CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[ParadigmShifter]

Come on aelf, we all want to see your monolith sized penis (for comparison of course).

 

[aelf]

Come on aelf, we all want to see your monolith sized penis (for comparison of course).

That's sexist

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"Wacko Trot" is redundant.

Anyway, Trotsky referred to the USSR as a "degenerate workers' state." Since he had played such a big role in its formation (being responsible for Red war crimes etc.), it would have made him look bad to say that it was authoritarian/capitalist from the beginning.

Well the point wasn't to create socialism in Russia, it was to overthrow Russian Capital and perform a holding action until the real revolution came in industrial Europe. A revolution which didn't come. It wasn't until the mid-late 1920s that people really realized this, and thus why Socialism in One Country came about, because the Revolution that would save Russia from Capitalist intervention wasn't coming any time soon, so Russia would have to be prepared to stand against them and protect her gains.

This is absolutely false. Free soviets sprouted up across Russia following the overthrow of the Czar, most of these in rural areas. The only reason these soviets failed to thrive in the long-term is because the so-called "Soviet Union" sent in the troops to crush these aforementioned free soviets, and institute their centralized bureaucracy (i.e. dictatorship over the proletariat) instead.

As far as I know, most, if not all, of the soviets declared allegiance and friendship to the Petrograd Soviet; you know, Triumphal March of Soviet Power and all that.

And anyway, no, the centralizing tendencies during the Civil War were not the only reason these Soviets lost their autonomy, you're completely ignoring the huge impact of the Foreign Intervention, as well as local nationalist groups. The only reason Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania became independent was that the Entente gave the small bourgeois nationalist groups the power they needed to overthrow the Soviets that had already been set up; in the Ukraine, nationalist groups and cossacks overthrew soviets. The only instances I can think of where anarchist groups were "put down" by the Bolsheviks were Izhevsk (though they weren't really "anarchists"), Machno (who eventually wound up collaborating with the Bolsheviks against Vrangel anyway), and of course Kronstadt. They were by no means "common." And, as I've said before, had most of them been allowed to continue on independently, then the Interventionists and Whites would have surely won. The most excellent example of this is the myriad Siberian autonomous soviets that sprang up and proved to be incapable of defending their own land; when they grew bold enough to attempt even a single expedition to attack a White town, it completely fell apart. The anarchist communes would have behaved like the Arrondissements in 1871; they would have fought piecemeal instead of together, and died piecemeal as a result. Did it really suck that things couldn't be honky-dory after October? Yes, but the alternative was losing the Revolution completely, and that is simply not an option.

Republican government collapsed 4 times in France (3 if you don't count the transition from the pre-WWII to the post-WWII government). Therefore, the idea of the liberal republic must be four times as bad as the idea of Bolshevist dictatorship.

I approve of this logic, except that I count five times. Unless you aren't including the Three Glorious Days.

Not that I have any love for Bolshevist dictatorship, just that your logic is absolutely silly.

Not that I do, either, I should put that out there. I quite naturally don't want to recreate the USSR; well, most of it anyway.

Because everyone hates fascists, but there are a few Marxists and libertarian socialists on the board who can argue with each other and the various ignorant capitalists.

That, and arguing with Fascists is just boring.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

It is, because those who understand socialism wouldn't make ridiculous claims that are comparable to saying that Hitler tried to implement socialism because his party was called National Socialist.



So what are these "benefits of Capitalism" that outweigh its "perceived" (as if they don't really exist, but merely perceived) negatives? If you mean benefits of industrialisation, surely you don't think that capitalism has a monopoly on that, do you?



I'm still trying to make sense of this.

If you were fighting wars to bring peace for all time, would you call yourself a pacifist?



Enlighten me, then. As far as I can see (perhaps I'm not even semi-educated), I'm not the one who is insisting on a penis-size competition between monolithic systems, pretending that such things exist. You were talking about flaws and "potential pratfalls"?

But Hitlers aim wasn't Socialism. His aim was "National Socialism". Even then, names are of limited use in determining actual policy. Case in point, North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

And since you brought it up, how is what I said analogous to saying that Hitler was a socialist because his program was National Socialism?

At second paragraph, I never saw a strawman constructed out of one word.

Pacifism and Socialism are apples and oranges. Completely different theories.

Anyway, if Socialism is Struggle, then right wing insurgents that struggle against a Socialist government are socialists. Thats insane. For that matter, Jihadists are socialists because they struggle against the west.

Anyway, it is true that neither Socialism or Capitalism have existed, neither have I made that claim. What have existed are close and not so close approximations to each idea.

 

[Gustave5436]

I wouldn't say that the Russians tried another Soviet Union when it collapsed. The French system didn't collapse it just did the old Thomas Jefferson of generational revolution

Descending into dictatorship (Napoleon, Napoleon III, etc.) is "collapse" in my book.

It's a silly point regardless. We all know that any society which stifles the freedom of its citizens will stagnate horribly; such a state of affairs is not sustainable in the long-term and therefore a totalitarian society must inevitably collapse under its own weight.

Well, in the beginning, the USSR had real promise as at least a more egalitarian state.

I'll take Kerensky's weak/ineffective provisional government over Lenin's totalitarian dictatorship any day.

Lenin, except of course for the Cheka, was a pretty good leader.

Indeed, he was, as all good leaders are megalomaniacs. This is what makes them take up a leadership position in the first place.

So I was argue that it was a workers' state in its earliest days. And then Stalin came along.

There is no such thing as a "Workers' state." The State is an instrument for the protection of economic monopoly, of the dominion of one class over another. A revolution which liberates the working class will demolish the State entirely, as occurred in the myriad free Soviets which sprung up spontaneously about Russia. It was not Stalin, but Trotsky's Red Army, which crushed socialism in Russia. The left was completely suppressed by the time Stalin came to power.

Not that I believe Trotsky would have been much different.

This is true. Trotsky was as guilty as the rest of the Bolsheviks; his criticism of the USSR following his expulsion from the country was entirely hypocritical.

 

[Gustave5436]

Well the point wasn't to create socialism in Russia, it was to overthrow Russian Capital and perform a holding action until the real revolution came in industrial Europe. A revolution which didn't come. It wasn't until the mid-late 1920s that people really realized this, and thus why Socialism in One Country came about, because the Revolution that would save Russia from Capitalist intervention wasn't coming any time soon, so Russia would have to be prepared to stand against them and protect her gains.

So they thought that by destroying the Russian left and installing a brutal dictatorship in Russia, they would aid the cause of socialism in the rest of Europe?

As far as I know, most, if not all, of the soviets declared allegiance and friendship to the Petrograd Soviet; you know, Triumphal March of Soviet Power and all that.

And anyway, no, the centralizing tendencies during the Civil War were not the only reason these Soviets lost their autonomy, you're completely ignoring the huge impact of the Foreign Intervention, as well as local nationalist groups. The only reason Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania became independent was that the Entente gave the small bourgeois nationalist groups the power they needed to overthrow the Soviets that had already been set up; in the Ukraine, nationalist groups and cossacks overthrew soviets. The only instances I can think of where anarchist groups were "put down" by the Bolsheviks were Izhevsk (though they weren't really "anarchists"), Machno (who eventually wound up collaborating with the Bolsheviks against Vrangel anyway), and of course Kronstadt. They were by no means "common." And, as I've said before, had most of them been allowed to continue on independently, then the Interventionists and Whites would have surely won. The most excellent example of this is the myriad Siberian autonomous soviets that sprang up and proved to be incapable of defending their own land; when they grew bold enough to attempt even a single expedition to attack a White town, it completely fell apart. The anarchist communes would have behaved like the Arrondissements in 1871; they would have fought piecemeal instead of together, and died piecemeal as a result. Did it really suck that things couldn't be honky-dory after October? Yes, but the alternative was losing the Revolution completely, and that is simply not an option.

It is true that the infrastructure in Russia was rather poor, hindering proper anarchist organization. However, the left would have been much better off under the weak provisional government than under the Bolshevik dictatorship. The Bolsheviks completely destroyed the left and any chance at liberty in Russia. Under the provisional government, however, we could have continued propagandizing operations and strengthened the left for a libertarian revolution, as occurred in Spain.

Communes which "embraced" Red troops soon regretted the action, once they discovered the true nature of Bolshevism. This is why Machov, etc. stand out, as they realized the oppression inherent to Marxism prior to submitting to it and had the opportunity to put up a fight.

Not that I do, either, I should put that out there. I quite naturally don't want to recreate the USSR; well, most of it anyway.

What I fail to understand is why you choose to defend it, and Marxism in general, when the goal of socialism is liberating the worker from the domination of Capital; dictatorship does not fit well with liberty.

Anyway, it is true that neither Socialism or Capitalism have existed, neither have I made that claim. What have existed are close and not so close approximations to each idea.

"Socialism" can be loosely defined as anti-capitalism. Thus, the idea of mixing capitalism and socialism is nonsensical. Rather, "mixed economies" are mixtures between laissez-faire and state capitalism, NOT capitalism and socialism. The USA is wholly capitalist, just as the Spanish Revolution was wholly socialist.

The idea of capitalism is a system in which there is a bourgeoisie and a proletariat. The USA fits this description and is therefore capitalist. The idea of socialism is a system in which there is no ruling class. The free communes of the Spanish Revolution, more or less, fit this description, and therefore were socialist. The USA is not "kinda capitalist" and the Spanish Revolution was not "kinda socialist." They just practice particular forms of their respective economic theories.

 

[Yeekim]

The problem is that we haven't used milk yet. For the umpteenth time, it must begin in an industrialized, capitalist nation. That is why I keep saying that we've never tried socialism before. Its like you don't even read what I write! When Stalin thought he could create socialism in a non-industrialized nation by rushing through capitalist industrialization and expected to get similar results to having actually gone through the capitalist phase, he was wrong.

Touché.
But why so? Why was he wrong?
Is the capitalist phase necessary to create the wealth that could be "fairly distributed" in the socialist phase? And when it is distributed the cycle begins anew?
EDIT: Also, the are no "industrialized nations" in the sense Marx understood and imagined them. Not any more. The world has moved on to post-industrial setting. Whuich is not bad news for you, actually. Because there is now much, much more trades where workers actually do possess "the means of production" already - because these means are exclusively limited to their skills and knowhow.

 

[RedRalph]

I thought "Mick" just mean people of Irish Catholic descent in general, not particularly Northerners. Is that a particularly Irish thing, or am I just a bit confused about that?

Micks are form the 6 counties, Paddies form the 26. that's how I had always understood it anyhow

 

[Merkinball]

So you'd say better education would help?

Right now? Probably not. I think the first thing that needs to be addressed is the outright rejection of education. Putting better teachers into schools isn't going to fix the overwhelming atmosphere in urban schools that education isn't necessary. Downtown would probably have some helpful insight in regads to the attitudes that proliferate in these communities about education and teachers.

 

[aelf]

But Hitlers aim wasn't Socialism. His aim was "National Socialism". Even then, names are of limited use in determining actual policy. Case in point, North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

And since you brought it up, how is what I said analogous to saying that Hitler was a socialist because his program was National Socialism?

Let me remind you what you said:

Yes, and many countries tried to implement socialism, what is your point? No, I am not advocating the position that there has ever been a truly Socialist country, I am simply saying that every attempt to implement it has been met by failure in one form or another.

So, what are these "many countries" that have tried to "implement socialism" (as if there's something to "implement")? Unless you're saying that any country that says it is socialist is socialist, I just don't see why you would make such a claim.

Care to elaborate instead of just trying to make vague and shallow points?

At second paragraph, I never saw a strawman constructed out of one word.

What strawman? Have you stooped so quickly to calling strawman for no apparent reason instead of bothering to defend your tenuous position? I expected better.

Pacifism and Socialism are apples and oranges. Completely different theories.

Obviously you do not comprehend what an analogy is at all. Also, I note that you refer to pacifism as a theory You've just proven how wrong your thinking is yourself.

