Go to footer

Skip to content


edit

Philosophy: you need it.

Moderators: Yarrow, Yuda, Canteloupe


Postby commiefuck » Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:47 am

PatheticKammy

"Communists have a history with sectarianism and are they are bound to lead themselves in that direction every single time which is what I believe."

dialectical materialism states that as conditions change so must our outlook. things have happened in the past that have brought us to where we are now. mistakes were obviously made. it is important to learn from those mistakes, take into consideration the conditions around us, and build a revolutionary movement on these facts. a big problem i have with alot of anarchists is that they see the spanish civil war and the ukraine and even paris 1968 as the supreme ideal in action. they then believe that even though this ideal failed it was due to external circumstances (the commies sold us out, franco was getting help from mussolini, etc). so nothing changes in their present struggle. they use the same tactics and the same excuses. there are exceptions, of course. but the broad base of the communist movement sees the past mistakes, criticizes them OBJECTIVELY, and tries to find out what lessons learned in the past can be applied now and which must be scrapped. there are exceptions again, of course (i think mostly of the hard-liners, the stalinists, the trots, basically the old fogies). what i find most interesting are the movements that have learned from history and moved into the present, criticizing modern capitalist formations while maintaining the class struggle. groups like the situationists i find especially exciting, though they're pretty much relics now.

now, you can believe something all you want. it doesn't necessarily make it true.

Guest:

"Well, state control of the economy is the main ideal of Marxism, is it not?"

no, the main ideal of marxism is a classless, stateless society. proletarian state control is a means, not an end.

"Furthermore, anarchists are closer ideologically to neoliberals than to Marxists, in my opinion."

well that says alot for your opinion then, doesn't it?

"Marxism advocates control of the economy by a VERY few (state bureaucrats)"

uh, no not really. marxism advocates control of the economy by the PROLETARIAT through SOVIETS (worker's councils).

"anarchists advocate control of the economy by everyone"

everyone including the bourgeoisie?
"Where there is a state there is no freedom, where there is freedom there is no state."
--Lenin, State and Revolution
commiefuck
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:25 am
Location: canada


Postby PatheticKammy » Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:15 pm

edit
Last edited by PatheticKammy on Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PatheticKammy
Denizen
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 12:23 am
Location: Toronto


Postby Edo » Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:12 am

commiefuck wrote:
Communists have a history with sectarianism and are they are bound to lead themselves in that direction every single time which is what I believe.
dialectical materialism states that as conditions change so must our outlook.
Who are "we"? (And if I may, 90% of Marxism has yet to compromise an inch of its outlook.)

a big problem i have with alot of anarchists is that they see the spanish civil war and the ukraine and even paris 1968 as the supreme ideal in action.
I have this problem with a goodly number of anarchists too, but it's nowhere near as institutionalized as it is within Marxism.

they then believe that even though this ideal failed it was due to external circumstances (the commies sold us out, franco was getting help from mussolini, etc.) so nothing changes in their present struggle.
Leninism: In the purely academic and irrelevant form that it survives, everyone else sold us out.
Stalinism: The revisionists sold us out, Trotsky was getting help from the Mikado.
Trotskyism: The Stalinists sold us out, Stalin was getting help from Hitler (which he did, although that changes nothing.)
Maoism: The capitalist roaders sold us out, everyone who stuck around to the end of the Long March was getting help from the imperialists.

Anyone else see a trend here?

they use the same tactics and the same excuses.
Which is identical to the entirety of orthodox Marxism - both "progressivism" (a recent The Progressive Manifesto found common cause with Bernstein and Kautsky) and Leninism (on which see the above thread.)

there are exceptions, of course. but the broad base of the communist movement...
What's this "broad base"? I defy you to show me anywhere Communism even has a broad base.

...sees the past mistakes...
...as being successes. They just don't call them "worker's paradises" any more.

...criticizes them OBJECTIVELY...
Incidentally, it's worth noting that you generalize in your claim to speak for "Communists." The situationists you apparently find exciting called, as did the autonomia, for a revolutionary subjectivity without compromising their Marxism at all. They produced independently the only interesting Marxist praxis from the last 40 years, none of which has been or could be meaningfully adopted by any Party anywhere.

As far as I've seen, most of this "objective criticism" is screed that falls apart like toilet paper under even the most superficial reading. (See the posted piece on "Orthodox Marxism," which draws off two dictionaries, identifies one as bourgeois - apparently the other is a proletarian dictionary? - without demonstrating the said dictionaries are bourgeois and proletarian or, for that matter, why you need to use two dictionaries at all.)

You didn't read Feyerabend, did you?

...and tries to find out what lessons learned in the past can be applied now and which must be scrapped.
For that matter, again, 90% of Marxism has yet to compromise an inch on any of its positions (save perhaps for stopping denouncing Freud as bourgeois, which was quite fashionable back in the 1920s.) At least Stateside, the "broad base" of the Communists I've encountered are either so intellectually incoherent as to have no idea what they're for (the CP-USA and ISO members) or are rehashing their Fearless Leader (ISO cadres, most everyone else.)

there are exceptions again, of course (i think mostly of the hard-liners, the stalinists, the trots, basically the old fogies.)
What are you, then?

what i find most interesting are the movements that have learned from history and moved into the present, criticizing modern capitalist formations while maintaining the class struggle. groups like the situationists i find especially exciting, though they're pretty much relics now.
If you find the situationists, or anybody else, "especially exciting," pinpoint what exactly it was that excites you about them and do it. Anything else is ideological masturbation. (And, for that matter, how you can justify staying in any "Communist" Party while being fully aware of the events of May '68 is beyond me.)

now, you can believe something all you want. it doesn't necessarily make it true.
With all due respect, the same could be said to you and yours.

proletarian state control is a means, not an end.
Where's your dialectics here, Commiefuck? I'm amazed nobody's commented on the interplay between the means and the end. Your chosen ends justify your chosen means; the means then justify the end you arrive at - which then, if you want, can be used to justify your means retroactively. (This is more or less what Hegel meant by the line about "The actual is rational and the rational is actual.")

"Proletarian" state control is a (not necessarily the) means to an end: specifically the end it arrives at - which is anathema to anything remotely resembling the "goal" of Marxism. Or at least anathema to any "Marxism" I have any interest in dealing with.
Where I exist. Feel free to drop by; more readers are good things.

"Whoa. So many fallacies. I doubt some of them have names." (Tom)
User avatar
Edo
Denizen
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 6:10 am
Location: Wherever I may roam


Postby commiefuck » Fri Apr 02, 2004 7:32 am

PatheticKammy:

"What I'd like for you to do is list some strategies and tactics that you Communists have modified and changed throughout time to ossify your revolutionary ideology and tactics to make your revolution most feasible and efficient?"

okay. i can only go from a canadian perspective though cause i don't know much about the history of any other party. the canadian communist party started as an underground left sectarian group in the 1920's that would put fliers in people's mailboxes saying that the revolution was imminent and that everybody better get ready. with the official founding of the party in 1924 tactics changed a bit. though the party was still illegal, ideology was modified from an extreme leftist point of view to a more palatable one. conditions in canada were actually taken into consideration, the party realized we weren't russia, and new strategies developed. the party got involved in trade unions and tried to defend trade unions from the prejudiced craft unions, we organized the "on-to-ottawa trek" (if noone has heard about this check out http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=347) . then stalin got big. this was basically an era of soviet tag alonging. the party stayed true to the edicts of the third international regardless of how silly or traumatizing the orders were to the movement. basically a baaad time. when stalin died and kruschev denounced stalin's "cult of personality" the party suffered big time. members left at an astounding pace. so the party had to re-learn some tactics, abandon some, and develop new ones. the sixties and seventies brought alot of movements that the party learned from and got involved with: nuclear disarmament, peace, civil rights, anti-imperialism. the party learned to broaden its tactics. it learned to get involved in popular movements but leave the groups to their own autonomy in order to build a strong movement. okay, blahdy blah. the soviet union collapses. people leave the party really fast again, which brings us to this era of party life. we are rebuilding again. the party is again changing to an everchanging world. we see capitalism is destroying the environment, we see that mistakes were made in the soviet union regarding environment and so we are beginning to understand that a completely centralized economy might not be the most effective way of safeguarding the future, so we start to experiment with ideas of environmental sustainability. we see that stalinism emerged from a beauracritization of the revolution, so we start to experiment with ideas of local autonomy in party clubs while maintaining democratic centralism. now this is only brief and i've only joined the party about a year ago and i've only attended one central convention so i'm not completely in the loop here. i hope this was helpful though.

Edo:

i guess the easiest answer to your questions is that i mostly agree with you, but only because i'm tired. it's fucking tiring working 40 hours a week and seeing the belly of this shit system and trying to think about the future. so mostly i don't. i don't focus on what's going to happen when the revolution comes. i just want to give capitalism a good kick in the teeth before i die or get too exhausted to fight anymore and i think the road i'm on could give the biggest kick in the shortest time. i'm not really gung-ho on communist dogma or anarchist dogma. i just want to kick some ass. i don't know what that makes me. a nihilist? a wandering idiot? meh, whatever. also in your post you attack people i'm not really prepared to defend (trotskyists, stalinists, CP-USA). i'm not defending them either because i don't agree with them or i don't know enough about them to care.

it's obvious to me you can whip my ass in these ideological debates. it's probably obvious to you too. so i concede defeat. you win. i just hope you're putting as much energy into activism as you are into reading books and debating ideas.
"Where there is a state there is no freedom, where there is freedom there is no state."
--Lenin, State and Revolution
commiefuck
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:25 am
Location: canada


Re: edit

Postby gnreen753 » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:39 pm

What is the need for better understanding of each other's needs.gclub
gnreen753
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:33 am


Re: edit

Postby LayRong » Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:34 pm

"Communists have a history with sectarianism and are they are bound to lead themselves in that direction every single time which is what I believe."



**goldenslot mobile**
** สล็อต ออนไลน์ ได้ เงิน จริง**
LayRong
Denizen
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:51 am

Previous

Return to Board index

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests