Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 76 of 76

Thread: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

  1. #61

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    I'm not sure you even understand what a straw man is - but either way, the facts of the matter are that Marx formulated his theories with the premise that revolution would take place in an advanced country which could help support and develop poorer countries - the first national revolution that attempted to build socialism in fact happened in Russia, a country in which Capitalism did not really even exist yet. Lenin out of necessity adapted Marx's theories to the situation in Russia and decided that the Soviet Union would face bureaucratic deformation, and eventual capitalist restoration unless it was able to link forces with revolutions in other countries. With the failure of the German revolution he came to believe that the Soviet Union was doomed unless another revolution happened subsequently. He thought their only choice was to "hold on" to that which had been won by the revolution (democracy, a planned economy, etc) until a 1st world revolution could save them. As Leon Trotsky explained in "Revolution Betrayed" - the backwardness of Russia led to a bureaucracy which came to possess interests separate from the working class. This bureaucracy came to control the state, which is why Trotsky believed a political revolution was necessary to return the power of government to the people.
    My point is Marx theorised his philosophy in the mid 19th century, Britain has been an industrialised country since the early 19th century, France and Germany a bit later on. The only nation that had a little wobble was Germany and that was not as Marx predicted because of an economic boom/bust cycle but because of a ruinous war and even then the Communists were only a minority amongst far right supporters, monarchists, liberals and a whole bunch of other factions. The fact is none of those countries has gone Communist in the 150-200 yrs they have been functioning industrial nations. The few countries that have gone Communist failed massively and nearly all have returned to the market, aside from a few outremers like Laos and Cuba (which is implementing market based reforms).

    The evidence of nearly 200 years of industrial development makes a mockery of Marx's dialectic, history is not trending towards a Communist society. Even nations which have embraced forms of socialism such as the Scandanavian countries show no desire to ever go communist and some such as Denmark and Norway were actively hostile to it.

    To keep suggesting that a socialist nation has never been created is a strawman because it's ignoring the point that I keep making that Marx's dialectic view of history has fallen flat on it's face. Instead you guys just keep trotting out the same excuse...'Socialism has never been perfected' without analysing why it's never been adopted by an industrialised nation and why it's fallen flat on it's face everywhere it's been tried. It's a ridiculous stance to make.

    I could easily say that the entire world's culture and technology was originally seeded by aliens and that one day they'll return but I don't know when. Then I could keep refuting your arguments against it by saying that just because the aliens havn't returned yet, doesn't mean they won't. Sounds utterly stupid but it's working on exactly the same logic as your nonsensical view of Communism. It's time you grew up and accepted the world as it is rather than wishy washy utopian ideals, the great experiment with Communism is over. No empirical evidence exists to support Marx's ideas on history.

    Also I think it's a bit odd that in a thread entitled 'Leftism in the USA' there is not one mention of the Progressive Era which genuinely did have elements of left wing politics rather than your highly disputed theories on things like the Puritans.

  2. #62
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Londinium View Post
    My point is Marx theorised his philosophy in the mid 19th century, Britain has been an industrialised country since the early 19th century, France and Germany a bit later on. The only nation that had a little wobble was Germany and that was not as Marx predicted because of an economic boom/bust cycle but because of a ruinous war and even then the Communists were only a minority amongst far right supporters, monarchists, liberals and a whole bunch of other factions. The fact is none of those countries has gone Communist in the 150-200 yrs they have been functioning industrial nations. The few countries that have gone Communist failed massively and nearly all have returned to the market, aside from a few outremers like Laos and Cuba (which is implementing market based reforms).
    Excuse him for not seeing the future. This does not however make his analysis obsolete. It has been 200 hundred years as you say, and the world learned a lot from Marxism. Not only that but it is still a strong ideology, with a unique understanding of the world. Considering most bourguise social scientists keep having trouble understanding things which Marxist view explains pretty accurately for words 200 years old, I wouldn't say Marxism should go to bin.


    The evidence of nearly 200 years of industrial development makes a mockery of Marx's dialectic, history is not trending towards a Communist society. Even nations which have embraced forms of socialism such as the Scandanavian countries show no desire to ever go communist and some such as Denmark and Norway were actively hostile to it.
    Yeah, but we are seeing movies trying to reflect how bad and cruel life is, new philosophies such as existancialism that do not have much hope from life, people talking about nature going bad.....etc
    Communism is closer to our lifes than you think. It is not an utopic thing, you can easily live levels of communism in your daily life.
    And those are mostly your most social moments, when you are really a human.


    Socialism had risen many times in the past century but failed for various reasons...none which "destroyed it from the inside"
    It is obvious ruling classes do not want socialism and do everything in their power to stop it.

    As for your point:read imperialism
    The fact is, working class of Europe has shifted to poor countries mostly. But a day will come, and they too will rise up. Then will the ruling classes try to create surplus value from their own populations again.
    That is when socialism was on the rise in Europe 100-200 years ago, when the local working class was being oppressed.


    To keep suggesting that a socialist nation has never been created is a strawman because it's ignoring the point that I keep making that Marx's dialectic view of history has fallen flat on it's face. Instead you guys just keep trotting out the same excuse...'Socialism has never been perfected' without analysing why it's never been adopted by an industrialised nation and why it's fallen flat on it's face everywhere it's been tried. It's a ridiculous stance to make.
    You could say it is not totally right, but saying it is out of question is too much.
    I would love to read how you would falsify the historical dialect and class struggle. You can say it is missing things but saying it is wrong. I expect you to prove your point in detail without saying "Marx failed"
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  3. #63

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    That, sir, is because of the historical dialectics. No matter how much you believe in capitalism by closing your eyes to reality...this struggle will continue unless humanity finds a new alternative. Socialism is the next stage, and it will always be an issue as long as capitalism exists.

    "All things contain within themselves internal dialectical contradictions, which are the primary cause of motion, change, and development in the world. It is important to note that 'dialectical contradiction' is not about simple 'opposites' or 'negation'. For formal approaches, the core message of 'dialectical opposition / contradiction' must be understood as 'some sense' opposition between the objects involved in a directly associated context."

    As a believer in capitalism, you do not see every thing in the world in a motion related to EACH OTHER...
    THe individual progress capitalsim brings only applies to minority in the world. So long as the oppressed become aware, your fear of socialism will have to grow. Get used to it.
    So youre saying that an idea developed less than 200 years ago by critics of the industrial revolution is somehow an anthropological inevitability? That, sir, is absurd. If anything, I would venture to say that history proves that knowledge always governs ignorance, and therefore the learned minority of the world will always triumph in the end.

    Also, I detect scorn in your rhetoric, which is sorely misplaced, unless you are indeed a Marxist. My family is a patriotic, American, middle class family from middle America, the kind you can't find anywhere else in the world. As a member of the bourgeoisie Marxists so despise, I can only continue to defy its spread. The bourgeoisie are the greatest bastion of human freedom. Independent and individualistic, we are too wealthy to be cowed by illusory Marxist promises, and not wealthy enough to be dominated by corporate schemes and espionage. History proves that when the middle class falls, tyranny, ignorance and despotism reign. Every tyrannical ideology always seeks to destroy the middle class. Why? Because the middle class is too strong and independent to be controlled. I can only continue to assert my hope that man will break the chains of Marxist lies before it is too late.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  4. #64
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    So youre saying that an idea developed less than 200 years ago by critics of the industrial revolution is somehow an anthropological inevitability?
    Dialectical materialism is as old as Ancient Greek philosophers. Marxist view is the analyze economy-politics through this understanding. Socialism is an alternative offered by those to the current system. Actually it is more like a inevatibality according to Marxists because thats how things roll. My english and communication through forum would fail me explaining this to you. However you could read about dialectical materialism as a part of philosophy rather than politics.
    It is hard to say when, but the next progress in humanity will be a result of conflict between proleteriat and bourguise. Because all the stages of human world were results of class conflicts at their core.

    That, sir, is absurd. If anything, I would venture to say that history proves that knowledge always governs ignorance, and therefore the learned minority of the world will always triumph in the end.
    This is true.
    For the answer: See class conciousness
    Once people realize what their real interest is rather than stupid bourguise politics.(nationality, religion, imperialism...etc)

    Also, I detect scorn in your rhetoric, which is sorely misplaced, unless you are indeed a Marxist. My family is a patriotic, American, middle class family from middle America, the kind you can't find anywhere else in the world. As a member of the bourgeoisie Marxists so despise,
    Sorry about the the attitude. I do not despise bourguise. They brought the world to the next stage, but their system(capitalism) is destructive in the end and will have to change.
    I do not hate bourguise, but as a member of a class, a bourguise will have to roll to make money as a job owner. Thats what the system pushes these people to.

    I can only continue to defy its spread. The bourgeoisie are the greatest bastion of human freedom.
    They were, they have given their fruits to most of the people. They brought down monarchy, brought secularism, improved scientific and artistic areas. They established democracies where people gained significant conciousness. This is all great. But then, the same bourguise spread to world because the conciousness they brought to their countries meant re-action. And capitalism reached its last stage, which is imperialism. Most bourguise(by these I mean the real big bourguise) today create the surplus value(which they feed into their own proleteriat to create a standard) through globalization and exploitation of the unconciouss proleteriat...such as in my country. Or China, India...etc
    If tomorrow, Chinese workers decide to get the same wages as Europeans through conciousness, things would fall apart quick. Thank that for China which exploits the proleteriat through their own state capitalism.

    Independent and individualistic, we are too wealthy to be cowed by illusory Marxist promises, and not wealthy enough to be dominated by corporate schemes and espionage.
    The independance and wealth is a results of limiting worker independance though. If you are truely for freedom, you would see this. The only freedom prolteriat has is to leave the job to be jobless and moneyless again. After all, there are millions waiting to fill his place. How is this freedom?
    And we are talking about the majority of the world here.


    History proves that when the middle class falls, tyranny, ignorance and despotism reign. Every tyrannical ideology always seeks to destroy the middle class. Why? Because the middle class is too strong and independent to be controlled.
    Well if you have read dialectical materialism, you would understand that Marxists do not really like the concept middle class.
    You are either a business owner or a worker. Doesn't matter how much money you have. The rest are for Marxism, if I'm not wrong metaphysical concepts. I mean, what is middle class? What is the limit for their money, what is their speciality. What is their role?
    A proleter works and creates value, takin very little of it back home.
    A bourguise is a meta ownder, who invests for production tools and rents workers...thus making more meta from meta.
    What is this middle class at its core? People who went to good schools and are not poor(me)? Unfortunately Marxism does not accept this. It is not as solid as proleter and bourguise.
    The shapes can change, but at their core, they remain the same. Thats why we can talk about about Marxism still.


    I can only continue to assert my hope that man will break the chains of Marxist lies before it is too late.
    And the system that is motivated only by profit is to be honest. Sure turn on the TV and start listening to advertisments. See how honest they are.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  5. #65

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    dogukan:

    Well, I guess you and I just fundamentally disagree. Hell maybe you're right. Maybe I'm just too shortsighted to see the big picture. However I do know that the "leather apron people" (as Dr. Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest champions of the middle class and co-founder of the greatest superpower in history, so affectionately called us) have done more to advance the cause of human liberty than any "class" before or since. We are shopkeepers, tradesfolk, small businessmen and entrepreneurs. It is our ideas that fuel the innovation and capital creation of tomorrow. Without the middle class, I do not see how any economic system can survive long-term, let alone prosper on a scale comparable to the US. Indeed none have yet. And the Marxists also so naively forget that only wealth can employ and generate more wealth. True, the more intelligent Marxist leadership know this, and simply seek to use their less-educated minions to gain control of all the wealth for themselves, then dole it out in rations to keep their slaves alive and working (this is the ultimate end game of Marxism....basically neo-feudalism).

    Still, if the middle class must go, as you say, then why not advocate fascism? Fascism gives you Marxists all your objectives, but preserves national identity and culture. Marxism militarizes and destroys nations and cultures in pursuit of an all-purpose, one-size-fits-all global revolution. Mankind's diverse cultures and arts is our most beautiful anthropological development, and makes life worth living. What mainly concerns me about Marxism is that it destroys this most precious treasure -- and the fact that it just plain defies human nature and therefore doesn't work at all.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  6. #66
    Xanthippus of Sparta's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    near Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    1,758

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    I think a better name for this thread would be...

    "Egalitarian Collectivist living, in the US"



    "The fact is that every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are not compatible with military efficency."
    -George Orwell, in Homage to Catalonia, 1938.

  7. #67
    Getwulf's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Guthanlanda
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    So youre saying that an idea developed less than 200 years ago by critics of the industrial revolution is somehow an anthropological inevitability? That, sir, is absurd. If anything, I would venture to say that history proves that knowledge always governs ignorance, and therefore the learned minority of the world will always triumph in the end.

    Also, I detect scorn in your rhetoric, which is sorely misplaced, unless you are indeed a Marxist. My family is a patriotic, American, middle class family from middle America, the kind you can't find anywhere else in the world. As a member of the bourgeoisie Marxists so despise, I can only continue to defy its spread. The bourgeoisie are the greatest bastion of human freedom. Independent and individualistic, we are too wealthy to be cowed by illusory Marxist promises, and not wealthy enough to be dominated by corporate schemes and espionage. History proves that when the middle class falls, tyranny, ignorance and despotism reign. Every tyrannical ideology always seeks to destroy the middle class. Why? Because the middle class is too strong and independent to be controlled. I can only continue to assert my hope that man will break the chains of Marxist lies before it is too late.
    What...? America still has a middle class?

    No offense (or be offended I don't actually care) but I’ve never actually bought into that middle class thing as a bastion of liberties or a defender of freedoms.

    If anything they’re the first to go totalitarian when the going gets rough. Yeah I know… Hate to cite the NAZIs here… So I won't but you'll all know that's what I meant.


    Really, a state goes more or less the way its laws go. Once communists get into power there is no stopping them if they enact legislation that favors them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Xanthippus of Sparta View Post
    I think a better name for this thread would be...

    "Egalitarian Collectivist living, in the US"
    ...LOL...

    You forgot to add... "Coming soon to a city near you!"
    Last edited by Getwulf; March 16, 2011 at 05:30 PM.
    Sai rodida Guthans!

  8. #68
    Xanthippus of Sparta's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    near Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    1,758

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Getwulf View Post
    ...LOL...

    You forgot to add... "Coming soon to a city near you!"
    Haha...yeah....maybe I gave it too much creedence with that. The OP seems to have abandoned this thread, and it's turned into a useless politcal debate.

    But in my mind the real history of the Left in the US does not begin until after the American Civil War, when the birth of the left in America was really sparked by the excesses of the Gilded Age.

    I'm talking about strikes and union movements, the UMWA and the IWW, the Ludlow Massacre of striking miners by the Colorado National Guard, the Battle of Blair Mountain, turn of the last century Anti-Imperialism, Upton Sinclair, Eugene Debs, etc.



    "The fact is that every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are not compatible with military efficency."
    -George Orwell, in Homage to Catalonia, 1938.

