Any commies around?

Page 5 of 7 [ 103 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

27 Mar 2009, 4:29 am

ruveyn wrote:

If Marxism is a science (I doubt that, it is more like a religion) then it is a wrong science. It fails to account for the essential selfishness of humans. Any system of economics that relies on a person subordinating his good or that of his family to the good of society or class or humanity is bound to fail. Egotism (love of one's self and what belongs to one) is genetically wired in. It is a survival characteristic and has evolved from the dawn of the earliest primate even unto this day.

We are hominid primate version 5.0. We are the smartest most bad-ass ape in The Monkey House.

Marx was fighting evolution. He was bound to lose. He simply was trying to overcome what Nature ordains.

ruveyn

This is a common misconception, although Marx theorised that humanity could form communism, this can only come about via Socialism or what he called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This of course is not a dictatorship as we generally understand it, rather a government answerable to workers commities which would result in a very democratic society.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

27 Mar 2009, 4:42 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

The Soviet system of governance was actually quite ingenious, and one of the best schemes I have ever seen for truly representative government. If not for manipulation and power struggles at the highest level, the Soviet experiment could well have turned out much differently. Or even if the power struggles had gone a different way- I don't trust that Trotsky would have done a good job of upholding the ideals on which the Soviet Union was ostensibly founded, but if, after Stalin's death, Malinkov had managed to win out over Krushchev, I think the direction of the USSR's development would have been much better.

A few little loopholes made such a difference.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

27 Mar 2009, 5:00 am

Orwell wrote:

I was with you until the bit about Trotsky, again a very maligned and misunderstood figure, I cannot put my hand to the article so you will have to endure the Paraphrase ' Governments and their bureaucracies must be kept under a constant state of revolution' in other words Stalinist style dictatorships (or even Trotskyist) should not be allowed to take hold and stagnate.

You are correct that the USSR was still a workers state (although a deformed one) during and after Stalin. Up until his murder Trotsky believed that it could be turned around.

Unfortunately the actions of Pablo, then later Healy, Banda and Slaughter (very unfortunate name) put the Fourth International back decades. Their betrayal of Marxism also sealed the coffin on the USSR as a possible reformed workers state.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

27 Mar 2009, 5:18 am

As far as Trotsky goes, I don't think him winning the power struggle would have resulted in a good outcome (not that Stalin's victory did) but it sure would have made for some more interesting history. It was feared that Trotsky would become Russia's Napoleon. Imagine that, the Bolshevik Revolution becoming French Revolution 2.0. Trotsky taking his "permanent revolution" to Germany and then the rest of Europe, going on a twentieth-century Napoleonic rampage with no Russia to fail at invading (since they were Russia). The whole of Europe would have gone Communist, except perhaps for stubborn holdouts in Britain. Would have been much more exciting than Stalin collectivizing agriculture.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Mar 2009, 8:52 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

And we have all seen how well this works, haven't we?

I will tell you about the Proles. Give them something to f**k and something to make them drunk and they are happy.

ruveyn

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

27 Mar 2009, 8:59 am

ascan wrote:

The fact is that Brown has been at the centre of the Labour administration since it was unfortunately voted into office. I knew no good would come of it, and it looks like I was correct.

Kangoogle wrote:

Like a working education system or NHS? ...

Exactly. They don't work. Anybody with sense, and enough money, gets their kids educated privately, and wouldn't go anywhere near an NHS hospital.

Kangoogle wrote:

It was actually the bankers mess though this time. Nothing wrong with punishing them for it.

Bankers are a convenient scapegoat. Anyway, it's only a very small number of individuals who actually took the commercial decisions that caused the harm. The fallout from that has highlighted a bigger problem with the whole of the western world, one small component of which is the massive amount of borrowing that Brown in the UK has committed us to (even prior to the current crisis), both collectively with regard to national debt, and individually with the need for a large loan for a house or university education. If it hadn't been the banks, then something else would have occured that would have exposed the fragile nature of our illusory prosperity.

If you want to punish anyone, I'd suggest you start with Gordon and his cronies. Personally, whatever government gets in next, I'd force them to set some realistic goals for extracting us from this mess, and two years to make progress. If they fail, I'd take every tenth one of them, put them against a wall and shoot them. They'd then get another two years etc. Should concentrate their minds, a little.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

27 Mar 2009, 5:18 pm

Orwell wrote:

Yes if Trotsky and the Left Opposition had won through we might be living in a very different world. The theory of permanent revolution has nothing to do with invading Soviet Armies(that was Stalins approach)it is about building the political conciousness of the working class, funding their parties and helping them build a principled revolutionary party so that gradually, slowly the working class forms its own state apparatus. Trotsky was not some latent Neo Bonaparte. To think that he was anything but a very principled Marxist shows a lack of knowledge.

Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

27 Mar 2009, 6:53 pm

ascan wrote:

The fact is that Brown has been at the centre of the Labour administration since it was unfortunately voted into office. I knew no good would come of it, and it looks like I was correct.

Kangoogle wrote:

Like a working education system or NHS? ...

Exactly. They don't work. Anybody with sense, and enough money, gets their kids educated privately, and wouldn't go anywhere near an NHS hospital.

Private hospitals on the whole have a worse safety record, how many stories do you see in the papers about botched plastic surgery and so on.

As for education, having met some of the twats who come out of the private system, anyone who wants a normal decent person as a kid should be wary of sending their kids to one.

