Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[ReindeerThistle]

I understand, but Marxism-Leninism is a science. It is actually why I avoid "intellectual debates." Discussions are all right, but I don't "talk" anybody into anything. I put volunteers to work and they come to their own conclusions.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You're quoting a speech as proof of Stalin's hesitation? A speech is something written for the public. It should occur to you that if there's 'hesitation' in a speech, it's there for a purpose.

No I quoted an interview for a newspaper [with Roy Howard, if you're curious] where he discusses his thoughts.

It was good enough proof, along with other things, for the author who wrote the book that I pulled the quote from, which I have already told you to go read if you want a "real" historian's conclusions. Not that I'm not a "real" historian but hey I haven't written books so I guess I'm not to be respected.

Or perhaps it's because I'm not so biased as to see everything someone "known to be evil by everyone who has common sense" says as conniving and two-faced. You would really hate if people took someone like Stalin seriously wouldn't you?

So when will we see an example of this proletarian dictatorship?

We are celebrating the birth of one 98 years ago today.

It's also common for people to dismiss arguments that they don't like as ill-informed (witness climate change scepticism!), and for people saying uncomfortable things in front of hostile audiences to be laughed at, on the grounds that they 'obviously don't know anything'. It seems like you're institutionalising that.

I'm sorry you view the concept of expertise that way, but hey that's your own problem.

I guess you'd let me command your army unit then right? Because hey expertise is really just a presumption by the experts.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm sorry you view the concept of expertise that way, but hey that's your own problem.

I guess you'd let me command your army unit then right? Because hey expertise is really just a presumption by the experts.

I expected someone to say that. This was actually one of the things I found most frustrating about bad military leaders. Of course, there is a culture known as JFDI (Just Flaming Do It), because in battle what matters is usually that something is done decisively, rather than that the plan that we implement is necessarily perfect - it's usually much better to shout 'follow me!' and run forwards than it is to spend a few minutes static under fire working out exactly what to do.

What irritated me was when that attitude spread where it wasn't necessary. You could be out on the hills doing a bit of walking as adventure training, and the corporal would come up with a route, and brief his section. If one of the privates put up his hand and said 'excuse me Corporal, but wouldn't [this minor variation] make the route easier?', he'd usually be told 'pipe down lad, I'm in charge here' - in quite a few cases, he'd have been right, and sometimes everyone would have a miserable time because the commander's plan was actually quite stupid. Yes, the corporal will usually be right more often than the private - that's why he's a corporal - but it's stupid to expect him to be infallible, and counterproductive to make everyone act as if he is when it's not necessary. It gets much worse when you replace the corporal of five years' service and a couple of operational tours with a second lieutenant of two weeks', who dismisses the suggestions of his much more experienced juniors because he feels that listening to them would weaken his authority. Tell me that never happens at a political meeting!

It says something that JFDI disappears in the planning stage among special forces - absolutely anyone can chip in, and if they come up with something stupid then everyone else is wise enough to see that it's stupid, but they're also not afraid to take it on if it's actually useful. I liked that culture, and tried to make it work in regular work as much as possible - when I gave briefings to small groups of NCOs and/or officers, I usually ended them with 'any questions or suggestions?' Every now and again, someone with far less training and experience pointed out something I hadn't thought about.

EDIT: More to the point, why should a political community be run along the same lines as a military unit? I respect the RSM's right to come into his soldiers' rooms, inspect them and occasionally throw things out of the window, but wouldn't advocate for the police to start carrying out room inspections!

SECOND EDIT: I recognise that this is supposed to be a Q&A thread, so am happy if you'd rather stop the conversation.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Not to discount your personal experience, Flaming Pig, but you were never in a socialist army.

I know a dozen American communists whose personal opinions were steered toward communism by the very sentiment you describe.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

<snip>

See this is the problem with trying to conceptualize this idea in terms of "I have a title therefore I am right." That's not what any of us said. We said that the people who are experts (not Experts) should be listened to. In the case of that example of "JFDI" the person with the expertise is the person in the field looking at the situation, not the person back at base with oak leaves. When discussing war strategy, the expert is more likely the officer schooled in such things than the corporal with a loud mouth. The military is run along strict lines of authority designed to create uniformity of action, whatever that action is. While there's value to that, that kind of authoritarianism is not what is being enshrined in this attitude of "no investigation, no right to speak."

To be honest, the expression is usually interpreted to mean "once it's shown that you don't have expertise in this conversation, you shut up and yield to those who do," because it's not rank that matters, it's knowledge, and who has it needs to be demonstrated. Sometimes titles do convey that knowledge without question, like when a medical professional speaks on medicine to an engineer or tradesman, but even in a situation like that, it might be the case that this medical professional isn't up to date on a specific subject, which it turns out that engineer has really delved into, and so he might be the expert on that very specific thing but not on other medical things.

Again, the purpose of this is to stop people from talking out their asses and pretending that opinion is equal to fact.

 

[red_elk]

Comrades, congratulations on the Anniversary!

 

[jackelgull]

See this is the problem with trying to conceptualize this idea in terms of "I have a title therefore I am right." That's not what any of us said. We said that the people who are experts (not Experts) should be listened to. In the case of that example of "JFDI" the person with the expertise is the person in the field looking at the situation, not the person back at base with oak leaves. When discussing war strategy, the expert is more likely the officer schooled in such things than the corporal with a loud mouth. The military is run along strict lines of authority designed to create uniformity of action, whatever that action is. While there's value to that, that kind of authoritarianism is not what is being enshrined in this attitude of "no investigation, no right to speak."

To be honest, the expression is usually interpreted to mean "once it's shown that you don't have expertise in this conversation, you shut up and yield to those who do," because it's not rank that matters, it's knowledge, and who has it needs to be demonstrated. Sometimes titles do convey that knowledge without question, like when a medical professional speaks on medicine to an engineer or tradesman, but even in a situation like that, it might be the case that this medical professional isn't up to date on a specific subject, which it turns out that engineer has really delved into, and so he might be the expert on that very specific thing but not on other medical things.

Again, the purpose of this is to stop people from talking out their asses and pretending that opinion is equal to fact.

What about the people that have investigated, and have the knowledge, but have come to the wrong conclusions from that information? Where do they fit in?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

They evidently don't have all the knowledge.

 

[Flying Pig]

David Hume might disagree.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't see how that objection has anything to do with what I said. He asked what if people have information but are wrong, and I said that they're still wrong.

 

[Camikaze]

So how would you describe the difference between your approach and the liberal idea of free speech (and its role in creating knowledge)? It sound like you agree with the idea that people with expertise should be listened to, but disagree with the idea that debate is always welcome, and knowledge is only enhanced through the opportunity to deal with uninformed opinions.

 

[Agent327]

No I quoted an interview for a newspaper [with Roy Howard, if you're curious] where he discusses his thoughts.

Then you shouldn't mention a speech, which is quite another thing.

It was good enough proof, along with other things, for the author who wrote the book that I pulled the quote from, which I have already told you to go read if you want a "real" historian's conclusions. Not that I'm not a "real" historian but hey I haven't written books so I guess I'm not to be respected.

I already pointed out that whatever Stalin's 'hesitations' ('confessed' afterwards) might have been, they're quite irrelevant to the Purges and their effect on Soviet society. Now if you feel you need to harp on about these so-called hesitations, please continue. Historically relevant it barely is - especially considering Stalin's long list of other cruelties. I'm sure his fellow dictator Hitler had hesitations on things from tiem to time as well. We all do. In the end what matters is the actions these hesitators condone or allow to be initiated. I don't think the victims of Hitler's Holocaust will be much comforted by hearing about hesitations Hitler may or may not have had at some point in time. (He had plenty.)

Or perhaps it's because I'm not so biased as to see everything someone "known to be evil by everyone who has common sense" says as conniving and two-faced. You would really hate if people took someone like Stalin seriously wouldn't you?

Your presumed bias mostly oozes from everything you write. So pardon me if I don't take you very seriously as a 'historian'.

We are celebrating the birth of one 98 years ago today.

What I thought you might say. It's a pity and a tragedy that the working class leaders tend to be middle class, not proletarians. What you consider a dicaorship of the proletariat was in effect a dictatorship on the proletariat -and everyone else who was not in the upper echelons of the Party.

I'm sorry you view the concept of expertise that way, but hey that's your own problem.

Yes, let's not address the criticism, but ad hominem... because that's what experts do, isn't it. Some selfcriticism would be in order here. But perhaps that's beyond you.

 

[aelf]

I'm not even sure what people are arguing about anymore. Whether Stalin was a baddie? There are many threads that have discussed that, and one could always start yet another one. If you ask me, it's in the same league as threads that discuss whether or not the crusades are justified or whatever. It also seems to be an explicitly historical topic, so a debate on it would probably be better conducted in the History subforum, and not in an "Ask a..." thread in OT.

But on a more philosophical note, if we agree that only the end result is "historically relevant" and is what counts, I'm sure we can also agree that humanitarian disasters resulting from misinformation or misunderstanding on the part of Western powers and the actors involved also count as crimes committed by them (e.g. the recent bombing of the MSF hospital). Done?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So how would you describe the difference between your approach and the liberal idea of free speech (and its role in creating knowledge)? It sound like you agree with the idea that people with expertise should be listened to, but disagree with the idea that debate is always welcome, and knowledge is only enhanced through the opportunity to deal with uninformed opinions.

I don't think conversations create knowledge nor that they decide what is right and wrong. They disseminate information. Sometimes, when many participants have information that the others did not, and people listen to that new information, that results in people having a more complete understanding of things than before. But that's not a given by any means.

In many cases, the idea of a "conversation," which is a two-way exchange, is not appropriate to learning from experts, with the exception that the information given from layman to expert or from lesser expert to greater expert is precisely what they still do not understand, so that the expert can continue to instruct and clarify for them.

Your presumed bias mostly oozes from everything you write. So pardon me if I don't take you very seriously as a 'historian'.[/QUOE]

You have no problem repeating the myths of other biased historians.

Yes, let's not address the criticism, but ad hominem... because that's what experts do, isn't it. Some selfcriticism would be in order here. But perhaps that's beyond you.

There's no ad hominem here.

I'm not even sure what people are arguing about anymore. Whether Stalin was a baddie?

To these people that's the only question that matters. It's their perceived "gotcha!" card.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't see how that objection has anything to do with what I said. He asked what if people have information but are wrong, and I said that they're still wrong.

Hume argued that no amount of knowledge can get you from what 'is' to what 'ought' to be. Very few decisions in politics are purely matters of fact, though most are based on them. If, for example, we take as a starting point that the state should increase the GDP at all costs, then we can start talking facts to find out the policies that would increase GDP - but we can never find facts that will tell us that this is the right thing to do. In politics you can have all of the information and still come to different conclusions, because you always have 'ought' statements mixed in with the 'is' statements.

 

[madviking]

Question: What is the relationship between syndicalism and Marxism (and syndicalists and Marxists)? As far as I can understand, the former is related but not quite a subset of the latter. If this is too vague let me know and I'll try to narrow it down.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Syndicalists come in many flavors, and I don't consider syndicalism to be inherently socialist. While the more radical groups, like the anarcho-syndicalists, did organize against capitalism specifically [see the CNT in Spain, or the DeLeonists in America], and some may have incorporated or cited elements of Marxist theory, generic syndicalists proved generally more dangerous than helpful to socialism. Sorelianism, the product of the philosophy of Georges Sorel, is considered a precursor to European fascism. This danger comes from the fact that syndicalists generally emphasize worker self-interest rather than worker collective interest, and so their politics rarely, if ever, extend beyond their immediate affinity group to break racial, gender, or national lines in service of a greater end-cause [in other words, what Lenin called "trade-union consciousness"]. Anarcho-syndicalists generally do, but they occupy the strange balance between a syndicate and a revolutionary party by eschewing the type of leadership that a movement that aspires to national revolution would require.

 

[madviking]

Thanks for the answer.

 

[Hygro]

You once said you went to Red Emma's is Baltimore. Are they different at all from your description of anarcho-syndicalists? If so, what did you think of their brand of anarchism/collectivism relative to your understanding and education, and what do you wish they would do differently and what do you think you could bring with you to Marxist-Leninism that they did that Marxist-Leninists don't normally incorporate?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Thanks for the answer.

You once said you went to Red Emma's is Baltimore. Are they different at all from your description of anarcho-syndicalists? If so, what did you think of their brand of anarchism/collectivism relative to your understanding and education, and what do you wish they would do differently and what do you think you could bring with you to Marxist-Leninism that they did that Marxist-Leninists don't normally incorporate?

I'm not familiar with the brand of anarchism they practice at Red Emma's, I just picked up a few books and had some coffee. They have some vegan cafe items that looked interesting, but that's generally not my thing. If I had to guess; being that they specifically celebrate Emma Goldman and not generic "anarchism" (meaning you can expect everything from Max Stirner to Robert Nozick), I would expect them to be Platformists, which is probably similar to anarcho-syndicalism (they will generally take CNT as their model of Anarchism Done Right).

the biggest thing problem they, along with all anarchists, have is that they readily eschew the kind of organization necessary to build a real mass organization. They should read "What is to be Done?" and think on how the failings of Catalonia demonstrate the necessity of such organization.