  9. #69
    Getwulf's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Guthanlanda
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanthippus of Sparta View Post
    Haha...yeah....maybe I gave it too much creedence with that. The OP seems to have abandoned this thread, and it's turned into a useless politcal debate.

    But in my mind the real history of the Left in the US does not begin until after the American Civil War, when the birth of the left in America was really sparked by the excesses of the Gilded Age.

    I'm talking about strikes and union movements, the UMWA and the IWW, the Ludlow Massacre of striking miners by the Colorado National Guard, the Battle of Blair Mountain, turn of the last century Anti-Imperialism, Upton Sinclair, Eugene Debs, etc.
    And ironically, it is the Republicans who were the first leftist.

    Although, I’m not sure that this debate is so much about the Left as it is about the Far Left.

    I’m not entirely sure that the Far Left ever had a foothold in the US except for some radical groups like the Black Panthers and so on… …as for Unions… A little to moderate in my opinion to be called communists.

    So Black Panthers - Marxism Leninism and anti-racism from 1966 onwards... What we're probably talking about here is how minorities have been attracted to the Far Left in the US.
    Last edited by Getwulf; March 13, 2011 at 06:57 PM.
    Sai rodida Guthans!

  10. #70

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Getwulf View Post
    What we're probably talking about here is how minorities have been attracted to the Far Left in the US.

    ....Which is basically illustrative of how groups with a lack of education are attracted to Marxism through propaganda.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  11. #71
    Xanthippus of Sparta's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    near Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    1,758

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Getwulf View Post
    And ironically, it is the Republicans who were the first leftist.
    Essentially, yes. The very word "Republican" had leftist connotations in the 19th century. Stemming from the French Revolution.

    But, there was not really a labor movement or the influences that came with being a contemporary 19th century "left-wing" party in a European sense.

    However, the Republicans were formed by those who were anti-slavery (on both moral and economic grounds), anti-reactionary, and anti-aristocratic (especially when said aristocrats were rich, influencial southern planters). So, very loosely, you could call them a left-wing party in the context of the times.

    Here's a politcal cartoon from the 1856 Presidential Race, where the opponets of the first Republican presidential candidate (John C. Fremont) try to tie him in with sterotypical 19th century "leftist" political ideas (feminism, abolitionism, sociialism), and some "foreign" influences (like Catholicism).

    I’m not entirely sure that the Far Left ever had a foothold in the US except for some radical groups like the Black Panthers and so on… …as for Unions… A little to moderate in my opinion to be called communists.
    It really depends on how you define "Far Left". American politics were far more diverse in idealogy and influences in the time I'm talking about here. But generally I would agree with you, America has not seen many movements that incorporate Marxist-Leninist (alternatively, subsitute "Trotskyite" for Leninist) beliefs that define "Communist".

    Communism in the US peaked in the 1930's, essentially because of the spread of Facism. The atrocities of Stalin were not known at all, and it seemed like the Communists were the only ones that were willing to take a stand against Hitler and Mussolini. Even then, it was a pretty small following as you suggest.
    Last edited by Xanthippus of Sparta; March 13, 2011 at 07:51 PM.



    "The fact is that every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are not compatible with military efficency."
    -George Orwell, in Homage to Catalonia, 1938.

  12. #72
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    dogukan:
    Still, if the middle class must go, as you say, then why not advocate fascism? Fascism gives you Marxists all your objectives, but preserves national identity and culture. Marxism militarizes and destroys nations and cultures in pursuit of an all-purpose, one-size-fits-all global revolution. Mankind's diverse cultures and arts is our most beautiful anthropological development, and makes life worth living. What mainly concerns me about Marxism is that it destroys this most precious treasure -- and the fact that it just plain defies human nature and therefore doesn't work at all.
    Fascism does not give the objectives. You are missing the point.
    Marxism, foremost is an observation of the world. Rather than saying "we will do this" it says "this will happen once this happens because throughout history this happened". So in the end, Marxism sees socialism as a must once capitalism fills it's worldwide lifetime.
    Then it explains how will this happen and how will this roll. And in the end, he expected this "going down on the class pyramid" will finish the concept of class and therefore state and therefore all kinds of organized oppression.

    Fascism is a really weird ideology. It attempts the state control and gets some socialism flavoured state sponsorship to production relations. However, it is the absolute version of oppression of state, the ruling classes over the ruled and workers. The rest just means tu justify it's unity.
    It
    *is not a movement from below, therefore not dialectical
    * does not change production relations
    *does not get rid of class, just changes the form of oppressing class.- Revolutions such as in Turkey(Kemalizm) is fascism influenced bourguise revolution for instance.
    *ıs the massive use of state oppression(army, police, constituion) against the people as tools of oppression
    *uses the feodal relations(religion, nationality) as priority whereas in Marxism these are idea based, therefore not materialist, therefore leads to false judgements
    -do not see this as, marxists wants to get rid of cultures, religion....etc I for one am a big supporter of every little minority, language and religion oppressed out there. In a bourguise dictatorship(parliementer democracy), such as Turkey, Marxists support the Kurdish seperative movement and Alevite Muslims thats are being oppressed. Because in times of the evolution period of capitalism, the right progressive movement is to support further democratic reforms. However one must also keep in mind that, making reformation to achieve socialism is 1)EPIC PHAIL 2)Anti-Marxist
    It can only be a tool, not a purpose.
    If the proleteriat is not conciouss and capitalism is not mature enough, getting another oppressive state is high probabilty. Especialy if the war flavour(civil or intervention) comes into play. See: French Revolution, Bolshevik revolution

