Written by Ellrohir on 03.08.2009 at 14:25

Maybe he is asshole, but has he really so much to do with italian fascism?

No, but sometimes it seems like he wants to be a second Mussolini

Written by Elio on 03.08.2009 at 14:36

Written by Ellrohir on 03.08.2009 at 14:25

Maybe he is asshole, but has he really so much to do with italian fascism?

No, but sometimes it seems like he wants to be a second Mussolini

Well I doubt h ever attack to Greece and Africa how Duce did , but I say he wanna be more liek Cesare

Hm...well since i so often hear from mouths of our politicians "he is like Hitler", "he is second Klement Gottwald", "it is like another february 1948" etc., i got used not to pay attention on such a comparisons anymore...he (Berlusconi) should be egocentric, willing for power and money, unplesant, whatever, but do you really have any idea how bad he has to be to became "second Mussolini"?

@Ellrohir:
Lol i dont know what to say. First of all, as you may have read on comradesfrosty's first post "There has never been a communist society existing on a national level. None have ever claimed to be communist. Of the very few that call themselves socialist, hardly any are truly socialist in the actual literal definition of the word. Referring to china, north korea or russia in this thread is pointless, as none of those are connected in any meaningful manner to Communism." so Czech Republic has never been Comunist.

Second Stalin's Socialism was a mistake, yes, a wrong way of taking the course of the proletariat and misunderstand of theory, but it doesnt mean that Socialism and later communism is evil and bad, because it was the FIRST time in the history of the world that a socialist country was born.

Third, "The theory itself may be not "evil", but it is bad..."to be better than others" competition is the fuel of living...when all are equal, this completion is loosing sense and therefore life is loosing sense...thats how i see it..." this is not the point of communism, you are saying something extremely individualist!!! Yes in communism competition looses all sense, cus there is no more struggle of social classes, the people works and lives for the rest of the people and the common wealth, because everyones work becomes a social need for the good of all society, not for a personal profit, not for making rich people more rich. I really cant see how this si BAD en EVIL!!

Fourth: Ban the hammer and stickle symbol?? do you know what it means?? Hammer the workers, stickle the peasants why is this so evil?? you live from the working class!!! the working class is the column of society!!

@Bad English:
I dont understand very well your posts and from what i understand i think that you are an ultrarightist and maybe fascist guy, so the discussion with you maybe is pointless

Castro never promised paradise, he lead a revolution that cant be made without the support of the people. Do you even know how many people were in castro's guerrilla "liga 26 de Julio" after they landed on cuba and had their firs encounter with Batista's army in the battle of Alegría de Pío?? less than 20 men!! do you really think that castro alone could win a revolution, sustain socialism for 50 years plus the ECONOMIC EMBARGO without the people's of cuba support??? Its a miracle that cuba, a small island could sustain a socialist revolution till now days against the US this "bringer of democracy". And cuba still socialist because the people of cuba wants it. It has errors YES! SOCIALISM ISNT PERFECT ITS A LONG HISTORICAL PROCESS TO COMMUNISM but is way better than capitalism.

What the hell are you talking about? where have i stated communist symbols should be banned?

second - "everyones work becomes a social need for the good of all society, not for a personal profit" - i guess i am just too ambitious for that...if i should do better (and earn more because of that), i should have the chance...why should i be punished when someone has lower working/inteligence/whatever skills them i have and be demoted to his level because "he is comrade too"?

Written by Ellrohir on 04.08.2009 at 10:40

What the hell are you talking about? where have i stated communist symbols should be banned?

second - "everyones work becomes a social need for the good of all society, not for a personal profit" - i guess i am just too ambitious for that...if i should do better (and earn more because of that), i should have the chance...why should i be punished when someone has lower working/inteligence/whatever skills them i have and be demoted to his level because "he is comrade too"?

ROFL!!!! yes you are ambitious, and its called individualism, so yes, you agree with all my arguments lol. And who are you to say who is less intelligent than you or has less skills than you, i still dont understand why you support this, and think this is the right way. And where is the discussion of all my other points?? basically you agree with me, and you also agree that you are extremely individualist.

I claim, that when i am capable enough to work as a programmer, which is worth job today, and earn quite a lot in this position, i have right to earn this lot even when there are people, who for some reasons cannot do anything but digging sewers and earn the minimal wage...and not they will artificially earn more and will earn same like them, because we are equal...i should be born as digger and the other guy as programmer, but it wasnt, "fate" decided...who would you be, if you want to change it? "justice"?

thats my point there...nothing more, nothing less...

Uller where I sad Im faschist? where? I just hate comies and your posts is nonsecne to
I know and its shame 26 man can won army where USA was loonking for

Written by Ellrohir on 04.08.2009 at 11:10

I claim, that when i am capable enough to work as a programmer, which is worth job today, and earn quite a lot in this position, i have right to earn this lot even when there are people, who for some reasons cannot do anything but digging sewers and earn the minimal wage...and not they will artificially earn more and will earn same like them, because we are equal...i should be born as digger and the other guy as programmer, but it wasnt, "fate" decided...who would you be, if you want to change it? "justice"?

thats my point there...nothing more, nothing less...

But does this make a programmer more important than a digger? Because a wage should reflect in what way your labour has improved general welfare. This would mean that a programmer generates more general welfare than a guy who digs sewers (which is obviously not the case). But then we should take in account that a programmer had to study more to get some expertise in his craft. This past labour should also be taken into account. When we would pay everyone using this scale I think everyone can get not a perfectly equal wage, but a more justifiable.

@Bad English: I said maybe you are fascist, because you are extremerightist and this two are almost the same. and WOOW i cant believe that you actually think that less than 20 men defeated a complete army and stand socialism till nowdays just by themselves and without the support of the cuban people, i think you play to much halo. LOL

@Ellhoinir: Im going to repost something that fhuesc said about this skill and payment question:

"Marx said it, treating everyone as equals, it's the greatest inequality that can be done, that's why he wrote "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", this in simple word means that if the secretary needed more than the doctor, cuz she have 4 children and the doctor is single, the secretary, would have more.

I know that this probably seems as the stupidest idea in the world, but that's why we can't be communist, we are driven by individualism and stupid needs, but the "new" mankind is going to be driven by collectivity and a revolutionary moral (This doesn't mean a prefect mankind, mankind would always have flaws, but not the same flaws as today).

Doctor's job it's a part of society, just as the secretary, the factory worker or the cleaning lady, all are needed for an efficient society. Think that the doctor is more important, is like saying that the heart it's more important than the brain or the liver. The merchandise thing is really simple, why the doctor in this society has more VALUE (something that only merchandise have) than a secretary, cuz he/she invested more time and work to become a Doctor than a secretary, in capitalism, the time and work needed, is what determines the value of a merchandise."

I have a question: if Marx says that the problem of economy is that a minority of people ( e.g. the bourgeoisie) hold the majority of means of production, and that they want to keep it for themselves, then centralising the economy doesn't really solve teh problem. Since then the state will be the minority in stead of the bourgeoisie, but the state is also composed of people, so they are bound to do the same as their precursors (keep the means of production for themselves.

You can say that this individualism is the result of capitalism, which determined consciousness in such a way that it would be individualist. But what about all the other eras? In feudalism for example the nobility did exactly the same as the bourgeoisie would do. Then what can assure us the state would not do the same thing in socialism?

Written by belisarius on 05.08.2009 at 20:45

I have a question: if Marx says that the problem of economy is that a minority of people ( e.g. the bourgeoisie) hold the majority of means of production, and that they want to keep it for themselves, then centralising the economy doesn't really solve teh problem. Since then the state will be the minority in stead of the bourgeoisie, but the state is also composed of people, so they are bound to do the same as their precursors (keep the means of production for themselves.

You can say that this individualism is the result of capitalism, which determined consciousness in such a way that it would be individualist. But what about all the other eras? In feudalism for example the nobility did exactly the same as the bourgeoisie would do. Then what can assure us the state would not do the same thing in socialism?

