"mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing" --Frederick Engels

[Starry Messenger]

Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc. that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case." (Frederick Engels, "Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx" 1883)

Why is a job seeker, a person trying to survive, expected to play-act and grovel for access to the basics of human existence? Haven't we given up enough? Haven't we downsized, gone without, lived simply, enough? Why are the workers expected to give more, when the 1% has the most?

[white_wolf]

1. K&R.

[Brickbat]

2. K&R. Workers have sacrificed enough.

[Gormy Cuss]

3. +1

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

[grasswire]

5. It is very hard to pull up by the bootstraps without stable housing.

A person without housing spends massive energy each day just finding a safe place to be each night. I honestly think there should be dormitory housing available for anyone. Even old decommissioned military housing, or closed schools, or whatever.

[kestrel91316]

7. ......or vacant foreclosures.......

[izquierdista]

11. Any building in a pinch

It's not like there aren't enough. On my drive into downtown, I can see boarded up: car dealers, warehouses, storefronts, factories, department stores, a mall with 3 anchor tenants and 40 acres of parking, hotels, restaurants, public housing, along with plenty of unoccupied single family houses. All owned by unimaginative cheapskates who don't want to sink another penny into it and are hoping for someone to buy it from them.

Until communities (on the town level) use eminent domain for what it was intended, to yank unproductive eyesores away from rich skinflints and turn it into something people in the community can use, the situation will continue.

[ashling]

55. Eminent Domain? - But ...

I like your thinking. This would certainly be a great use of the concept. Unfortunately, even if the community government does use the that process they still have to pay the owner a "fair" value and then spend to develop it for housing. In this economy there is simply not enough money to do this because we have to provide tax cuts and welfare for the ultra-rich - an eminently wiser use of funds, don't you think?

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::

:hurts:

[saras]

92. I think you're on to something. The places where the law says FAIR value insteead of MARKET value!

Aside from that, if the economy is tanked, what's the market value anyways? If your property isn't selling, you've priced it ABOVE market value. Market value is what you have to lower your price to in order to get the property to sell.

Places where the building has deteriorated too far to be commercially viable may even have NEGATIVE market value, even though PART of the building is still safe and useable.

I can think of a bunch more ways a progressive local government could use this.

[Starry Messenger]

10. Good point grasswire.

I like your thinking there.

[ashling]

56. or boots

:shrug:

[OwnedByFerrets]

6. Great Post

[Zax2me]

8. Before religion? That doesn't fly here. Freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is celebrated here - not scorned.
Thankfully we are protected from this kind of thought.
This statement is in opposition to freedom of religion.
Unrec.

[Lyric]

12. What the hell?

Was your post supposed to make some kind of sense?

:wtf:

[14thColony]

14. Yes, shockingly enough food DOES come before religion

Engels was saying quite plainly that if you don't have food and water and shelter, you don't have TIME for all the other nice-to-haves, because you're too worried about avoiding being DEAD.

But if you think religion must come before the essentials of life, then by all means eat your Bible. Or whatever book. Bon appetit.

[white_wolf]

16. Sorry to tell you, but having enough food for people is far more important than you religion.

You can eat your damn bible or whatever book of myths you prefer.

[The Magistrate]

17. Jesus,Fella: That is Like Being Asked What Two Plus Two Makes And Answering Tuesday...

[Starry Messenger]

18. LOL!

Thank you. I'm not usually too baffled, but that was a difficult pancake.

[Quantess]

44. Maybe he posted in the wrong thread...?

[Starry Messenger]

78. Aw! What fun is that?

You might be totally right though. I never thought of it.

[14thColony]

75. +1

10 out of 10 on style for that line...

[Warren DeMontague]

26. with all due respect...

...what the fuck are you talking about? :shrug:

[fishwax]

35. I don't understand your point either

Can you clarify?

[bengalherder]

36. Can't eat religion.

That's why so many give out soup along with the sermons.

Of course faith worked wonders for the little match girl, she got to see her mummy and daddy in heaven again after she expired from starvation and exposure.

[socialshockwave]

43. I think he's saying that communism is anti-religious, and really..it was.

Priests killed, churches destroyed, people not free to practice.

But otherwise his statement is kinda weird.

Either that or he's a plant by the militant atheist wing of DU to stir up some more mocking of religion.

[leftstreet]

88. Americans love religious freedomz...unless you're wearing a burka

:eyes:

[BiggJawn]

100. Militant Atheists?

Sorry I'm late, the Bat Signal was broken. I got here as fast as I could.
What's going on?