    *Communism is about giving power to people, beliving in people. Fascism by it's philosophy claims that people are not smart enouh to rule themselves therefore they have to be ruled by an elite. Something which conflicts socialism from the core. the role of the state in socialism, the prolteriat dictatorship is to get rid of bourguise(do not understand this as killing of them) and set the core economical relations.

    *Democracy is the heart of socialism, fascism is the enemy of it.
    Last edited by dogukan; March 15, 2011 at 12:49 PM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  13. #73

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Fascism does not give the objectives. You are missing the point.
    Marxism, foremost is an observation of the world. Rather than saying "we will do this" it says "this will happen once this happens because throughout history this happened". So in the end, Marxism sees socialism as a must once capitalism fills it's worldwide lifetime.
    Then it explains how will this happen and how will this roll. And in the end, he expected this "going down on the class pyramid" will finish the concept of class and therefore state and therefore all kinds of organized oppression.

    Fascism is a really weird ideology. It attempts the state control and gets some socialism flavoured state sponsorship to production relations. However, it is the absolute version of oppression of state, the ruling classes over the ruled and workers. The rest just means tu justify it's unity.
    It
    *is not a movement from below, therefore not dialectical
    Neither is communism/Marxism. Even Marx and Engels admitted that they sought to use labor unions to overwhelm the bourgeoisie and make room for a complete Marxist takeover. Therefore the only reason they needed the workers in the first place is to use as an "army" to carry the Marxist leadership into power. This is about power, no matter how you slice it. You mustn't kid yourself with this "bottom-up" revolution idea. The Mensheviks came close to this idea, but lost out to the top-down ideology of the Bolsheviks.

    * does not change production relations
    Neither does communism/Marxism. The only thing changed is that instead of dealing with a boss or a board of directors, the workers deal directly with a massive, all-powerful government. The latter situation seems much bleaker to me.

    *does not get rid of class, just changes the form of oppressing class.- Revolutions such as in Turkey(Kemalizm) is fascism influenced bourguise revolution for instance.
    Neither does communism/Marxism. There is still the fabulously rich class of Party leaders, favorites and high-ranking bureaucrats. The only change is the absence of a middle class, and thereby any chance of the poor becoming anything other than what they are: impoverished slaves to the state.

    *ıs the massive use of state oppression(army, police, constituion) against the people as tools of oppression
    Oh come now. Really? Do I really need to go through all the atrocities Marxist governments have committed against the people they rule with an iron fist? Tiananmen Square, 1989. 5,000 innocent Chinese civilians protesting the authoritarian communist regime were slaughtered with tanks and live machine gun fire from PLA troops. Do you really want to go there?

    *uses the feodal relations(religion, nationality) as priority whereas in Marxism these are idea based, therefore not materialist, therefore leads to false judgements
    -do not see this as, marxists wants to get rid of cultures, religion....etc I for one am a big supporter of every little minority, language and religion oppressed out there. In a bourguise dictatorship(parliementer democracy), such as Turkey, Marxists support the Kurdish seperative movement and Alevite Muslims thats are being oppressed. Because in times of the evolution period of capitalism, the right progressive movement is to support further democratic reforms. However one must also keep in mind that, making reformation to achieve socialism is 1)EPIC PHAIL 2)Anti-Marxist
    It can only be a tool, not a purpose.
    If the proleteriat is not conciouss and capitalism is not mature enough, getting another oppressive state is high probabilty. Especialy if the war flavour(civil or intervention) comes into play. See: French Revolution, Bolshevik revolution
    Well since communism is feudalism I really can’t see how you would argue this point. Besides, Marxist governments continually appeal to the social, religious, patriotic and cultural sentiments of the populace in order to unite and control public opinion. All totalitarian, Orwellian regimes do. Marxism is anti-nation, anti-culture, and anti-religion by definition, but this does not stop Marxist leaders from using them as they please.

    *Communism is about giving power to people, beliving in people. Fascism by it's philosophy claims that people are not smart enouh to rule themselves therefore they have to be ruled by an elite. Something which conflicts socialism from the core. the role of the state in socialism, the prolteriat dictatorship is to get rid of bourguise(do not understand this as killing of them) and set the core economical relations.
    Now this is pure propaganda; I’m sorry.

    I guess you and I fundamentally disagree on the nature of Communism and Marxism. I do not disagree with your statements on fascism; however see communism as the exact same thing, only without the nationalist element. Any history of any Marxist nation proves this

    *Democracy is the heart of socialism, fascism is the enemy of it.
    Democracy is the rule of the mob. I am against mob rule any time, anywhere. Pure democracy has never been successful. Marxism merely pushes democratic “mob” mentality in order to break the system and make room for Marxist takeover. You know this. Its in the Communist Manifesto. Democracy is not the heart of socialism; it is the favorite tool of socialism. Fascism works in much the same way. National(ist) socialism is now forever associated with Nazism, but without the historical allusions those to words adequately describe fascism at its core.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; March 15, 2011 at 04:07 PM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  14. #74
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Neither is communism/Marxism. Even Marx and Engels admitted that they sought to use labor unions to overwhelm the bourgeoisie and make room for a complete Marxist takeover. Therefore the only reason they needed the workers in the first place is to use as an "army" to carry the Marxist leadership into power. This is about power, no matter how you slice it. You mustn't kid yourself with this "bottom-up" revolution idea. The Mensheviks came close to this idea, but lost out to the top-down ideology of the Bolsheviks.
    Mensheviks came close? They were oportunists. I'm in total support of the Bolshevik party. What they did was implementing true Marxism into the age of wars and imperialism.
    Thats why I'm a Marxist-Leninist. The things which happened after Lenin's death and civil war is, believe me a gigantic issue of arguing.
    However, most of Lenin's theories and the way he and Bolsheviks became part of the revolution(not LED, became part of it) is Marxist. Thats exactly what I like. Also note that very few people died during all this action....far less than the bourguise revolution of 1905. Civil war is a totally different issue.

    If interested, read Lenin...but before all, read dialectic, materialism and combine them in order to make true Marxist judgements. There is no end to this, seriously, the concept is simple...one has to study and learn the philosophy well to be a good Marxist. There had been so many movements which claimed it was Marxist but none of them were. At most, they were petit-bourguise oportunist movements.

    as for the real answer
    Lenin:
    State and Revolution
    The vanguard party of revolution
    --
    The revolution was not done by Bolsheviks, it was done by proleteriat. It was influenced by Bolshevik party, which is one of the most important theories Lenin contributed.
    Although control had been tightened during wartime, the process was very democratic.



    Neither does communism/Marxism. The only thing changed is that instead of dealing with a boss or a board of directors, the workers deal directly with a massive, all-powerful government. The latter situation seems much bleaker to me.
    You are coming from the stereotypical approach in all your comments in this post.
    While the point is, WORKERS ruling the factory and doing everything collectively and democratically, I Have gaps in my mind regarding how this would work. But I know there are examples...the way Stalinist government handled things is not a bad idea either. Except the punishments were very strict but I'll give that to historical situation, the constant wars, Russia being a backward place and Stalin pushing hard to protect revolution.


    Long story short. The point is, workers electing the manager in a democratic fashion. And in a real democratic fashion so that whoever leads does not sit on his throne forever. It has to be a slippery ground.(seearis Commune)


    Neither does communism/Marxism. There is still the fabulously rich class of Party leaders, favorites and high-ranking bureaucrats. The only change is the absence of a middle class, and thereby any chance of the poor becoming anything other than what they are: impoverished slaves to the state.
    Thats not Marxism then. If there is an upper class(I do not mean hierarchy, this is not anarchism but class) then proleteriat which oppresses the workers, we can not talk of Marxism.
    But indeed most so called Marxists movements were this way. I guess that is because of Stalin's influence and later the revisionist movements( starting with Kruschev).
    Soviets for instance became a bureucratic state capitalism with elite class ruling, bureucracy oppressing. We can not talk of Marxism here. Also note that, this caused Soviet Union to become a new type of imperialist country.



    Oh come now. Really? Do I really need to go through all the atrocities Marxist governments have committed against the people they rule with an iron fist? Tiananmen Square, 1989. 5,000 innocent Chinese civilians protesting the authoritarian communist regime were slaughtered with tanks and live machine gun fire from PLA troops. Do you really want to go there?
    That is not the point of Marxism nor it's philosophy. It is completely related to the rulers...if we talk of a no-democracy situation in a revolution thats what happens. If it is a conciouss movement where majority of the individuals participate(as in 1917 in Russia), and the process goes democratically this would not happen.
    I mean, French revlution was the movement of Liberalism, the bourguise. How democratic was that? How conciouss were the masses there?
    But it was liberal. Is that truely liberalism?


    Well since communism is feudalism I really can’t see how you would argue this point. Besides, Marxist governments continually appeal to the social, religious, patriotic and cultural sentiments of the populace in order to unite and control public opinion. All totalitarian, Orwellian regimes do. Marxism is anti-nation, anti-culture, and anti-religion by definition, but this does not stop Marxist leaders from using them as they please.
    You do realize that Orwell himself was a socialist and a strong anti-Stalinist. As I am...Communism is not feudalism. There is a GIANT difference.
    Feudalism is directly related to LANDOWNING which is what communism radically opposes. I can show you examples of Kurdish Marxists executing feudal landowners of the easter Anatolia(not that I'm for killing) because they belived feudalism keeps people backwards.
    Again, Marxism is not about creating an controlling regime ruled by a group of people.

    I can't believe how cold war propoganda came out so strong. People make judgements about Marxism without reading a single bok by founding father of the idea.
    Dialectical materialism is must read to understand Marxism. And it is not even an ideological thing, it is philosophy.
    Altough I have to admit, I too was not reading into this stuff thinking more simple until recently.