Anyway, if Socialism is Struggle, then right wing insurgents that struggle against a Socialist government are socialists. Thats insane. For that matter, Jihadists are socialists because they struggle against the west.

Of course not. Have you never heard of class struggle?

Socialism is struggle because it involves not the implementation of some scientific system of social planning (which is today chiefly the domain of bourgeois intellectuals), but the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor. It manifests itself in opposition in party politics, as well as actions in everyday life: strikes, protest, absenteeism, etc. It involves the organisation of the working class into parties and unions. It requires the availability of all the channels of opposition. If you restrict all but one (or, worse, restrict everything), then opposition will cease to be meaningful and you will move increasingly towards an absolutism masked by democratic procedures - the rulers may change, but the content is always the same.

And at the very core of socialism is the human essence, the recognition that property and and abstract concepts like 'freedom' are secondary to the human being. They are merely instrumental to the well-being of the latter. If they have enslaved the human being, as they do now, they have to be opposed.

Clearly, socialism as struggle means much more than just 'struggle' in any sense of the word.

Anyway, it is true that neither Socialism or Capitalism have existed, neither have I made that claim. What have existed are close and not so close approximations to each idea.

You're still wrong. Neither are monolithic systems, and approximations are not mere shadows of these grand ideas. The ideas don't have material existence. These "approximations" do. Making comparative studies about them gets bogged down by a lot of incommensurable details, but it's still much better than trying to arrange some sort of match between 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism', with the winner being the one who won the most number of rounds. Aside from being delusional, it completely fails to capture the meaning of socialism.

 

[Dachs]

That, and arguing with Fascists is just boring.

Not as boring as arguing (among? with?) communists/marxists/socialists/(I almost don't care what label is used here, everybody knows who I'm talking about)s. At least to me. Have fun.

 

[RedRalph]

You are unusually argumentative today dachs. Something up?

 

[aelf]

Not as boring as arguing (among? with?) communists/marxists/socialists/(I almost don't care what label is used here, everybody knows who I'm talking about)s. At least to me. Have fun.

All studying and no arguing makes Dachs an apathetic boy

 

[Dachs]

Nah, midterms are over.

RRW: Hyper, too much time left before lunch to just sit there but not enough to go read or write or play a game or something. Dangerous combination.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well the point wasn't to create socialism in Russia, it was to overthrow Russian Capital and perform a holding action until the real revolution came in industrial Europe. A revolution which didn't come.

We can thank the glorious and infallible free market for that, of course.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Let me remind you what you said:



So, what are these "many countries" that have tried to "implement socialism" (as if there's something to "implement")? Unless you're saying that any country that says it is socialist is socialist, I just don't see why you would make such a claim.

Care to elaborate instead of just trying to make vague and shallow points?



What strawman? Have you stooped so quickly to calling strawman for no apparent reason instead of bothering to defend your tenuous position? I expected better.



Obviously you do not comprehend what an analogy is at all. Also, I note that you refer to pacifism as a theory You've just proven how wrong your thinking is yourself.



Of course not. Have you never heard of class struggle?

Socialism is struggle because it involves not the implementation of some scientific system of social planning (which is today chiefly the domain of bourgeois intellectuals), but the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor. It manifests itself in opposition in party politics, as well as actions in everyday life: strikes, protest, absenteeism, etc. It involves the organisation of the working class into parties and unions. It requires the availability of all the channels of opposition. If you restrict all but one (or, worse, restrict everything), then opposition will cease to be meaningful and you will move increasingly towards an absolutism masked by democratic procedures - the rulers may change, but the content is always the same.

And at the very core of socialism is the human essence, the recognition that property and and abstract concepts like 'freedom' are secondary to the human being. They are merely instrumental to the well-being of the latter. If they have enslaved the human being, as they do now, they have to be opposed.

Clearly, socialism as struggle means much more than just 'struggle' in any sense of the word.



You're still wrong. Neither are monolithic systems, and approximations are not mere shadows of these grand ideas. The ideas don't have material existence. These "approximations" do. Making comparative studies about them gets bogged down by a lot of incommensurable details, but it's still much better than trying to arrange some sort of match between 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism', with the winner being the one who won the most number of rounds. Aside from being delusional, it completely fails to capture the meaning of socialism.

Any parties that enacts partial to complete collectivization(along with the abolition of distinct social classes) with the explicit aim of creating a society in which the means of production are held by the public, along with an equal allocation of resources to each person can be considered "Socialist".

Apparently, you do not realize that Pacifism is a socio-political theory, among other things...

Come on, when you said Socialism=Struggle, you opened yourself up to reductio ad absurdum. Now, if you had said before hand Socialism=Class Struggle at first...

Nobody is claiming that each are monolithic theories. They are umbrella terms.

I have a severe problem with the sort of romantic theory you set out in your second to last paragraph. It sounds deep and profound, but it is in fact vacuous and is simply a clarion call to violence.

You call Freedom an abstract term while spouting even more abstract utterings about "Human Essence"

 

[aelf]

Any parties that enacts partial to complete collectivization(along with the abolition of distinct social classes) with the explicit aim of creating a society in which the means of production are held by the public, along with an equal allocation of resources to each person can be considered "Socialist".

I wonder how many countries had these aims. I guess it's enough for you if they merely profess them?

Apparently, you do not realize that Pacifism is a socio-political theory, among other things...

How nice, we have a scholar.

Unfortunately, the Pacifists themselves would tell you that it is a philosophy and a way of life. It's something that they embrace, not merely something that you study.

Come on, when you said Socialism=Struggle, you opened yourself up to reductio ad absurdum. Now, if you had said before hand Socialism=Class Struggle at first...

Firstly, I didn't say "Socialism=Struggle" (i.e. in such mathematical terms). Secondly, class struggle is struggle. That seems kind of obvious.

Thirdly, from a general point of view, the oppressive class does not do the struggling. It puts down. It is the oppressed that does the struggling. It seems kind of absurd to say that one struggles to keep the strong strong. On the other hand, it makes a lot of sense to say that one struggles against oppression. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in calling it struggle without having to qualify the term all the time.

There is nothing sophisticated about your reductio.

Nobody is claiming that each are monolithic theories. They are umbrella terms.

Those are kind of the same?

Besides, did I not say this:

and approximations are not mere shadows of these grand ideas. The ideas don't have material existence. These "approximations" do. Making comparative studies about them gets bogged down by a lot of incommensurable details, but it's still much better than trying to arrange some sort of match between 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism', with the winner being the one who won the most number of rounds. Aside from being delusional, it completely fails to capture the meaning of socialism.

I believe your "umbrella terms" are none other these ideas.

And on that note:

I have a severe problem with the sort of romantic theory you set out in your second to last paragraph. It sounds deep and profound, but it is in fact vacuous and is simply a clarion call to violence.

Which is more romantic? An appeal to some abstract idea that has perceived benefits, or the struggle against the oppression and exploitation that you see around you?

There is nothing deep or profound about the desire for human dignity. And it's certainly not "vacuous". What is vacuous is sitting around pretending that political philosophy is all about comparisons between fixed systems.

I would also remind you that the struggle for democracy involved violence. Do I see you being disapproving to those revolutionaries for their "clarion call to violence"?

You call Freedom an abstract term while spouting even more abstract utterings about "Human Essence"

I don't know about you, but I think I'm real. The human essence refers to nothing but the materially existent human being, who is the essence of society.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Unfortunately, the Pacifists themselves would tell you that it is a philosophy and a way of life.

I wonder how many countries had these aims. I guess it's enough for you if they merely profess them?

These quotes are opposites.

It's something that they embrace, not merely something that you study.

You can fully embrace a theory. Theories aren't just there to be studied.

 

[warpus]

Come on aelf, we all want to see your monolith sized penis (for comparison of course).

I'm not sure what I walked into here, but I'm leaving..

 

[Traitorfish]

These quotes are opposites.

Asserting that pacifism is a philosophy, rather than a theory, is the "opposite" of questioning the sincerity of self-proclaimed "socialist" regimes? How so? I honestly can't see how the two issues are even related.