Yeah, Communism and Religion never have gotten along well, that "Opiate of the Masses" thing and all.

Funny, though, I just read today that Christianity is catching on like wildfire in, of all places, CHINA... Yeah, good old "The East is Red" COMMUNIST China...

Hoocoodanode?

[white_wolf]

102. Communism isn't anti-religion.

At least not privately. A socialist state would allow churches to exist as long as they were completely separate from government. Lenin lays it out in "Socialism and Religion." Link here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

[sudopod]

106. " militant atheist wing of DU to stir up some more mocking of religion. "

*facepalm*

[Skittles]

64. we need freedom FROM religion

[RandomKoolzip]

9. The truth is that the right wing wants the poor to die.

The cuts to government spending on the table right now are going to be a prelude to the mainstreaming of eugenics, eliminationism as a political strategy, and - at best - the dehumanization of the working poor and needy. Remember, it's Social Darwinism, wherein the name of the game is "Survival of the Fittest" (and what's the opposite of "survival?") In under ten years, I'll bet that the GOP will have finally gotten explicit about the beliefs they keep pussy-footing around in 2011 and will be openly advocating the mass killing of poor people.

[Starry Messenger]

13. With the open hostility of the GOP and the rather corporate indifference of some Dems

we're in for massive losses of quality of life. I was saddened today to see some here advocating the view that people should act like they are lucky to work. In these times, one is of course lucky to have a job, but where is the recognition of our enormously valuable contributions?

[fascisthunter]

15. which for me shows how parallel this american right wing is to the Nazis of Germany

[defendandprotect]

50. Same families -- corporations -- who have taken control of our government, corporate-media ...!!

[BOG PERSON]

19. disagree - the poor (in america) need to live

if a lot of poor (in america) die that could cause wages to go up a little.

[LooseWilly]

20. Making have-nots grovel and play act and grin like enthusiastic idiots IS THE WHOLE POINT...

... of being in charge of the jobs (which equates to the means of acquiring the staples of survival).

If everyone had enough so they didn't need to grovel and play act and grin like enthusiastic idiots... then the rich might have to do more stuff for themselves, and what fun would that be for them?

The whole system would grind to a halt. Little rich girls would have to feed their own ponies. Dumb rich people would have to put up with having retail staff call them on their stupidity. It would be Armageddon!!

(The Horror :+)

[Starry Messenger]

21. +

[socialist_n_TN]

22. I agree with Engels

:) These priorities would be first for me and should be first for any society worth the title of "society".

[Starry Messenger]

24. Hey s_n_T.

Good to see you! :thumbsup:

[socialist_n_TN]

25. And you Starry.......

I got a job and no longer post as much here. But it's good to see some of my old comrades are still around! :)

[Starry Messenger]

32. Good news on the job!

Sorry to see less of you, but getting a new job is nothing to sneeze at. :)

[socialist_n_TN]

33. Yep. It took a while and natch it's not quite as good

as the one that left, but it's OK. So far. My employer is actually a union, so that's interesting.

[white_wolf]

38. Really? In TN? Do you work for the state?

Sorry, I know it's none of my business I'm just shocked. I didn't think there were any unions in this state.

[socialist_n_TN]

52. Not the state, but it is a union

I'll PM it.

[Major Hogwash]

27. Isn't he married to Shirley Jones?

And does that mean that Shirley agrees with this concept of worker's rights?

[chillspike]

23. K & R

[bvar22]

28. FDR agrees!!!

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."--- FDR, 1944

I miss THAT Democratic Party.
:cry:


...but there is "hope".

Bolivia's Reform President sounds a whole lot like FDR,
and they have succeeded in taking their government BACK from the Corporate Predators & the Oligarchs.

"The worst enemy of humanity is U.S. capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like our own, a rebellion against a system, against a neoliberal model, which is the representation of a savage capitalism. If the entire world doesn't acknowledge this reality, that nation states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated."
----Bolivian Reform President Evo Morales

Our neighbors to the south have given us the Blue Print,
but they have Transparent, Fair, Verifiable Elections monitored by International Agencies.
We don't have that in the US,
and neither Party is interested in giving that to us,
because elections are TOO IMPORTANT to leave up to The People.
We will have to find a way around that.

...but there is "hope".
Look to the south,
find the common ground,
and spread the word.

VIVA Democracy!
I hope we get some here soon.


Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Starry Messenger]

29. "because elections are TOO IMPORTANT to leave up to The People."

Sad but true, bvar22. I'm looking towards the stirring of life seen in workers here. It might be new and small, but I'm feeling more positive about the ability of humans to not sit down and take any crumb left by the monopoly holders who have been so busy rolling back the reforms of the New Deal. Who knows what we might accomplish next?

[justabob]

34. more positive

Talking to people around here, whether political people or not, it is clear they know they are being screwed all the way around, and even how/why in more cases than not. A lot more folks have woken up recently, come out of denial, even the right leaning ones. There is still a ways to go, but I have been pleasantly surprised talking to people recently. They still haven't quite figured out who the proper target(s) for their anger is, but it will happen. Understandable, as there is a whole lot of badness coming at people from every direction local to national/corporate, but people can only take so much.

[Bluebear]

30. Kick

[TBF]

31. K&R nt

[joshcryer]

37. Sadly Engels failed to recognize that the workers state could never transition into statelessness...

...and that the "foundations" he speaks of merely became the new post on which authoritarian tyranny stood.

[JVS]

39. What's so great about statelessness anyway? I don't mind a state if it enforces my class interest.

I'd be perfectly content with a proletarian state.

[joshcryer]

40. Because suffering and authoritarianism are direct results of the elite class that control resources.

You look at the implementation of Engels' ideas (he and Marx both believed in "scientific socialism"). Every single time the vanguard has been created to "redistribute wealth" it has operated with full impunity and corruption. Humans are fallible, power, corruption, they lead to power concentration at the top.

In the anarchist view the "elite class that controls resources" is the state (which is why we reject that any form of capitalism can be stateless). We look at vanguard parties in socialist states and recognize that they are not fundamentally different from an aristocracy in capitalism, where elite plutocrats run and control everything. Indeed, if you take Marx's "scientific" view of the matter you can even observe historically that, for example, the banks have all become a top few entities. They are, in effect, becoming no different from banks in a centrally planned communism. Someone posted a fantastic picture about how we had dozens of banks a few decades back but now we have three or four major banks.

I'd be fine in a Libertarian Marxist proletarian state, mind you, but I just don't see how such a state could ever exist, because the vanguard in such a state will always concentrate power in the few who run things. Perhaps if there was some form of syndicalism tied to it, it would be manageable.

edit: Engels truly believed the vanguard would shed itself of its power once the overall society was taken care of, it has never happened and indeed in some instances the vanguard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921">led to starvation.

[JVS]

42. "Engels truly believed the vanguard would shed itself of its power once"

Stalin didn't believe that though, hence his practice of frequently purging the party.

[LooseWilly]

45. "Every single time... it has operated with... corruption"?— so EVERY land reform has been corrupt?

Your argument involves a few leaps of faith...

Firstly, your definition of the "elite class that controls the resources" is redundant. What makes the class in question "elite" is precisely its control of resources. Your argument, however, that it is the state involves the leap of faith of assuming that a state is those who are running it... presuming that they will run it to benefit themselves at the expense of all others. While this is obviously true in any state that embraces capitalism (it is indeed required)... it is only so in other forms of states to the degree to which those running the state do likewise— which is not always 100 percent, as your absolutist simplifications would like to imply.

After Porfirio Díaz was overthrown in Mexico and agrarian reforms were instituted... to the extent that those lands were not given to the rich landowners, the "elite" who control the resources were not the state... the campesinos were, briefly perhaps, also part of the state.

Likewise land reforms in Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc. ... all can be looked at, in contrast with US land dispensations which usually went to railroad companies or politically connected speculators hoping to flip the land to the railroads for a profit... as examples of a state which is not 100 percent the "elite class that controls the resources".

You go on to say "I'd be fine in a Libertarian Marxist proletarian state, mind you, but I just don't see how such a state could ever exist, because the vanguard in such a state will always concentrate power in the few who run things. Perhaps if there was some form of syndicalism tied to it, it would be manageable." (my bold added)... I find your comment mildly amusing though, because you are firstly attributing the concessions made in various Marxist/communist states to some sort of axiomatic internal dynamic which you seem to be taking as a given (when the historical power concentrations you are referring to could as easily be argued as being a reaction to external pressures rather than the result of internal dynamics... which would leave your argument with no axiomatic foundation)... but my amusement is compounded exponentially by the realization that you are contrasting these historical examples of Marxist/communist states (whose problems you have not even made an attempt to examine critically) with theoretical anarchist states...

Apples and oranges.

Why don't you, in the interest of historicity and rigor, compare and contrast the USSR with modern Somalia (the "historical" example of anarchy that jumps to mind)?