    Now this is pure propaganda; I’m sorry.

    I guess you and I fundamentally disagree on the nature of Communism and Marxism. I do not disagree with your statements on fascism; however see communism as the exact same thing, only without the nationalist element. Any history of any Marxist nation proves this
    I'm talking about what is wanted. Not what happened in history.
    Most of the movements in history that cliamed to be Marxists were not Marxists. And there had been a great deal of arguments among Marxists regarding what is dialectical and materials and what is not.
    So when someone who has never read about these issues coming in and making ignorant statements, it really does not feel good. Because it is already an issue which had hundreds of books written on it.
    The way you see things is like a clear reflection of the anti-communist propoganda warfare of the USA during cold-war. Do not get me wrong, but this manipulations seems to have been really succesfull. Because even people who claim they are Marxists think what they want is what you describe.


    Democracy is the rule of the mob. I am against mob rule any time, anywhere.
    This had been the most relevant anti-marxist arguement you made so far. Which we can argue at a different topic at a different time.
    Democracy is not the heart of socialism; it is the favorite tool of socialism. Fascism works in much the same way. National(ist) socialism is now forever associated with Nazism, but without the historical allusions those to words adequately describe fascism at its core.
    National socialism has nothing to do with Marxism. If anything, it is the regime which butchered/exiled true Marxists along with Jews.
    Read the German revolutions of 1918, SPD, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky, the Bavarian Communist state, the Freikorps. Relating these two is pretty ridicolous.(at least thats what I understood from your comment)

    Believe it or nor democracy is the heart of socialism. No democracy, no mass participation through as direct as possible democracy, no Marxism.
    And we have examples of this, including the Bolshevik revolution.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  15. #75

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Mensheviks came close? They were oportunists. I'm in total support of the Bolshevik party. What they did was implementing true Marxism into the age of wars and imperialism.
    Thats why I'm a Marxist-Leninist. The things which happened after Lenin's death and civil war is, believe me a gigantic issue of arguing.
    However, most of Lenin's theories and the way he and Bolsheviks became part of the revolution(not LED, became part of it) is Marxist. Thats exactly what I like. Also note that very few people died during all this action....far less than the bourguise revolution of 1905. Civil war is a totally different issue.

    If interested, read Lenin...but before all, read dialectic, materialism and combine them in order to make true Marxist judgements. There is no end to this, seriously, the concept is simple...one has to study and learn the philosophy well to be a good Marxist. There had been so many movements which claimed it was Marxist but none of them were. At most, they were petit-bourguise oportunist movements.

    as for the real answer
    Lenin:
    State and Revolution
    The vanguard party of revolution
    --
    The revolution was not done by Bolsheviks, it was done by proleteriat. It was influenced by Bolshevik party, which is one of the most important theories Lenin contributed.
    I will. I long to understand this seemingly insane world view.

    Although control had been tightened during wartime, the process was very democratic.
    Bahahahahaha




    You are coming from the stereotypical approach in all your comments in this post.
    Yes, I admit I'm biased. How can I be objective toward an ideology whose main objective it is to destroy my way of life?

    While the point is, WORKERS ruling the factory and doing everything collectively and democratically, I Have gaps in my mind regarding how this would work. But I know there are examples...the way Stalinist government handled things is not a bad idea either. Except the punishments were very strict but I'll give that to historical situation, the constant wars, Russia being a backward place and Stalin pushing hard to protect revolution.
    There is nothing democratic in a Marxist system. every factory, department and division is run by a government-appointed dictator or commissar. When the people "vote," they check box one for commie one or box two for commie two, and to add insult to injury these phony elections are decided by which candidates happen to be in favor with the supreme dictator. You know this.


    Long story short. The point is, workers electing the manager in a democratic fashion. And in a real democratic fashion so that whoever leads does not sit on his throne forever. It has to be a slippery ground.(seearis Commune)
    See Commissar of Labor....etc etc. pure government, command and control bureaucracy. There is no democracy. Not only that, but if you speak up, you disappear to a gulag or a hole in the ground. You know this.


    Thats not Marxism then. If there is an upper class(I do not mean hierarchy, this is not anarchism but class) then proleteriat which oppresses the workers, we can not talk of Marxism.
    But indeed most so called Marxists movements were this way. I guess that is because of Stalin's influence and later the revisionist movements( starting with Kruschev).
    Soviets for instance became a bureucratic state capitalism with elite class ruling, bureucracy oppressing. We can not talk of Marxism here. Also note that, this caused Soviet Union to become a new type of imperialist country.
    See China, Cuba, N Korea, and pretty much any other Marxist country. Rich, poor, no middle class.


    That is not the point of Marxism nor it's philosophy. It is completely related to the rulers...if we talk of a no-democracy situation in a revolution thats what happens. If it is a conciouss movement where majority of the individuals participate(as in 1917 in Russia), and the process goes democratically this would not happen.
    You cannot speak to Marxism's "good intentions." There is only the fact that the history of Marxism is one of tragic tyranny, oppression and slaughter. If you can build a Marxist society that is not these things, you'd be the first. I, quite frankly, am done watching "trial runs."

    I mean, French revlution was the movement of Liberalism, the bourguise. How democratic was that? How conciouss were the masses there?
    But it was liberal. Is that truely liberalism?
    The French Revolution was merely an illustration of what blood-bathed disaster occurs when mob rule reigns. Napoleon, the proverbial "strong man," then exploited the situation to make himself Emperor. This is the textbook story of democracy, and I despise democracy.

    You do realize that Orwell himself was a socialist and a strong anti-Stalinist.
    Yes. And when he realized what disastrous lies he had bought into, he wrote a book about them to warn the world called "1984."

    As I am...Communism is not feudalism. There is a GIANT difference.
    Feudalism is directly related to LANDOWNING which is what communism radically opposes. I can show you examples of Kurdish Marxists executing feudal landowners of the easter Anatolia(not that I'm for killing) because they belived feudalism keeps people backwards.
    Again, Marxism is not about creating an controlling regime ruled by a group of people.
    In a Marxist country, the state owns the land, the dictator doles out a piece to a favorite of his (when said favorite becomes not-so-favorite, the king Marxist ships him off to Siberia, or worse), and the favorite gives a piece of that to his favorite, etc. etc., until we get down to the fabled "worker," who is essentially a serf working for his bed and bread. That, by definition, is feudalism, and it is also Marxism.

    I can't believe how cold war propoganda came out so strong. People make judgements about Marxism without reading a single bok by founding father of the idea.
    Dialectical materialism is must read to understand Marxism. And it is not even an ideological thing, it is philosophy.
    Altough I have to admit, I too was not reading into this stuff thinking more simple until recently.
    As I said, I too wish to learn more about this stuff, but I have read the Communist Manifesto, and find it to be one of the few written embodiments of evil on this earth.

    I'm talking about what is wanted. Not what happened in history.
    Most of the movements in history that cliamed to be Marxists were not Marxists. And there had been a great deal of arguments among Marxists regarding what is dialectical and materials and what is not.
    So when someone who has never read about these issues coming in and making ignorant statements, it really does not feel good. Because it is already an issue which had hundreds of books written on it.
    The way you see things is like a clear reflection of the anti-communist propoganda warfare of the USA during cold-war. Do not get me wrong, but this manipulations seems to have been really succesfull. Because even people who claim they are Marxists think what they want is what you describe.

    Again, you can't talk about intentions, only results. If I am a junior manager in a company and I come up with an idea projected to be a success, I am still fired when it turns out to be a costly failure, regardless of what I hoped my creation to be.

    This had been the most relevant anti-marxist arguement you made so far. Which we can argue at a different topic at a different time.
    Yes, I find it all quite fascinating.

    National socialism has nothing to do with Marxism. If anything, it is the regime which butchered/exiled true Marxists along with Jews.
    ....Only because Marxism is anti-nationalist, which made it an enemy of fascism. Fascism is older than Marxism, and is very similar in most other respects.

    Read the German revolutions of 1918, SPD, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky, the Bavarian Communist state, the Freikorps. Relating these two is pretty ridicolous.(at least thats what I understood from your comment)
    OK?

    Believe it or nor democracy is the heart of socialism. No democracy, no mass participation through as direct as possible democracy, no Marxism.
    And we have examples of this, including the Bolshevik revolution.
    Bolshevik revolution:

    People: The Czar is terrible

    Lenin: Peace, Land, Bread

    People: Good idea. Let's revolt and put him in charge...democratically of course.

    Lenin: Thank you. Now surrender your children, your food and shelter, and your very lives to the state.

    People: Uh...ok...?

    Lenin: Excellent. Now since this is a democracy, you can vote your representatives. You can pick between communist one, two, or three.

    People: Um...I pick number 2.

    Lenin: Good. Now shut up and work.

    People: But we're starving! What happened to that "Peace Land Bread stuff"

    Lenin: Silence! The Party reports grain production is up 10,000 percent!

    Mensky: Sir, I am a farmer. Where is all this grain?

    Lenin: Traitor! Anti-revolutionary! Die!

    People: Where is Mensky?

    THE END

    This is democracy? Wow. I hate democracy even more than I originally thought...
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  16. #76

    Default Re: Leftism in the USA - a critical history

    I think we should make a distinction between the idealistic communism and the realistic communism. At heart the idealistic communism is heaven. On paper communism is the superior political and economic system. The problem is that people ruin communism...always. Communism + Humans = fail. It doesn't work. It's a system when people are involved. So you can have all the college kids with Che on their t shirt talking about how perfect communism is...i agree until you apply people to the situation. Then you have a problem.
    "Mors Certa, Hora Incerta."

    "We are a brave people of a warrior race, descendants of the illustrious Romans, who made the world tremor. And in this way we will make it known to the whole world that we are true Romans and their descendants, and our name will never die and we will make proud the memories of our parents." ~ Despot Voda 1561

    "The emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans." ~ 1532, Francesco della Valle Secretary of Aloisio Gritti, a natural son to Doge

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •