Lets see what she said about the "reight wing deviant" the Bolsheviks shall we?

Quote:Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honour and capacity which Western Social Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks. Their October uprising was not only the actual salvation of the Russian Revolution; it was also the salvation of the honour of international socialism. R. Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution (New York, 1940), p.16.

She made some criticisms of the harshness of the Bolsheviks on dissidents, but was overall supportive

So who was the Movement to the Left of Lenin? Panekok? hhahhahahaha

Like i said, no real left wing to Lenin emerged until after the revolution - and even they refered to Lenin as "comrade Lenin" and upheld the revolution etc. They are called the "Left Communists", look them up.

(12-31-2010 12:07 AM)shakur420 Wrote: Bourgeois, from a Marxist perspective at least, refers to those who control/own capital. In the theoretical Marxist society, that means the workers.

No. Capital is about a social relation. Capital is abolished. Wealth is no longer accumulated for wealths sake, but for meeting the needs of society.

(12-31-2010 12:07 AM)shakur420 Wrote: Historically, that means those who control the party in societies that claim to practice some form of Marxist theory. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" means, in such a theoretical society, that some will rule over others, even if it's 90% over 10%, in the fantasy world in which a Marxist party actually allows workers to retain 100% control over production, it's not democratic and as such is not a classless economy (workers control over production), and never will be. Or am I supposed to believe that workers can have control over production when they don't have the same political weight as others? The math doesn't add up in Marxist theory for me, let alone it's failure to produce such a reality (wokers' control of production).

There needs to be some sort of organisation concerning what is produced. That ofcourse requires some sort of central control. The left wing of Lenin (that Chomsky seems to not know about) such as Bordiga agreed on this.

(12-31-2010 12:07 AM)shakur420 Wrote: You claim that opposition to imperialism by Marxists is based on an economic perspective, not empathy for the suffering. What then, I ask, is the purpose of creating Socialism?

Because the capitalist class cann no longer advance society. there quest for profits put them at odds with the advancment of humanity. They are no longer a progressive class.

No one likes suffering. But if someone has to suffer to end a world of suffering, fine.

**Rick Ross 187** · 12-31-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote: Why do you care to redistribute capital equally? Because otherwise people suffer, right?

no.

Quote: The whole idea of Socialism is based on things like equality.

no.

Quote: You obviously have empathy for those who are suffering.

of course.

Quote:To claim that you want to help others and to do so, they simply have to relinquish self determination to you is authoritarian, and on the path to totalitarian.

not to me. not to any single leader. but to democratic worker institutions (like Soviets).

But! If civil war breaks out, thats something else. the bolsheviks tried fighting with autonmous independent militias at first. It was a disaster.

Quote: You seem to understand this. Socialism, or workers control over production, a classless economy, cannot be imposed.

A class is a group who have the same relation to production. Of course this can exist.

Quote: This is the reason that Marxism paraded as a working theory of Socialism is inherently flawed - it continues to advocate undemocratic structures.

and anarchism is flawed in its obsession over "democratic" structures, in the face of an enemy.

Quote: has anything to do with Socialism - workers' control over production, a classless economy?

It is a method of acheiving this. Its also the closest anyone has come. Anarchists stay on the sidelines.

Quote: No person in their right mind advocates that Leninism advanced workers' control over production.

I already said "leninism" is a pointless term. I do know that the October Revolution solidified workers power initialy. However Civil War destroyd this.

Quote: But because people like Che went around claiming that flawed economic theories were in the interests of the average person, totalitarianism has been romanticized by those who don't want to think for themselves.

lol, Che did more than "claim". He activly built a "totalitarian" system in Cuba.

Quote:They call themselves "Democrats" while they ensure that profits flow to them and their friends. Just because they derive their title from the word "Democracy" doesn't change the fact that they hate the idea of self determination for others. They love it for themselves, but not for the rest of us. Rhetoric is not a basis for practical discussions, it's inane chatter. This is true whether it comes from the right, left, up, down or whatever.

All i can say in LOL

Quote:I didn't misunderstand you whatsoever. I wasn't talking about foreign coups. But to stress my point, coups most certainly don't have to be connected with violence. We can look at Chavez, Mossadegh and the Sandinistas for some quick examples. Yes, that's right, I'm referring you to the dictionary to look up the term. That the use of economic/political warfare to force people out of office, or force them to adopt imperialist-friendly measures, is the same as a military coup. There is no difference, the meaning of the word refers to the transfer of power from one group/person to another, a transfer that is regarded as illegitimate by those who are ousted. The use of physical force is not a prerequisite for using the term. Anyways, let's keep to "domestic coups", of sorts, in the U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us/pol....html?_r=1
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingt...pdate.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22631.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/..._coup.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-ale...27990.html
http://www.observer.com/node/44719
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/us/pol...odayspaper
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/201...and-trade/
http://grayson-green.blogspot.com/2010/0...layed.html

lol seriously bro? the term "coup" used in those articles is rhetoric.

Anyway, ill quote "Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook":
"A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder"

Your definiton "transfer of power from one group/person to another, a transfer that is regarded as illegitimate by those who are ousted" can be applied to anything, including an Anarchist revolution.

Quote:Perhaps if you had listened to what Chomsky was saying instead of concentrating on (unsuccessfully) defending Lenin, you would have picked up on how he used the word "coup", and how he equated it to Lenin. Obviously, if you read about the 1917 revolution, you find out that it included heavy involvement of the working class, the people, and it was not, per say, "organized from above".

Im glad you agree. A shame Chomsky refusing to, despite modern historiography pointing to the same conclusion.

Quote: That doesn't mean that once Lenin and his cohorts were in power, they didn't try to ensure that Socialism, worker's control over production that is, would never see the light of day.

Obviously civil war didnt matter and they could experiment with new ways of organising society as much as they like. Dont worry about creating guns to shoot the armies trying to bring back the tsar, that can wait until we have worked out how to fully implement workers control.

Quote: He hijacked the revolution, not the former leaders' positions, that's what Chomsky makes clear is his contention. But you have to actually pay attention to words in order to understand what people are trying to say.

And it is my contention tha the revolution was destroyed by the neccesities of civil war. Chomsky obviously doesnt think civil war is a big deal. Who cares? Its only the White Army coming to hang all workers representatives (i.e. those elected in the factory commities) from lamposts

Quote:The Soviet councils were actual Socialism, you know, where workers had control over production.

No, they were political institutions.

Quote:Why then, am I supposed to believe that moves to marginalize them are in the interest of Socialism?

Because your ignoring the civil war.

Quote:And by the way, check those links from the other post.

You should too. Check out that site Internationalism. They uphold Lenin.

Quote:There's a letter from Stalin (and some other guy) to Lenin asking to dissolve specific Soviets, among other things. At the bottom, in the notes, it refers to Lenin's reply to proceed immediately. From the Marxist website, should be credible from your perspective at least.

I can only imagine it was held by the Mensheviks or SRs, who opposed Soviet power. I can deal with that.

Quote:This was predicted by those who paid attention to what Marx, Engels and Lenin were actually saying - that we can have economic equality without Democracy. You seem to be supporting Chomsky's view to the letter.

No.

The Bolsheik support base was the workers of the cities. they were the first to fight and were mostly killed. So they lost their support base nearly compleltly.

The emergencies of civil war destroyed the democratic culture within the Bolshevik party. You cant have debates when someone is shooting the shit out of u. You vote while being shelled to death.

Things like the factory commitees were destroyed as the need for quick production of weaposn and supplies for the war overode democracy.

Chomsky seems to think these things were planned.

Quote: You seem to agree that Marxism in theory and practice is not Democratic.

Democracy can be overwritten when extreme circumstances call for it to.

Quote:how you think workers can have self determination, economically speaking, if they don't have the same level of political equality.

No one can have self determination economicaly unless they are a peasent.

Quote: The argument has been made throughout history that anarchist methods of achieving Socialism are not backed up by scientific, mathematical equations, by practical realities that must be addressed. In fact, at the moment, that is the only scientific theory on social/economic organization that makes sense to me, and that has actually worked as far as actually moving towards Socialism.
http://wiki.infoshop.org/Historical_over..._anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_c...gh_history
http://libertariannation.org/a/f21l1.html
http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html
http://libertariannation.org/a/f72h2.html
http://radicalarchives.org/2009/11/23/ho...kibbutzim/
http://stason.org/TULARC/ideology/anarch...t-soc.html

None of these have been lasting.

Quote:It's fine to say a benevolent dictatorship is better than what we have today, and that is the goal of Marxism

that not the goal of marxism. Dictatorial methods may be used in a revoluton/civil war though

Quote: how a classless economy can be created and maintained without pure Democracy.

Tell me how, if every decision is debated, can a functioning classless society work?

Quote:They "upheld" Lenin as a "Communist revolutionary", nobody said they represented working theories of Socialism.

Well socialism wasnt fully acheived. But they say Lenin was correct.

Quote: Chomsky said they were left of Lenin, that's it. You said that was false and then proceeded to say the same thing.

show me where chomsky talks of Bordiga or the Itlaian Left?!? He talks about Panekok lol. And Luxemburg, who although on the left of lenin, thought the revolution was correct.

Panekok was not part of any serious movement nor was he mainstream as Chomsky claims

Quote: I'm simply addressing your comments that Chomsky made some false claims. According to your explanations, though, he didn't.

Was the mainstream marxist movement to the left of Lenin?
FUCKING NO!

Who was to the left? Panekok? So hes anyguy. Luxemburg? She agreed with Lenin and Bolshevism.

So who was ot the left? Well, as i pointed out, the Left Comm like Bordiga. Does Chomsky mention them? NO. Were the left Comms against Bolshevism? NO.

I cba with this anymore, its the samepoints over and over

to some up:
bourgeoisie and capital are specific historical terms and do not exist after capitalism
socialism is not about equality
Panekok is nobody important (lol i cant even spell his name, thats how irelevent he is)
Luxemburg supported Lenin
The Left Communists supported Lenin
The 2nd International was the mainstream and was on the right of lenin
civil war destroyed the revolution. i wont condemn lenin for the extreme steps taken to win the civil war, even if it destroyed the revolution. it was death and the tsar otherwise.

Thats the choice after the russian revolution. Overide (temporarily being the intention) the soviets etc to win the civil war and then ohopefully reimplement them or have the Tsar and fascism win over russia. THERE WAS NO OTHER CHOICE

**psy0nyd3** · 12-31-2010, 08:03 PM

I think the main point of Chomsky is that once you go in that authoritarian direction, there is no coming back. Nobodys going to relinquish their state powers back to workers. Nobody has, nobody ever will, regardless of the original intentions. We have to achieve economic equality through other means.

**shakur420** · (This post was last modified: 01-03-2011 07:19 PM by shakur420.)

(12-31-2010 11:14 AM)bailey_187 Wrote:
(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: Obviously, "freeman", "patrician", "lord", "guild-master" and "oppressor" represent the historical bourgeois.

Absolutly not. These are different classes. The bourgeoisie only became a ruling class in the ~1600s (there much debate about the specific time, but most agree roughly around then). To view every ruling class in history as the "bourgeoisie" is transhistorical and compleltly the opposite of what Marx was getting at.

(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: The "slave", "plebeian", "serf", "journeyman" and "oppressed" represent the proletariat.

Again, no way. A proletarian is a worker who is deprived of access to production to sustain his own existance, and thus must sell his labour power to survive. Such groups have existed in history (there was a proletariat in Rome), but they only came to start making up the majority of workers in society (well, West Europe atleast) in ~1600s.

A slave does not sell his labour power, but is forced through direct coecrian and violence to work. The Serf has access to his own means of subsistance, yet must pay rent. They are not proletarians.

(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: The beef being that historically, the proletariat produces the capital and the bourgeois ensure that it flows to them.

Shakur, i really dont think ur getting Marx. Capital is accumulated wealth used to accumulate yet more wealth. This again has only existed on large scales since the ~1600s

Quote:In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

...We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

...We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society.

- Chapter I: Bourgeois and Proletarians, Communist Manifesto

I can read, you know. Just because I don't ignore the flaws in his ideas doesn't mean that I don't understand them. So yeah, since these were the classic class divisions that had morphed into to the two Marx was concerned about when he was around - proletariat, who were the industrial workers, and the bourgeois, to whom the large majority of the profit produce by the proletariat flowed to, it's pretty safe to say that these classic class divisions that were stated at the beginning of the Communist Manifesto were referring to the historical groups of what us common people call the "haves" and the "have-nots". In Marxist lingo, the bourgeois and the proletariat. Although, yeah, peasants and other non-industrial workers are excluded form the class of the proletariat, but the Leninists are sure to invite them when they need some extra bodies to fight a war.

I don't "misunderstand" a word of Marx or Lenin. I understand it completely - that which I've read. The difference is, I don't make excuses to destroy Democracy in the name of higher intelligence that is better suited to rule over the people, in a new bourgeois state that controls/owns profit. I'm not a 15 year old, I'm able to see past the last book/article/talk/discussion that I've come across and apply dictionary definitions of words in order to understand what "learned", "educated" and "enlightened" people mean when they talk of destroying Democracy in order to further it. I try to point out the bullshit and have no qualms about it.

(12-31-2010 11:14 AM)bailey_187 Wrote:
(12-31-2010 12:07 AM)shakur420 Wrote: You claim that opposition to imperialism by Marxists is based on an economic perspective, not empathy for the suffering. What then, I ask, is the purpose of creating Socialism?

Because the capitalist class cann no longer advance society. there quest for profits put them at odds with the advancment of humanity. They are no longer a progressive class.

Yes, Marx's contention was based on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat inevitably being the last stage of capitalism, a natural outcome, not necessarily based on something he would like to see because of his benevolent nature.

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: There needs to be some sort of organisation concerning what is produced. That ofcourse requires some sort of central control. The left wing of Lenin (that Chomsky seems to not know about) such as Bordiga agreed on this.

Quote: Why do you care to redistribute capital equally? Because otherwise people suffer, right?

no.

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote:
Quote:The whole idea of Socialism is based on things like equality.

no.

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote:
Quote:To claim that you want to help others and to do so, they simply have to relinquish self determination to you is authoritarian, and on the path to totalitarian.

not to me. not to any single leader. but to democratic worker institutions (like Soviets).

But! If civil war breaks out, thats something else.

Obviously civil war didnt matter and they could experiment with new ways of organising society as much as they like. Dont worry about creating guns to shoot the armies trying to bring back the tsar, that can wait until we have worked out how to fully implement workers control.

your ignoring the civil war.

So which manifestations of Marxism in history have given all power to "democratic worker institutions" instead of single leaders/parties? Your simple mention of changing this ideal in the face of war also demonstrates your hate for Democracy, for the right of the people to decide. You can't jump in and out of it as you please. You either believe in self determination or you don't. It's quite clear that those who understand Marxism and try to put it into action, don't believe in self determination for the whole population.

So if your Socialism is not about equality and Democracy, why would anybody who is interested in those things be supportive or involved with Marxist movements? You didn't answer the most important question.

You claim that authority and destruction of democracy is necessary to win a war. Funny, cause I know a few Americans that also think so. Of course, if me and my buddies get into a fight, there must be a leader to direct that fight, right? No way we could be democratic about it, you know, make mutual decisions. lol. Trust me, I was a huge proponent of hierarchy in the military, I still believe that chain of command is necessary in a military as part of the means of being efficient. Does that make it right? If I'm a socialist, in the sense that I would like to achieve a classless economy because I care about people, can I go that route and still stick to my beliefs? Hardly. Claiming that you want socialism but not for the benefit of people, simply to change the economic organization, is like people who now say we should pull out of Afghanistan - not because they give a fuck about the people who have been getting murdered and destroyed at our hands, but because the cost to us is too high. They are irrelevant, not the millions that give a fuck. You show your true colors as someone who understands various manifestations of Marxism, and that is just like people who understand capitalism and don't give a fuck about the rest of us. How do you give a fuck about the proletariat when you steal their power whenever you deem necessary? The more I learn about Lenin, the more I begin to agree with right wing Americans who say Communism is evil - at least those Communists who understand Communism.

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote:
Quote:There's a letter from Stalin (and some other guy) to Lenin asking to dissolve specific Soviets, among other things. At the bottom, in the notes, it refers to Lenin's reply to proceed immediately. From the Marxist website, should be credible from your perspective at least.

I can only imagine it was held by the Mensheviks or SRs, who opposed Soviet power. I can deal with that.

Can you deal with the fact that this is destroying whatever workers' control over production existed and baiting out Lenin for who he is? Or are we to stick with the belief that he upheld workers' control over production? You can't have it both ways.

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: lol seriously bro? the term "coup" used in those articles is rhetoric.

Whether the term is used in a rhetorical sense or not, the transfer of power (deemed illegitimate by the group who loses power) was the point we were talking about. You said that this didn't happen within political parties. I showed, with minimal checking, that it most certainly does. Your argument that Lenin couldn't possibly have taken over the party is mute by the simple definition of the word we're talking about.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coup

(12-31-2010 11:14 AM)bailey_187 Wrote:
(12-31-2010 12:07 AM)shakur420 Wrote: Bourgeois, from a Marxist perspective at least, refers to those who control/own capital. In the theoretical Marxist society, that means the workers.

No. Capital is about a social relation. Capital is abolished. Wealth is no longer accumulated for wealths sake, but for meeting the needs of society.

Does Marx not say that the bourgeois are those who control/own capital? Yes or no? If in the new Marxist society, a different class now own/control that capital, they become the bourgeois by his own definition.

Quote:...exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie...

Please, explain how the bourgeois would be able to economically exploit the proletariat without controlling the capital flow. What then, defines the bourgeois in contrast with the proletariat (or other classes that seem to be exempt from playing central roles in Marx's perceived inevitable revolution)?

Quote:...the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital...

So, the Bourgeois "increased its capital" without controlling the flow of capital and owning it's profits? Really?

Quote:...The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.

So, the bourgeois can revolutionize the "instruments of production", and "thereby the relations of production" and "with them the whole relations of society" without controlling capital and owning the profits that come from it?

Quote:...the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up...

lol, yeah, the bourgeois are not defined by those who own/control capital. Can I fall out of my chair with laughter now?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wor...01.htm#007

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote:
Quote:This was predicted by those who paid attention to what Marx, Engels and Lenin were actually saying - that we can have economic equality without Democracy. You seem to be supporting Chomsky's view to the letter.

No.

So there weren't people telling Marx and Engels that their idea of workers' production without Democracy would fail? Really? Cause you've admitted that they existed, just that they were "on the sidelines". lol Damn, man, this turning into a comedy club. You're making me erupt with laughter at every contradictory statement that seems to enforce not only what I believe about Marxism and Leninism - the former being nothing more than observations and perhaps a loose economical historical record and a theory of inevitable evolution of said economical record, and the latter being the authoritarian manifestation of a group of people who tried to use Marx's ideas as the basis for destroying Democracy and maintaining an anti-Socialist environment. But what also is becoming clearer and clearer about "Marxists" - in other words, those who believe in supporting and advancing movements that are strictly based on Marx's ideas, or any of the various offshoots, Leninism being perhaps the most popular (and one of the most closely related to "petty bourgeois Democracy", borrowing from Lenin's descriptions, of course) - is that the contradictions of supporting Democracy and despising it are rife throughout Marxists ideals. When we talk of the people and why manifesting Marx's theories is benevolent, it's presented in the interest of the people. When the lack of Democracy is brought up, the interest of the people is deferred to the enlightened, more capable managers in a Marxist society.

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Democracy can be overwritten when extreme circumstances call for it to.

No. Real democracy can never be overridden, that's why it's real Democracy. The fact that the destruction of Democracy was made a possibility once Lenin and his boys took power proves my point - nothing democratic about Lenin and his theories, let alone his historical actions.

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: No one can have self determination economicaly unless they are a peasent.

So you believe that the classless economy that Marx thought was inevitable, is actually impossible?

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote:
Quote: The argument has been made throughout history that anarchist methods of achieving Socialism are not backed up by scientific, mathematical equations, by practical realities that must be addressed. In fact, at the moment, that is the only scientific theory on social/economic organization that makes sense to me, and that has actually worked as far as actually moving towards Socialism.
http://wiki.infoshop.org/Historical_over..._anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_c...gh_history
http://libertariannation.org/a/f21l1.html
http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html
http://libertariannation.org/a/f72h2.html
http://radicalarchives.org/2009/11/23/ho...kibbutzim/
http://stason.org/TULARC/ideology/anarch...t-soc.html

None of these have been lasting.

Anarchism doesn't have to last forever, and realistically speaking, as long as there is one evil person within society, the struggle for Democracy and equality will probably never be over. Though, for the time that it has lasted, in all it's various manifestations and examples, it has been closer to workers having control over production than any Marxist effort. I don't know history that well, but I'm confident enough to say that because Marxism rejects Democracy as being central to creating and maintaining a classless economy, it's flawed from the outset - if we're talking about perceived and professed objectives (classless economy, or workers' control over production). It's like trying to go ahead with building a car with blueprints that are missing the wheels, and trying to convince the buyers that the wheels will magically appear one day, maybe, if the circumstances are right, somehow. They just gotta trust us on that. That a dude like Lenin will drive a method of economic/social organization that will lead to the state "withering away", naturally, with constant management by him and strict adherence to his laws. A ten year-old can recognize the hypocrisy.

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote:
Quote:It's fine to say a benevolent dictatorship is better than what we have today, and that is the goal of Marxism

that not the goal of marxism. Dictatorial methods may be used in a revoluton/civil war though

If that's not the goal of Marxism, then what I ask is the goal of Marxism? To allow for the natural progression of economic evolution, right? The next stage being Dictatorship of the Proletariat. So, what about real life manifestations of Marxism, what have been their goals? To give people a better life, no? Or was Che walking around Cuba and Bolivia talking about capital and labor relationships? lol. He was professing that it was a better life for those people. Which Marxist school of thought doesn't include a benevolent dictatorship? A benevolent one-party system? A benevolent leader? Which interpretation, offshoot, whatever you wanna call it? Which one? Which one speaks of the people ruling over themselves? Anarchism. If it's not Anarchism, it's dictatorship, it's some ruling over others. If you claim that that rule is benevolent, than it is a benevolent dictatorship. We're talking about the definitions of words here, not rhetoric that so filled with useless mumbo jumbo that it takes me months to understand the concept. Yeah, once you understand the basics of Marxism and the different theories on how to apply them in real life, you see clearly why Marxist material is filled with so many confusing terms, so many irrelevant complicated statements. To confuse the fuck out of you so that you won't bother to actually study it and see what it's all about at it's core - bourgeois liberalism. Just like Locke and Rousseau, with a totalitarian edge to it, a little bit of extra repression for those who don't agree with you.

(12-31-2010 11:14 AM)bailey_187 Wrote: Your viewing the term "ruling class" transhistoricaly as alway meaning some sort of elite. No. What a ruling class is, is the economic class that has supremacy over production.

"Elite" simply refers to a select group, a group from which others are excluded. So, yeah, I think I'm pretty much on the money when I say that historically, the ruling class usually consists of some form of elite group, be they royal families, rich people, prophets or politicians. It just makes sense, or we could believe that the ruling classes of various societies have allowed into their ranks anybody who so wished to join. lol

(12-31-2010 11:14 AM)bailey_187 Wrote: DID LENIN OWN CAPITAL? DID HE DERIVE HIS INCOME FROM EXTRACTING PROFITS FROM OTHERS LABOUR?

look, no offense but your pretty confused on marxism.

Did Lenin live in a better house than the rest of the population? Did he eat better food? More food? Did he work in a factory? Did he wear nice suits? $1000 haircuts? Maids? Drivers? Butlers? Cooks? Did he build roads with his own hands? Did he work in factories? Did he live on a farm? Did he live the high life? Or did he live like the rest of his population? So what's the difference between him and the "Social Democrats" he shat on so much claiming that they were simply trying to continue the system of the bourgeois? Yeah, that's what I thought.

(12-31-2010 11:14 AM)bailey_187 Wrote:
(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote: was aware of the reasonably predictable consequences of creating a new bourgeois class.

what the hell are u on about

When you create a economic/social system that puts you in the drivers seat, gives you and your buddies all (or most) of the power, you are creating a system with a bourgeois class, like it or not, that is the fact. Maybe you can claim that a different term must be used, but it's the same thing. You control the capital. Was Lenin so dumb that he didn't see that? lol, come on. He knew what he was doing. Or he was the dumbest "revolutionary" that ever existed?

(12-31-2010 11:14 AM)bailey_187 Wrote: I think your problem is your viewing everything in parliamentry style politics

Please, explain how Lenin's idea of running the country differs from Parliamentary Democracy.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/wo...g/viii.htm

(12-31-2010 11:14 AM)bailey_187 Wrote: Dictorships of a class are an abstarct thing.

Maybe for you, not for those of us who understand the difference between the rich and the poor, and the systems that are in place to insure that the divide between them gets larger. There is a dictatorship of the rich right now, and there is nothing "abstract" about it. It's real and in your face. If the "poor" reverse their roles and dominate over those who were formally the "rich", the term "dictatorship" is quite clear, one dominating over the other. When I say I believe in equality, I don't mean for just my peoples, for my crew, I mean for everyone - otherwise, it's not equality. Industrial workers dominating over others is no more equality than rich people dominating over the poor.

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote:
Quote:Perhaps if you had listened to what Chomsky was saying instead of concentrating on (unsuccessfully) defending Lenin, you would have picked up on how he used the word "coup", and how he equated it to Lenin. Obviously, if you read about the 1917 revolution, you find out that it included heavy involvement of the working class, the people, and it was not, per say, "organized from above".

Im glad you agree. A shame Chomsky refusing to, despite modern historiography pointing to the same conclusion.

I agree because those are facts I've come across. Just like everything else I've said on the topic. Except, of course what I think about classless economies going hand in hand with Democracy, that's just a theory for me at the moment. A theory that I haven't seen any holes in as of yet. And no, war is not a flaw in the logic as there are many examples of mutual effort to fight without any type of illegitimate authority.

As for Chomsky "refusing to" agree, um, what video were you watching? Or what comment of his have you read that leads you to believe he doesn't believe exactly what I stated above?

**kaka** · (This post was last modified: 01-03-2011 07:23 PM by kaka.)

(12-31-2010 06:40 AM)shakur420 Wrote:
(12-31-2010 01:14 AM)kaka Wrote: ^ No, it's based on the rule of the proletarian (not turning the workes into burgeoisie). By bourgeoisie Marx meant the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. And the rule of the proletariat would be the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’. The proletariat would assume state power aiming to eliminate the old relations of production. It would replace these relations with a class dictatorship which would both place the productive forces under proletarian control and pave the way for the abolition of class distinctions culminating in a classless society. The Communist Manifesto stated that the result would be ‘an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’.

Are you sure about that?

I'm just quoting what Marx said. Not any random interpretation made by someone trying to denigrate socialism.

**Boboulas** · 01-03-2011, 08:12 PM

Quote:By bourgeoisie Marx meant the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.

This is an out-dated view of class politics though, society is far different from when marx was alive and writing.

**shakur420** · 01-03-2011, 09:27 PM

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: He constantly refers to this mythical "mainstream marxist" movement to thge left of Lenin yet can only produce the names of Pannekok and Luxemburg?
But i pointed out that Pannekok is no body. wrote a few nice pamphlets, great. Not part of the movement.

The only relevent name to the left of Lenin he named is Luxemburg. Lets see what she said about the "reight wing deviant" the Bolsheviks shall we?

Quote:Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honour and capacity which Western Social Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks. Their October uprising was not only the actual salvation of the Russian Revolution; it was also the salvation of the honour of international socialism. R. Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution (New York, 1940), p.16.

Are you for real, man? Like seriously, give me a break. lol, she also said this:

Quote:"It is a fact that Lenin and his comrades were stormily demanding the calling of a Constituent Assembly up to the time of their October victory...

...And then, after these declarations, Lenin’s first step after the October Revolution was ... the dissolution of this same Constituent Assembly...

...To be sure, every democratic institution has its limits and shortcomings, things which it doubtless shares with all other human institutions. But the remedy which Trotsky and Lenin have found, the elimination of democracy as such, is worse than the disease it is supposed to cure; for it stops up the very living source from which alone can come correction of all the innate shortcomings of social institutions. That source is the active, untrammeled, energetic political life of the broadest masses of the people."

- Chapter 4, "The Russian Revolution" (Rosa Luxemburg)

(12-31-2010 11:14 AM)bailey_187 Wrote: He constantly refers to this mythical "mainstream marxist" movement to thge left of Lenin yet can only produce the names of Pannekok and Luxemburg?
But i pointed out that Pannekok is no body. wrote a few nice pamphlets, great. Not part of the movement.

...So who was the Movement to the Left of Lenin? Panekok? hhahhahahaha

...Like i said, no real left wing to Lenin emerged until after the revolution - and even they refered to Lenin as "comrade Lenin" and upheld the revolution etc. They are called the "Left Communists", look them up.

...show me where chomsky talks of Bordiga or the Itlaian Left?!? He talks about Panekok lol. And Luxemburg, who although on the left of lenin, thought the revolution was correct.

Panekok was not part of any serious movement nor was he mainstream as Chomsky claims

...Was the mainstream marxist movement to the left of Lenin?
FUCKING NO!

...Who was to the left? Panekok? So hes anyguy. Luxemburg? She agreed with Lenin and Bolshevism.

So who was ot the left? Well, as i pointed out, the Left Comm like Bordiga. Does Chomsky mention them? NO. Were the left Comms against Bolshevism? NO.

...Panekok is nobody important (lol i cant even spell his name, thats how irelevent he is)

So, in the same argument, you say that Chomsky is false in claiming that there were people to left of Lenin, and then you proceed to refer to those people in the same way he did? Did you not see the link I posted about the "Left Communists"? lol

Let's look at somewhat of a parallel. When we look at the "green party" in any given area, we can say that they are "left", correct? Would they also not be considered by the average "leftists" as pretty "mainstream left"? Considering they have concerns about things like the environment, drugs, freedom, Democracy, education, welfare, etc., etc.? We can also say that they are "left" of the so-called Democrats, that would be correct, no? Is it not correct then, to say that democrats are in fact a right wing abortion of the left? Considering that they embody no ideals of the left. They are, in fact the same group of "petty bourgeois" that Lenin referred to. They try to keep the system as is, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. There is nothing "left" about them (Democrats), except that they are "left" of the Republicans. And they, being the dominant so-called "left" representation in popular culture and media, though not in reality on the ground, would never admit publicly that the "green parties" are the mainstream of the the general "left" movement.

You keep bringing up how there was no left to Lenin. Then you keep mentioning the people and groups left of Lenin. Then you dismiss the existence of some of them as irrelevant and proceed to say that others (in the left camp) championed Lenin. lol, I'm sure that people like Clinton and Gore do the same with the green party. Claiming that there is no one to the left of the Democratic party, then dismissing those who are pointed as existing (and critical) as "irrelevant". lol

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Obviously civil war didnt matter and they could experiment with new ways of organising society as much as they like. Dont worry about creating guns to shoot the armies trying to bring back the tsar, that can wait until we have worked out how to fully implement workers control.

lol, we'll see how much you would care about necessity to manufacture guns if you were imprisoned in North Korea for refusing to turn your factory into an arms manufacturing plant - a factory that produced food for the population surrounding it. Again, excuses to reduce Democracy, or destroy it all together are the most telling. You're baited man. If you represent Marxism, then Marxism is not for the people, but for the state managers of a Marxist society. The same is true if you represent Leninism, which, I'm sorry to inform you, is a real term, referring to Lenin's manifestation of Marxists analysis and theories on the inevitable "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in economic evolution, and the "inevitability" of it that was professed to be advanced by Lenin and his boys using their own ideas and interpretations. It's a real term because so many of Communist state dictators proclaim it as a part of their ideology for economic/social organization. You're really going to claim otherwise? lol

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: THERE WAS NO OTHER CHOICE

hmm, where have I heard that false claim before? Oh yeah, Iraq (2003) and Afghanistan (2001)....

...Vietnam (1962), Nicaragua (1985), Yugoslavia (1999), Greece (1947), Russia (1918), Palestine (1967, 1973, 2009, 2010) and Lebanon (1982, 2006), to name just a few uncontroversially false claims that things like freedom, equality and basic human rights need to be rescinded in the name of defeating a monolithic enemy that threatens "our" survival. lol, really, man? Really? That's the argument you gonna roll with? I'll stick to facts and common sense, thanks.

(12-31-2010 12:19 PM)bailey_187 Wrote: Tell me how, if every decision is debated, can a functioning classless society work?

There's not much that needs to be "debated" when a farmer has complete control and decision-making abilities over his farm. Or when a teacher has the same complete control over what and how they teach. Or when students have complete control over deciding what they learn, from who and when. This is what Marxism boils down to, what the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is at it's lowest common denominator. Lenin, of course, takes it further and openly advocates repression, destruction of Democracy and complete totalitarianism. Anyone who contests that can look back in this thread for his words that I've quoted. The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in itself, as a prediction of the evolution of the current course of economic/social evolution is not of course completely totalitarian, but in the way Marx paraded it as Socialism, as a form of worker's control over production, solidifies his view that more powerful groups not only will, but are entitled to rule over those who have become weaker. The fact that the oppressors have now become the oppressed in Marx's predicted evolution of the economic/social system is irrelevant to people like him - the children of the former bourgeois class may suffer for their parents' crimes under the dominance of the new bourgeois class, who are devoid of all judgement and criticism because of their former oppressive state. Bullshit. Replacing one ruling group with another. Chomsky, not in this video, and not in any material I can find (and I have looked) has made this assertion about Marx. I stick to it for the moment because that's what the facts I have in front me display clearly. That is, his writings and the explanations of proponents of his theories on economic/social management/inevitability. Please, correct me if there is something I'm missing - minus the rhetoric, of course, I've already received my fair share of that.

(01-03-2011 07:22 PM)kaka Wrote: I'm just quoting what Marx said. Not any random interpretation made by someone trying to denigrate socialism.

Really? Cause I quoted Marx too, remember?

I hope that "denigrate" comment isn't for me, lol, just cause I believe that Socialism must include freedom as well as equality in order to exist doesn't mean I'm shitting on Socialism. Possibly your idea of social/economic organization, but then again maybe not. Cause after all, Americans who honestly critique the U.S. are "anti-American", right? lol

**Rick Ross 187** · 01-04-2011, 02:11 PM

your argument is based on a the infantile argument that people we dislike (leaders of the USA), use the same argument to justify actions in imperialist wars.

you clearly dont understand Marx. be as offended as u want lol, u dont, u repeatedly demonstrate that. you dont understand what capital is. u seem to have an infantile view of class that is ELITES = RULING CLASS. Its not.

Chomsky claims the Marxist movement was to the left of Lenin. I have painstakingly tried tried to point out how those to the left of him were either a) critical supporters or b) TOTALY FUCKING IRELEVENET MATE

Panekok does not equal a movement. council communists are irelevent. the Left Communists support Lenin etc. Whats so hard to get about that?

A bunch of whining losers i.e. panekok supporters does not equal "movement".

Even so, all the criticisms of Lenin from the left outside of Russia only came after the revolution. Chomsky tries to protray them as coming before, as if there was some alternative to Lenin. Nope. Hes making it up. The only significant criticism of Lenin came from the rightists i.e. the Mensheviks.

so i say this to chomsky: coolstorybro, enjoy supporting Chavez lol