Yes in socialism the state controls the means of production, but not for a self profit, no, the state in socialism uses the means of production for satisfying the social needs, and the state is not controlled by a few, its controlled by the proletariats trough real democracy when the ones that represents the people are really proletariats elected democratically trough a Leninist structure;thats a big difference between socialism and capitalism; in socialism the state tends to disappear, in capitalism the state tends to perpetuate. In communism there is no such thing as state.

Yes but what have in common slavery, feudalism, and capitalism? in all this exists classes and classes struggle one oppressing and other oppressed, and the oppressors in control (e.g. slavery: slaves and owners of the slaves, feudalism: King and vassals, servants, slaves,etc. Capitalism: Bourgeois and proletariats) in socialism still remain the social classes, with the difference that the ones in command are the proletariats, why? is not that easy to disappear social classes within one night or week or year, its a long process, finally in communism this social classes doesnt exists anymore we are equal but not as individuals (thats not only impossible but stupid) we are equals in our role in society. Thats why socialism and later communism is different. Now in socialism what can prevent that one in "command" become selfish or lead revolution trough personal profit or like Stalin did? a well organized proletariat that really commands the state, so if someone vicious the revolution, the proletariat can bring him down and without loosing the way of the revolution. Its a hard thing YUP!! we need lots of social education and organization, but thats the work of those hated commies, a real communist doesnt want POWER, a communist lives to organize and teach the proletariats their role in history as the first class ever that can really free people, and that must take control not as individuals but as a collective, an oppressed class, and this is what we call awake class consciousness.

Written by Uller on 06.08.2009 at 03:39

Written by belisarius on 05.08.2009 at 20:45

I have a question: if Marx says that the problem of economy is that a minority of people ( e.g. the bourgeoisie) hold the majority of means of production, and that they want to keep it for themselves, then centralising the economy doesn't really solve teh problem. Since then the state will be the minority in stead of the bourgeoisie, but the state is also composed of people, so they are bound to do the same as their precursors (keep the means of production for themselves.

You can say that this individualism is the result of capitalism, which determined consciousness in such a way that it would be individualist. But what about all the other eras? In feudalism for example the nobility did exactly the same as the bourgeoisie would do. Then what can assure us the state would not do the same thing in socialism?

its controlled by the proletariats trough real democracy when the ones that represents the people are really proletariats elected democratically trough a Leninist structure

What may this leninist structure be, because i can't see how Stalin got "elected"?

Written by belisarius on 05.08.2009 at 20:45

Yes but what have in common slavery, feudalism, and capitalism? in all this exists classes and classes struggle one oppressing and other oppressed, and the oppressors in control (e.g. slavery: slaves and owners of the slaves, feudalism: King and vassals, servants, slaves,etc. Capitalism: Bourgeois and proletariats) in socialism still remain the social classes, with the difference that the ones in command are the proletariats, why? is not that easy to disappear social classes within one night or week or year, its a long process, finally in communism this social classes doesnt exists anymore we are equal but not as individuals (thats not only impossible but stupid) we are equals in our role in society. Thats why socialism and later communism is different. Now in socialism what can prevent that one in "command" become selfish or lead revolution trough personal profit or like Stalin did? a well organized proletariat that really commands the state, so if someone vicious the revolution, the proletariat can bring him down and without loosing the way of the revolution. Its a hard thing YUP!! we need lots of social education and organization, but thats the work of those hated commies, a real communist doesnt want POWER, a communist lives to organize and teach the proletariats their role in history as the first class ever that can really free people, and that must take control not as individuals but as a collective, an oppressed class, and this is what we call awake class consciousness.

I think that power and repression are essential in civilisation, because if the communist teaches the proletarians, then the communist is in a position of power. It is a necessary condition for human communication (Foucault said:"Language is oppression", because it's used as a means for determining who is allowed to speak and for how long).

"We are equal in our role in society" sounds a bit vague, what do you mean by it?

Written by belisarius on 06.08.2009 at 10:23

What may this leninist structure be, because i can't see how Stalin got "elected"?

The election of Stalin has to do with some misinterpretations that occurred inside the party. Even in his finals works, Lenin wrote that neither Stalin or Trotsky should become the general secretary of the communist party, but it's kinda hard to explain why they didn't listen to Lenin.

Quote:

I think that power and repression are essential in civilisation, because if the communist teaches the proletarians, then the communist is in a position of power. It is a necessary condition for human communication (Foucault said:"Language is oppression", because it's used as a means for determining who is allowed to speak and for how long).

Power isn't something essential, is just a part of society, there cant be a society without power, just as there cant be a society with out people. I think u are mixing power and State. So, what's a State?, it's the tool that societies have created to repress a class by a class, in simple word the State is a tool for repression. But repression (State) is only necessary when there are different classes. Since humanity left primitive communism, and classes with different interests appeared, the creation of a tool whose only end was the repression of those classes that had less (slaves, serves, peasants, proletariats) was necessary, thus the creation of the State. And since this happened a long time ago, is normal to you and most people, misunderstand this, therefore believe/think that State has always existed and always will be. So repression (State) is "essential" (as you wrote) to maintain CLASSED societies, but we communist want to create a CLASSLESS society, therefore this tool of repression wont be necessary.

Written by Fhuesc on 07.08.2009 at 19:41

Written by belisarius on 06.08.2009 at 10:23

What may this leninist structure be, because i can't see how Stalin got "elected"?

The election of Stalin has to do with some misinterpretations that occurred inside the party. Even in his finals works, Lenin wrote that neither Stalin or Trotsky should become the general secretary of the communist party, but it's kinda hard to explain why they didn't listen to Lenin.

Quote:

I think that power and repression are essential in civilisation, because if the communist teaches the proletarians, then the communist is in a position of power. It is a necessary condition for human communication (Foucault said:"Language is oppression", because it's used as a means for determining who is allowed to speak and for how long).

Power isn't something essential, is just a part of society, there cant be a society without power, just as there cant be a society with out people. I think u are mixing power and State. So, what's a State?, it's the tool that societies have created to repress a class by a class, in simple word the State is a tool for repression. But repression (State) is only necessary when there are different classes. Since humanity left primitive communism, and classes with different interests appeared, the creation of a tool whose only end was the repression of those classes that had less (slaves, serves, peasants, proletariats) was necessary, thus the creation of the State. And since this happened a long time ago, is normal to you and most people, misunderstand this, therefore believe/think that State has always existed and always will be. So repression (State) is "essential" (as you wrote) to maintain CLASSED societies, but we communist want to create a CLASSLESS society, therefore this tool of repression wont be necessary.

We were actually talking about the socialist state before the communist society and in that government there IS a state (it owns all the means of production, so it has to exist).

Is a classless society not a project doomed to fail? People always had the tendency to unify and differentiate from each other. The unification established such groups as class, but what made them a group wasn't just their union, but also the fact that there are other classes. It's this differentiation that makes the individual (not in an individualist sense, but in the sense that i am me, you are you and i will never be you). If you drop that differentiation everyone will be perfectly interchangeable, so an individual will have no meaning anymore. Of course you can drop the differentiation of class, but then people will simply reunify and redifferentiate in e.g. race or gender.

Differentiation not only leads to the creation of the individual, but also to repression. Because i am a subject (the being that is the actor of its own being, or as Heidegger puts it:" the being that has his own being to be") the other, who is different, is my object. Like in grammar the subject dominates the object, but in real life the object will fight against my objectivation of him because he is the subject of his own being and objectifies me (further reading: Sartre - huis clos, Sartre - Being and nothingness) . so i will battle the different other. If you see where i'm heading at you will know that class struggle is not the only struggle, it's just a part of the struggle between subject and object necessary in human existence in a society.

Written by belisarius on 07.08.2009 at 20:45

We were actually talking about the socialist state before the communist society and in that government there IS a state (it owns all the means of production, so it has to exist).