Quote:

Kangoogle wrote:

It was actually the bankers mess though this time. Nothing wrong with punishing them for it.

Bankers have made an awful lot of money out of the mess, why shouldnt they be punished for that?

Quote:

If you want to punish anyone, I'd suggest you start with Gordon and his cronies. Personally, whatever government gets in next, I'd force them to set some realistic goals for extracting us from this mess, and two years to make progress. If they fail, I'd take every tenth one of them, put them against a wall and shoot them. They'd then get another two years etc. Should concentrate their minds, a little.

Good job you are not in charge Ascan. The system does need changing, ideally to become more dictatorial. Or even better, have (a) who can vote and (b) the media regulated properly.

Zyborg
Velociraptor

Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 459

27 Mar 2009, 7:36 pm

I have background as communist (marxist-leninist), but I am critical of (western) academic leftism and identity politics.

Learning2Survive
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777

27 Mar 2009, 7:52 pm

Please join the Far Left forum from Z Magazine [edited by sb for being a phishing website]

_________________
Some of the threads I started are really long - yeay!

vibratetogether
Supporting Member

Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: WA, USA

27 Mar 2009, 8:41 pm

ruveyn wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

'Why should any of this be of concern to a Marxist, a man or woman of science and objectivity? It ought to be of concern, first of all, to anyone because artistry is one of the most extraordinary and rewarding elements in life. But let's consider Marxism in particular. It is a science, but it is the science of human relations; it is objective, but guiding human subjective activity is its prime concern. Marxism is not a study of the movement of inanimate atoms and molecules. How can anyone concerned with the welfare of humanity ignore the field in which human relationships, motivations and emotions are given their most compelling and enduring expression?'

I'll reply to this thread by replying to this post specifically.

This is generally my argument when I argue with Socialists (better word to encompass all the various theologies). Although I defend Socialists often, I play devil's advocate with whoever I'm talking with about politics.

The thing is, you're right to a point. I don't believe any form of Socialism is possible on a national level. If it were to ever happen, it would have to be a worldwide phenomenon. What with the world economy of today, it's just not viable. You become isolationist and poor.

However, this inherently selfish thing, I'm not sure I agree with it. I believe in evolution, and as such I see humans as capable of evolving. I think I see it as having happened in the past couple centuries, which, when you think about it, is a microscopic window of human history. There are trends pointing to greater acceptance of people regardless of race/religion/sex/orientation, as well as a growing number of non-religious.

While I remain slightly cynical, I at least accept the possibility that humans will evolve into...well...decent human beings.

Zyborg
Velociraptor

Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 459

27 Mar 2009, 9:08 pm

Selfishness is result from environment. I think "human nature" argument is crap. But herd instinct and hierarchic thinking is hindering human progress.

vibratetogether
Supporting Member

Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: WA, USA

27 Mar 2009, 9:16 pm

Zyborg wrote:

Selfishness is result from environment. I think "human nature" argument is crap. But herd instinct and hierarchic thinking is hindering human progress.

I agree, but I think genetics play a role beyond environment. I also see what we think of as "environment" being dynamic, with each aspect playing a different role (where you are born, race, class, religion, your parents, your peers).

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

27 Mar 2009, 9:25 pm

Zyborg wrote:

Selfishness is result from environment. I think "human nature" argument is crap. But herd instinct and hierarchic thinking is hindering human progress.

Actually, I disagree, selfishness is emergent from individuality, and individuality is usually considered deeply human, because human beings have independent processing abilities and needs and desires independent from other human beings.

Thus, the issue with human nature isn't mild and just biological, but rather profound and part of the nature of an independent cognitive process and evaluation.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

28 Mar 2009, 12:36 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

The theory of permanent revolution also required that revolution occur in other states, hence the USSR had an urgent need to foment revolt across Europe. Many Mensheviks (and Trotsky was, once upon a time, a Menshevik) were in favor of turning WWI into a great revolutionary war to spread Communist ideals. In any case, other countries would not like having the Soviets support Communist revolutionaries, so Trotskyist policies would most likely have led to armed conflict with other European powers. Given how effective Trotsky was as Commissar of War, it's possible that he would have been very successful fighting these other nations.

Quote:

Trotsky was not some latent Neo Bonaparte. To think that he was anything but a very principled Marxist shows a lack of knowledge.

Whether he was or was not the next Napoleon is debatable, that was the fear of people close to him in the leadership at the time who had studied history and sought to avoid the mistakes of the past. No one expected Robespierre to abuse his power the way he did during the French Revolution. To claim that Trotsky was an orthodox Marxist seems inaccurate, as he went against traditional Marxist notions on several important points, and furthermore he vacillated several times as was politically expedient. Was he principled? Perhaps. We will never know how he would have behaved had he gained the upper hand in his power struggle with Stalin.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

28 Mar 2009, 3:41 am

Kangoogle wrote:

...anyone who wants a normal decent person as a kid should be wary of sending their kids to one.

Well, I've known several people who went to private schools, and I wouldn't agree with you.

Kangoogle wrote:

Bankers have made an awful lot of money out of the mess, why shouldnt they be punished for that?

What's wrong with making money? I think, like many leftists, you're just jealous. Most people look to maximise their income, and minimise effort, if they've any sense.

Page 5 of 7 [ 103 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Any commies around? Post Reply New Topic

Any commies around?