To be honest... I think an honest comparison would be very interesting. I drove a taxi in Oakland,CA for a decade... those streets weren't real far from anarchy (the police are just one more armed crew you have to steer clear of, or risk being shaken down for some money)... I'd bet the Somalis are coming up with some interesting strategies for coping with life & consolidating power.

The problem, of course, is that ... much like with libertarianism/ laissez-faire capitalism... the "freedom" of that anarchy only lasts until somebody "wins"... and each step of the way involves just a little bit more "amalgamation of {capital/territory/power}".

[joshcryer]

67. You appear to confuse anarchism with "anarcho"-capitalism as they're the ones who believe Somalia...

...is an example of their "free state idea." No anarcho-socialist or libertarian socialist if you will, would ever consider Somalia an "example" of anarchism.

Meanwhile you use the tired excuse that "historical power concentrations" "could as easily be argued as being a reaction to external pressures" rendering any further discussion moot, you won't accept any sort of analysis that the power concentration was fully predicted by people like Bakunin and many of the other anarchists. Hell, a lot of the early anarchists were behind the social revolution, the vanguard, the party.

[LooseWilly]

107. If Somalia isn't a historical example of libertarian socialism... which example do you propose?

I am curious to hear your analysis for how your example-state was able to cope with the external pressures of a hostile array of capitalist states without having to resort to the sort of concentrations of authority that are necessary in the context of any mobilization for war/hostilities.

I've never made any argument one way or the other about predictions of power concentrations... if I'm not mistaken Marx himself argued that it would be a necessary step, and I'm nearly certain that Lenin (and certainly Stalin, and Mao) argued that it would be a necessary step.

Bakunin may well have predicted it. My question is whether it is a bad enough thing to justify not taking any action when the situation permits?

I'm curious to hear your analysis of how Bakunin and his supporters overcame this difficulty when they took power... where again?

Or, are you still trying to contrast the messy details of history against the clean lines of an alternate theory? If you are going to insist on merely arguing about a theory, it would be appreciated if you would contrast your theory against Marxist/Leninist theory... in the interest of comparing like with like.

[white_wolf]

47. On the topic of the Vanguard in Marxism.

I'm pretty sure that is a Leninist idea, at least the Vanguard in the sense you are using it is. Left Communism such as Council Communism and I believe Luxemburgism rejected the Vanguard. You probably already know plenty about Left Communism and Wikipedia isn't the best source, but in case you don't or others are curious about it here is the wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Communism

[joshcryer]

72. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the conduit for the vanguard.

We can have a discussion about how the "dictatorship of the proletariat" really means democracy, and to some, it does, but the implementation approach has been quite inadequate historically and I doubt it could ever be implemented in an anti-authoritarian manner.

As Rosa Luxemburg http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1959/rosalux/7-bolpower.htm">writes:

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class.

[readmoreoften]

58. A vanguard is only ever the first group of people on the scene.

Without a vanguard there are no organizers and no revolution, which is why anarchism is so insipid. Syndalicalism, unlike the Leninist tradition, never deals directly with SOCIAL issues of immiseration like racial and religious oppression. It's an improvement on insurrectionary anarchism--the true elitist vanguardism if there ever was one: nothing more elitist than the concept of "the propaganda of the deed" which assumes that the working classes are asleep and need noble and courageous anarchist boys to awaken them with a few broken windows--but doesn't deal with the issue that there actually needs to be a fighting apparatus for the working class to get behind and that there are revolutionary issues outside union issues in a pre-revolutionary situation as in: peasants and farmers, the unemployed, and religious/racial/sexual oppression that divides the people.

But the biggest irony of all is that all the "party-hating" anarchists vote for Democrats (or vote at all!) A Revolutionary Socialist Party is authoritarian, but the Democratic Party under Obama is AOK. :pals:

[joshcryer]

66. I don't and never have advocated the propaganda of the deed, and I am not an insurrectionist.

I in fact, after actually participating, don't really think violent property destruction or looting is very useful (though I refuse to reject it completely, as it does serve a small use).

It is not ironic or hypocritical to, say, get a state drivers license so you can drive a car even though you don't believe in a state, the same goes with things like paying taxes, paying electric bills, paying internet bills, etc. Even if I believe all of those things should be 100% free without an active authoritarian mechanism to distribute it. And I can vote for a lesser of two evils because it is in my interests to ease the decline of the United States.

[Starry Messenger]

41. Me as well.

People who work against that usually betray a mistrust of the working class.

[white_wolf]

48. In most cases I agree, but in Josh's case, I think you are wrong.

He is a libertarian socialist and really does have the best interests of the working class at heart, he just thinks the state can't be used to achieve those goals. I disagree with him on that, but I do think he is sincere.

[Starry Messenger]

49. What can I say?

I'm old. To me "libertarian" translates to "you're on your own, sucker!" when applied to worker protections. I can't know anyone's real mind, but only the results of their actions. Obviously Josh does not have the power to wave his non-state into existence, so we are speaking theoretically. However, I find that conversations on "human nature" inevitably devolve into a question of who specifically cannot be trusted with power because they will "naturally" fuck things up. If we're talking about a workers state, then who would that be? See what I'm saying?

[white_wolf]

51. I do see what you saying and I agree that he is wrong about the role of the state, but

the term libertarian was used by socialists long before the right-wing business types took it over in the 1950s. It was first used by in 1857 by French anarchist communist Josef Dejacque. Though, personally I'm with you, I'm fine with a state that represents the interest of the working class.

[joshcryer]

68. The question of power concentration has nothing to do with any concept of "human nature" in my book.

It has to do with natural scarcity which people are forced to manage through systems which at times can be exploited by some who will wind up better for it if they do so. So, for example, when the Bolsheviks decided to starve a million or two people (and indeed pick and chose which political rivals deserved to starve to death), it was merely an act of common sense, to them the party was quite necessary, and no doubt they believed deeply that it would result in a better society and that the sacrifices were worth it.

Orwell wrote a lot on this sort of behavior, it is not uncontroversial, and it exists in the far left and far right and even some bits of the middle.

[readmoreoften]

60. I disagree. I don't think he's sincere.

This site has been full of self-proclaimed anarchists and anti-Marxist "radicals" who always seem to spend more time bashing the left and promoting war then anyone else. The contradiction of an anarchist promoting imperialist state intervention is too illogical for me to cope with.

[joshcryer]

65. Thanks for presuming to know me.

You have no idea who I am or what activism I participate in outside of an internet forum. Anarchists don't "support" imperialist state intervention, they merely support a peoples self-realization.

[socialist_n_TN]

77. Not that read needs defending, but

wasn't she the one you called a "filthy Trotskyist"? Or was that me?

[joshcryer]

85. I'm pretty sure that was someone else, and only implicitly.

I don't name call individuals, I reserve the right to be critical of authoritarian groups and even call them names, however.

[inna]

101. +1

could not agree with you more, on all points you made

[LooseWilly]

62. "Libertarian socialism" is a strange place from whence to criticize human nature...

He criticizes the "authoritarian" tendencies of all Marxist/Communist historical societies... but never addresses the criticisms of libertarian socialism by Marx as well as others. Namely, that it is a "utopian" idealization... which attempts to create a "system" of social interactions that un-make the socio-historical evolutions of liberalism/capitalism.

Libertarian socialism can only really exist at the small communal scale... because at the scale of the state the "liberty" of the "libertarian" axis of the system becomes dysfunctional. It becomes the same "libertarian" as the "liberal-libertarian" which showed up in the 1950's in the US... namely, freedom to exploit one's stuff however one wants. The only way to remain "socialist" at the scale of a state is to "de facto enforce" a "social"-ism... and that is a necessity fundamentally at odds with the anarchic "libertarianism" we're talking about.

Even if "everything is organized at the community level"... those "communities" will need to then organize between themselves on ever increasing scales... even if we're talking about a state merely the size of Egypt, or New York... let alone California, Texas, or Mongolia. ... And, there's no room for "anarchism" when they're trying to work out that organization.

Once again... when the "libertarian socialist" model extrapolates beyond the scope of the Paris Commune of 1848... the "libertarian" axis inexorably trends toward a confluence with the Ron Paul/Barry Goldwater school of "libertarianism"... but with each "commune" doing as they please and competing... with their own militaries and navies and ATFs, etc. ... but the rejection of any structured/enforceable means of arbitration/judgement (implied in the labels "libertarian" & "anarchist")... will inevitably lead to clashes of said armies, navies & ATFs... and winners & losers... and "consolidations"/ "amalgamations of {communes/capital}".

To suppose that all these anarchist socialist collectives will somehow "all get along" (while at the same time contending that non-anarcho-communist states ALL lead to authoritarianism)... is the most utopian of idealisms that I have heard of... aside from those that postulate Adam Smithian capitalism as possible without evolution into monopoly capitalism...

Sincerity is all well and good... but it is trumped by badly thought out ideas. I'd love anarchy. I'm good with communism. I don't for a second think that the two great tastes go great together, however...

Trying to say that they do is just wishful thinking (as far as I can tell). The reason that we hear more about "libertarian" association with the neo-liberalism than with communism/socialism is, as far as I can tell, because the "old-timey liberalism" (exploiting everything which is all privately owned) is more consonant with the notion of "anarcho-freedom" than something like the cooperative "communism" or "socialism"...

[JVS]

63. One quibble. The Paris Commune was in 1871 and emerged from the chaotic conditions...

prevalent in France as the Germans over-ran the country and besieged Paris in late 1870 through the winter.

[LooseWilly]

108. Well, you are right at that. I was thinking of the wrong revolutionary year...

(oops... and thanks ;))

Different revolution in 1848... leading to universal suffrage elections of Louis Napoleon, who then did away with the vote and declared himself (incompetent) emperor...

The 1871 Paris Communes, however, showed the world the brutal measures that the "civilized world" was prepared to take in the event that workers dared to try to organize themselves and rule themselves... mass executions.

A point which, in my opinion, has to have colored the perspectives not only of Bolsheviks in Russia but likewise on the other side of the "coin", colored the perspectives of those considering what to do about the "threat" that Bolsevism posed to their own interests (especially the "captains of industry" in the US & UK).

If mass executions worked in 1871, why not give them a try in 1916?... What had happened would hardly be ancient history.

No wonder those who would pin the black-and-white "authoritarian bad guys" label on the Soviets, especially Lenin and Stalin, are so careful not to mention this little historical nugget...

[joshcryer]

74. Libertarian has its roots in socialist tendencies, as usual market thinkers decided to coopt it.

Marx's criticisms of anarchism are rather weak, many of the anarchist objections to authoritarian socialism came to fruition, Bakunin in particular was extremely prophetic.


I am an anti-capitalist so practically all of your post doesn't apply to me or my views.

[inna]

104. "and really does have the best interests of the working class at heart" -

could not disagree with you more; curious how you got that idea

[white_wolf]

105. I was operating under the assumption he was a legitimate anarchist.

However, many posters have pointed out that I may be wrong there. He has said somethings which make me question his claims. His support of our intervention in Libya, and his opposition to the well-fare state. Apparently a lot of right-wingers have came here posing as anarchists, and honestly I can see why. It's a convenient cover for one who hates all government. Honestly, though, even if he is sincere and legitimate I find anarchism to be completely idealistic and naive. A worker's state is needed and it will take organization to accomplish that.

[readmoreoften]

54. And it would eventually dissolve itself when we no longer needed it as an organizing tool.

It would if it was (a) an actual workers' state, not a stalinist bureaucracy (b) if the revolution was international and hence SUCCESSFUL and didn't need a permanent war economy against the capitalist class.

[joshcryer]

73. lol @ war economy against the capitalist class.

God, always blaming outside forces for the failure of a theory.

[white_wolf]

79. The amount of freedom allowed by a state is often directly related to how secure that state is.

Just look at the history of the U.S. to see my point. Whenever there is a war or some other threat going on, liberties are suspended in the name of security. Lincoln suspended habaes corpus in the Civil War, Roosevelt interned Japaneses, Italians, and Germans, and then after 9/11 Bush gave us the most dramatic curtailing of liberty for security with the Patriot Act. With all that in mind, is it really surprising that the USSR turned into a bureaucratic police state considering the fact that it never knew true peace throughout any of it's existence. When it was firs formed it had to deal with the WW1 and the Civil War, then WW2, and then the Cold War until its collapse in 1991. So yes outside forces certainly did contribute to the failure of the USSR, though letting Stalin take power didn't help either.

[joshcryer]

86. When Catalonia fell they didn't blame Franco, they blamed themselves.

When Russia failed and when Cuba goes privatization, the outside is blamed. Blaming the outside is perfect for ones Two Minutes Hate, and authoritarian leftists are very good at it.

[white_wolf]

89. I have to ask: Is everyone is not an anarchist an authoritarian to you?

Becuase you seem to throw it around a lot.

[joshcryer]

91. I call it like I see it.

If I believe one is exhibiting authoritarian tendencies, I will use that word as it applies. As far as the state socialists are concerned I have not met an anti-authoritarian version that wasn't also a libertarian and who rejected a good chunk of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky approaches.

[white_wolf]

93. Then you haven't been paying attention.

I know I've seen Socialist_TN_ explain his view of government to you a few times, one that involves workers councils, open debate, and completely re-callable officials. That is not what most people would consider authoritarian and he is far more of an "orthodox" Trotskyist than I am. I'm actually closer to a Luexmburg or Left Communist thinkers than I am a pure "Trotskyist."

[JVS]

96. Well if their way of preparing for counter-revolution was to dissolve the state as an instrument...

then they're right to blame themselves.

[readmoreoften]

53. But you're on the side of the US bombing the shit out of Libya.

joshcryer: A worker-owned state is bad!!!! An imperialist state is noble and brings me to tears of gratitude!!!!

[Starry Messenger]

57. Yeah, I was wondering how that fit into the stateless world view.

I'm sure all of the workers who were under the bombs thank Josh for his concern.

[readmoreoften]

59. Libya is a complicated and tragic issue. But how an anarchist sides with imperialist bombers

only goes to show that he is just another right-wing Democrat using anarchist rhetoric. This website is full of them. It seems that everyone with an ultra-left moniker outside of a Marx icon (save a few) is pro-Obama, pro-Gitmo, pro-war and simultaneously "anti-Marx".

[Starry Messenger]

61. Your theory is much more plausible than mine.

I was trying to figure out how a misapplication of socialism could lead to cheerleading a thriving society into the hands of neoliberals using a local conflict as cover.

[joshcryer]

71. I'm still trying to figure out how people think it's "supporting" to insult an entire peoples...

...direct action.

Indeed, the "left response" to Libya is indeed quite telling and only reaffirms my anti-authoritarian socialist views.

[Starry Messenger]

76. k

[joshcryer]

70. Your understanding of anarchism is too inadequate to make that observation.

My view is exactly of that of Andrew Flood: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/andrewnflood/gaddafi-libya-anti-imperialism-democratic-revolution

The only difference is that I'm a lot wiser than most and I consider imperialism to be a left version of Emmanuel Goldstein and I refuse to invoke imperialism every fucking hour like some sort of unthinking drone. Particularly because imperialism itself is utterly irrelevant from a revolutionary point of view (if your revolution is at risk due to imperialism then it is not a revolution).

[joshcryer]

69. That's patently false.

I'm on the side of the people who wanted to free themselves from a tyrant. Who or how they get help to do that is irrelevant. If the Arab League helped them, I'd be behind it. If the African Union helped them, I'd be behind it.

So, can we have a discussion without making shit personal or is this going to hang over my head as a spector of bullshit dishonest talking points?

[defendandprotect]

46. Agree -- but it's never enough for them -- !! And never will be --

-- these rights, including education, were long ago acknowledged .... but ...

those who prefer fascist control over the public are still with us --

and Global Warming -- created by capitalism's exploitation of nature -- is heating up.

It could shortly actually come down to the very noticeable differencde between the washed

and unwashed masses as we lose any possibility of a stable environment -- weather.


Look at the evacuations in Pennsylvania --

And I can tell you that at times today in NJ we had unbelievable heavy rain again --

which was quickly flooding major roads I was driving on -- and water was quickly building

up.

Many areas still haven't cleaned up yet from IRENE - many still have water in their basements.




The public is putting too much trust in our elected officials to deal with this --

We need to be shutting down our nuclear reactors --

and we need to be moving off the "grid" and back to public and local/community control

over energy. Unbelievable that we have so much of this wiring ABOVE ground, for one!!


Peak Oil is another reason to get back to strengthening community control --




And not that I ever thought about this before but we have here major throwback on our roads --

iow, really crappy roadwork. I've noticed that driving on cement didn't create this same

effect. I'm sure others know more about this but looks like the petroleum industry has found

yet one more way of killing us!!

[Starry Messenger]

80. kick.

[Odin2005]

81. K&R by a fellow Socialist!

[gulliver]

82. Marx and Engels had no...

1. Mass media
2. Computers, networks, and robots
3. Telecommunications
4. Nuclear weapons
5. Global warming
6. Global multi-cultural trends
7. Global mega-corporations
8. Experience of "communist" revolutions and states
9. Experience of fascism and national socialism
10. Econometrics, game theory, simulation...

I try to read them and to understand what others see in them, but to me, they always seem quaint. I get about two sentences in and hit something silly. To me, Marx and Engels seem like a couple of old grandpa types talking about which side of the arm the leech should go on to cure the rheumatiz. The only thing that keeps them relevant is their inexplicable grip on some people's imaginations. Marx and Engels have readers. Air Supply, I'm sure, still has listeners.

[Starry Messenger]

83. Well, thanks for typing all that!

Your lack of comprehension is noted.

[socialist_n_TN]

84. LOL

:rofl:

[gulliver]

95. Your welcome, but I don't think you followed what I was saying.

I'm saying that I think I do comprehend what Marx and Engels write about, but that it is silly in the light of subsequent history. Marx and Engels are clearly superior to their fan club and successors intellectually, that much I'll grant them. But the term that best describes them these days is quaint, like pre-Copernican astronomy or astrology. I think I comprehend those philosophies too, although I certainly don't study them. I realize that puts me at the risk of having someone scoff at me for not knowing which Zodiacal signs go with the Earth element.

People who claim to be Marxists (I take them at their word, although I suspect many are just Elmer Gantry-type hucksters) often act very much like cult members. They adopt a defensive, insular attitude similar to something I have seen in the Koran. Namely, Marxists disbelievers are branded as blind to the truth at best, evil conspirators against the truth at worst. Marxists, in other words, are prone to believing just about anything, and one of the things they believe is that disbelief is a sin.

There are cases where brilliant, idiosyncratic world views were created by geniuses operating exclusively from intuition. Nietzsche is a great example. Another is Freud. One can easily forgive Freud's occasional embarrassing passages in, say, Civilization and its Discontents, because he was a man of his time, and he had bills to pay. Based on little more than intuition and scholarship, that book manages to be both profound and timeless enough to remain well worth reading. The Communist Manifesto, on the other hand, is just too bad to be forgiven.

The central conceits of false consciousness and the idea of the Proletariat as a non-mythical class, spring to mind, try as one might to suppress them. False consciousness has a sort of trenchant obviousness, wrong as it is. And, of course, you can characterize, say, a working class person in Indianapolis and working class people in China and Iran as having common interests. There is no denying the grain of truth in the cow pie. If you narrow your focus enough it is even possible not to see the cow pie. I just can't accomplish that feat. But if Marxists are able to, then I say, bon appetit.

Marx and Engels would think completely differently if they were alive today. They were too intelligent not to. Unfortunately, I find their church to be among the more annoying. Your opinion may differ. If you think the things I listed above would have had no impact on Marx and Engels, there is little I can do to dissuade you. I think you underestimate them, though.

[white_wolf]

98. You clearly don't understand as Marx's critique of capitalism is as relevant now as it was then.

One of the biggest reasons the "middle-class" in America is declining is because jobs are being outsourced to other countries and because of this workers wages are stagnating or even declining. Guess what? Marx predicted this.

"Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented."

You know how people hate when Wal-Mart comes to small towns because it destroys local small business? Marx predicted that as well:

"The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."

Those are just a few examples from the Manifesto. Maybe you should read Marx before saying he is outdated.

[Starry Messenger]

103. Several of the items on your list were subjects subsequently taken up by Lenin.

I followed you perfectly in subject and subtext. But your emotional response to a simple statement by Engels on poverty and its relationship to society's form makes me unwilling to write a treatise to satisfy your "curiosity", so let's just leave it at that.

[LooseWilly]

109. So you think Freud is brilliant, and Marx is quaint?

Obviously you want to fuck your mother and have never had to sqaubble with an employer who tried to lowball your wages.

And Nietzsche?... He preached of power while subsisting on a vegetarian diet because his digestion was so bad, and lived with his sister because he couldn't support himself. Interesting as his anti-democratic philosophies were, the misogyny is usually as hard to stomach as... well, as anything was for Nietzsche himself...

No... I don't find your analysis ("it is silly in the light of subsequent history") to be particularly compelling.

Neitherwise do I find your deeper analysis ("They adopt a defensive, insular attitude similar to something I have seen in the Koran. Namely, Marxists disbelievers are branded as blind to the truth at best, evil conspirators against the truth at worst. Marxists, in other words, are prone to believing just about anything, and one of the things they believe is that disbelief is a sin.") to be anything more than a clumsy ad hominem (with a little anti-Muslim prejudice thrown in for "flavor")...

What's the matter? Are you afraid Marxists might start dating your mother? (Freud... yeah, he was "brilliant"... :crazy:)

[Major Hogwash]

97. Damn you! I still listen to Air Supply!!

The rift between the left and the leftists couldn't be any greater, and then you have toss that fireball into the works!!!

[leftstreet]

99. In your opinion, what impact would those things have had on Marx and Engels?

honestly curious about your view

:hi:

[LWolf]

87. Maslow agreed.

:hi:

[amborin]

90. too late to rec, but thanks for posting this!

[Starry Messenger]

94. Thank you for reading!

:)