Yes, there'll be a socialist state before communism, and yes, is a State according to what i wrote before (a tool for repression), but the difference is what class it/we will repress, it wont be proletarians who want a decent way of life (the vast majority), it will repress bourgeois and reactionary proletarians who want to maintain the exploitation of man by man (the vast minority). And the more people becomes the State and the classes disappear, the state will slowly disappear, and when no state is need, that's when communism will arrive. (Obviously this will take a really long time).

Quote:

Is a classless society not a project doomed to fail? People always had the tendency to unify and differentiate from each other. The unification established such groups as class, but what made them a group wasn't just their union, but also the fact that there are other classes. It's this differentiation that makes the individual (not in an individualist sense, but in the sense that i am me, you are you and i will never be you). If you drop that differentiation everyone will be perfectly interchangeable, so an individual will have no meaning anymore. Of course you can drop the differentiation of class, but then people will simply reunify and redifferentiate in e.g. race or gender.

My bad, i didn't explained clearly here what kind of CLASS i was talking. When we commies talk of the CLASSLESS society we are talking about socioeconomical classes (bourgeois and proletariat), not "identificational"classes (metalheads, chinese, athletes, etc). Of course a human will always be different from any other human, and always will tend to join their similar. Communism NEVER has consider the elimination of differences between humans, we don't want a gray humanity. Furthermore, this system wants a gray humanity, so instead of making different stuff (music, food, etc), therefore spending more money in it, we all consume the same so the profit would be enormous, this is what is called imperialistic capitalism, or in simple words, capitalistic globalization.

Quote:

Differentiation not only leads to the creation of the individual, but also to repression. Because i am a subject (the being that is the actor of its own being, or as Heidegger puts it:" the being that has his own being to be") the other, who is different, is my object. Like in grammar the subject dominates the object, but in real life the object will fight against my objectivation of him because he is the subject of his own being and objectifies me (further reading: Sartre - huis clos, Sartre - Being and nothingness) . so i will battle the different other. If you see where i'm heading at you will know that class struggle is not the only struggle, it's just a part of the struggle between subject and object necessary in human existence in a society.

Again i think you are mixing here different concepts, repression and conflict. Repression is the use of systematical violence to subjugate/dominate someone; and conflict is the clash between different opinions. You could say that both are the same, but then you'll be wrong cuz conflict doesn't necessarily ends in domination of the other one. I wont denied that in this system, conflict and repression tend to be the same, and that's why maybe this idea will be hard to understand. So where i was going with all this blah blah, to a simple point, in communism conflict doesn't disappear (and mostly it will never do) cuz the of differences between humans that i wrote above, but repression will, cuz domination of others wont be a goal. AKA even in communism, your neighbor will always complaint about your metal, but police wont come to arrest u, the solution will be talked between u and him.

BTW u cant apply grammar rules to society, humans aren't words.

These messages are getting too long, so i won't quote you now, but i'll answer your sayings chronologically:
1. i don't think the people who want to keep the exploitation are a minority. I think that's because in my country we can't really speak anymore of a proletariat. Virtually noweone is that poor here. In stead we have a society of consumerism, so the classes are the bourgeois capitalists and the consumers. These consumers are all more or less capitalists themselves, because the manual worker has almost dissapeared in my country. There are only office jobs left (who are historically a kind of "workers aristocracy"). This means that these office workers are pretty much tamed by the bourgeois capitalist. (some of the symptoms of capitalism, poverty, hard labour, etc. are removed, but the disease, capitalism itself, stays). Like Gramsci said, the cultural hegemony or the superstructure stays bourgeois and this blocks the possibility of people wanting a socialist revolution.

2 and 3. I do know you were talking about socioeconomical classes, but when these are eliminated there will be other problems. We will take the conflict between men and women as an example. After the elimination of the classes there will be a socialist government installed. This government will probably have a male majority. Women won't like this and a conflict arises. The male government feels threatened by these women ("it is a counter-revolution against socialism and communism," they will think) and takes legal action against these women by making sexist laws. The government doesn't feel like they did anything wrong (they just fought against the counter-revolution), but there will be again a new kind of domination. I'm not saying that conflict always leads to domination, but it has a big possibility.

BTW humans aren't words, but words are human. Society is a structure and langauge is a structure created by society. I just said that as a way for saying something easier, otherwise i would've needed to explain the whole subject-object thing with Sartre, but wouldn't really be practical.

That's a great problem that we commies has to face, specially in western Europe and Canada. Proletariats doesn't identify themselves as such, because the associate proletariat = extremely poor people, but this a misconception that tradeunionist ideology brought throughout all this years. Marx define proletariat as the person/class that its only way of subsistence is the sale of is work, because it doesn't own the means of production, so with this definition, let me ask u something, if the boss lays off an office worker, can he survive on his own?. Having a car, a house and even be able to go on vacation doesn't change ur class. In ur case, don't answer me if u don't wanna, if ur parents suddenly lose their jobs, can they sustain themselves and u?, do they have some mean of production?.

First let me congratulate u cuz at least know Gramsci, but what Gramsci meant with what u wrote, is that in western Europe, Canada and specially USA, constructing the revolution will only be harder than Mexico or Nigera, but is not impossible. The history hasn't come to and end, sooner or later the system will change.

Yes, i already stated that problems wont disappear in socialism and neither in communism. Also i said that in socialism, there'll be repression towards the bourgeois and the reactionary proletariat. Repression, therefore domination, will disappear only in communism. But again this disappearance of repression wont be an act of faith, good will or magic, it will cost years of education and many lives.

But the same thing counts for the bourgeoisie, they're not those business owners of Marx's days, because they are now owned by other multinational companies and they're the real bourgeosie now. It's not really a counter-argument, i know, but it's also not my goal to prove marxist theory wrong. I think it's a very good theory to critique society (like the Frankfurt school did), but i don't think it would work as a political system. It is usually portrayed as a kind of end of history, because then all the needs of society will be solved and there won't be any problems anymore. That's of course stupid.

You say that domination will end in communism, but will stay in socialism. But can you prove this? And what makes you so sure that the socialist government will give its power away so easily? And is a stateless society sustainable at all, because e.g. if there's a bad harvest in Africa, but not in Europe, who will then redistribute the food? There has to be some organization in this redistribution and this necessitates centralized power (in the form od a state or something that seems to be the same).

Sorry for the late reply, but i don't have internet.

Yes, the bourgeoisie aren't the same that Marx knew. As you said, now they are imperialist bourgeoisie, which is only more heartless and cruel that the one Marx knew. That's why we commies are Marxist-Leninist. The leninism, beside other things, is an "update" to the works of Engels and Marx.

Again, in communism problems wont disappear (and will never do), their nature will be different from todays problems.

Why the socialist state will give up it's power? cuz in a true socialist state the people/population will become the state, therefore everyone will be the power. If you are talking about the central committee and the burocracy in the early state of the socialist State, this is a problem that the commune of Paris solved more than 130 years ago, and since i dont want to make this post excessively longer, the awnser lies in "The State and the revolution" of Lenin.

About the your example of Africa and Europe, that's why we commies call ourselves internationalists, the problems of X person in X part of the globe, are our problems too.

Written by Fhuesc on 20.08.2009 at 19:23

Sorry for the late reply, but i don't have internet.

Yes, the bourgeoisie aren't the same that Marx knew. As you said, now they are imperialist bourgeoisie, which is only more heartless and cruel that the one Marx knew. That's why we commies are Marxist-Leninist. The leninism, beside other things, is an "update" to the works of Engels and Marx.

Again, in communism problems wont disappear (and will never do), their nature will be different from todays problems.

Why the socialist state will give up it's power? cuz in a true socialist state the people/population will become the state, therefore everyone will be the power. If you are talking about the central committee and the burocracy in the early state of the socialist State, this is a problem that the commune of Paris solved more than 130 years ago, and since i dont want to make this post excessively longer, the awnser lies in "The State and the revolution" of Lenin.

About the your example of Africa and Europe, that's why we commies call ourselves internationalists, the problems of X person in X part of the globe, are our problems too.

I'm not a Lenin-expert, but i can imagine that he too can use an update (there are 40 years between the publishing of Das Kapital and State and Revolution and the latter was written 92 years ago). That's why i spend more time studying more contemporary marxists (I'm reading Althusser at the moment), but they tend to use marxism more in a critical-sociological sense than in a political sense.

The only marxists i ever heard preaching anything about internationalism are Marx and Engels themselves (workers of all nations, unite) and Trotsky (but he isn't appreciated by everyone). Also about this internationalism: there has to be some kind of centralized world-wide communication system or otherwise we simply won't know whether there is a problem somewhere else. So i would suggest the state won't disappear but merge into a cosmopolitan state.

Basically Lenin doesn't need an update, since the system hasn't change since his days. The updates that one can make to Lenin are tactical updates but ideological updates there's really almost anything to update.

The problem with the contemporary marxist is that most of them have little bourgeoisie thinking, therefore they bastardize Marx theory. Marx said it "so far the philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it." So what's the point to criticize society if doesn't go beyond a critic?

What more Marxist you want besides Marx and Engels?, Lenin also speaks about the internationalism. El Che also speaks about internationalism. Also does Mao. Trotsky was an idiot.

Yes maybe even for Mao the communication between far away countries was hard, but now the have a modern telephony, modern planes and internet. What else do u need?

I think that problem here is the one that appears sooner or later, the lack of faith/understanding/imagination that humanity can change into a conscious humanity (a stateless humanity).

Written by Fhuesc on 21.08.2009 at 19:11

Basically Lenin doesn't need an update, since the system hasn't change since his days. The updates that one can make to Lenin are tactical updates but ideological updates there's really almost anything to update.

The problem with the contemporary marxist is that most of them have little bourgeoisie thinking, therefore they bastardize Marx theory. Marx said it "so far the philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it." So what's the point to criticize society if doesn't go beyond a critic?

What more Marxist you want besides Marx and Engels?, Lenin also speaks about the internationalism. El Che also speaks about internationalism. Also does Mao. Trotsky was an idiot.

Yes maybe even for Mao the communication between far away countries was hard, but now the have a modern telephony, modern planes and internet. What else do u need?

I think that problem here is the one that appears sooner or later, the lack of faith/understanding/imagination that humanity can change into a conscious humanity (a stateless humanity).

The system DID change since Lenin, to mention three: the third industrial revolution in the 1950's, the communication boom (tv, internet,...) and the failure of the enlightenment (Marx, Lenin and you believe in progressive optimism, but this theory is proven wrong by Adorno and Horkheimer, marxists themselves).

Then about the communicative resources you talked about: it's fine that we have those, but without a state, who will control the stuff? e.g. who will control the airtraffic, unschooled volunteers? Because if you want to school them a centralized system is much more efficient than for example a kind of apprenticeship at the airport itself.

Your last statement is a bit obscure i think. What then exactly is a stateless conscious humanity? It sounds great, but nobody really seems to know exactly what it is. I can't rely on the choices of future generations to practice a theory i suggest today, because as i choose what humanity should be like, so do they and that can be something totally different.

Written by belisarius on 21.08.2009 at 21:38

The system DID change since Lenin, to mention three: the third industrial revolution in the 1950's, the communication boom (tv, internet,...) and the failure of the enlightenment (Marx, Lenin and you believe in progressive optimism, but this theory is proven wrong by Adorno and Horkheimer, marxists themselves).

Then about the communicative resources you talked about: it's fine that we have those, but without a state, who will control the stuff? e.g. who will control the airtraffic, unschooled volunteers? Because if you want to school them a centralized system is much more efficient than for example a kind of apprenticeship at the airport itself.

Your last statement is a bit obscure i think. What then exactly is a stateless conscious humanity? It sounds great, but nobody really seems to know exactly what it is. I can't rely on the choices of future generations to practice a theory i suggest today, because as i choose what humanity should be like, so do they and that can be something totally different.

The system hasn't change since Lenin, all the things you wrote above aren't changes to the system, are advances in technology. The imperialist capitalism is something that Lenin lived.

Neither Marx or Lenin, were optimists, they were logical thinkers. How can enlightenment fail, dont you think writing that is an oxymoron?. The masses hasn't been enlighted, on the contrary they have suffer the stupidization that brings capitalism.

Ok im gonna use your example of air traffic control. Of course that in communism the ones that will control the air traffic are gonna be schooled people, who will teach em that skill, a school, but not an institutionalized school, the older air traffic controllers will teach em. Until the system we have, how do u think that blacksmithing, medicine, knitting, everything was learned?. True, those things that i listed are the same as air traffic control but dont u think that the same principle can by applied to modern skills?

Yes, i can't know (neither did Marx, Engels or Lenin did) how exactly humanity will be in communism, saying otherwise will be pretentious and wrong, but with what know now i can (well not i, more like Marx, Engels, Lenin and el Che) trace a way to follow. And this way is only to the beginnings, if you read the first works of Marx you'll notice that somethings were a little vague, he and Engels had to wait for the Commune of Paris to land those ideas. Lenin had the luck of living the revolution by himself, but even his later works are more "solid" than is first ones. What i want to expose with all this, theories changes, but not with only ideas, like this so called new marxist do, but with practice.

A change that isn't technological is f.e. the end of colonialism. I agree that imperialist capitalism still has the same principles, but the the way it functions isn't the same anymore.

That the masses haven't been enlightened is exactly one of the reasons why it failed. The idea of fraternity ultimately resulted in uniformization, division and elitism.

In the air traffic control by way of apprenticeship there can't be efficiency. If teacher A teaches his job to students B and C and so on, once will get to L and M for example they will do their job in a totally different way and they won't be able to work together. It's like when you tell a story and hear what has become of it after 10 retellings it will be a completely different story. The crafts that used to be learned by apprenticeship were jobs you can do alone (like blacksmithing) so this wasn't a problem, but when there's no other schooling how can we then learn the collective jobs.

That last thing you said is exactly my problem with communism (allthough i share many of its ideas, i scored for example -8.0 on the economic scale of the political compass), you can't know where you will get except when you do it. It's like the quote you already said that philosophers have only interpreted the world, but we have to change it. I think it's the philosopher's job to interprete and the politician should change the world. I'm a philosopher, not a politician.

How can it have the same principles and not be the same?

By apprenticeship doesn't equals caveman stile, that's what books and communication are for. You wrote it, air traffic and other jobs, are collective ones. wasn't socialism and communism about collectivity?

Using your example, if you know the "how to" and the politician knows the "way to", but neither of you learns from the other, how can u or the politician change something?. That exactly what comrade Mao wrote about in "On practice". I suggest that you should read it, is not that longand is a really interesting explanation about how the actions need to be made.

How can fraternity create elitism?, if you are talking about the URSS, that was a special case.

It's like an illness. The illness (capitalism) has stayed the same, but the symptoms (the consequences of capitalism) have changed. This means that we need to use other medication (communism), because we need to eliminate the disease, but we also need to cure the damage cuased by the symptoms.

The meaning of words is never fixed, whether the spoken or the written word. This means that even books can be interpreted in infinite ways (the bible is a great example), so the problem we had isn't solved.

A philosopher, at leats in my experience, doesn't know "how to", he knows "what", "how" and "why". Hegel said that the philosopher is an owl at dusk reflecting on the past day, not on the future.

I meant western Europe (especially Nazi-Germany, which was an extreme case in this "negative dialectic"), because the fraternity proclaimed by the French revolution, which was the revolution of the enlightenment, disappeared in the world wars of the 20th century.

You cannot cure disease with another and even worse disease

Written by Ellrohir on 24.08.2009 at 10:58

You cannot cure disease with another and even worse disease

It's a metaphor, whether communism will be the absolute cure wasn't really the point in that metaphor.

I just said that for those, who would say communism should fix problems of current world...