What is communism ?

[Traitorfish]

Who?

The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine. Ukrainian Anarcho-communists.

Well yeah. He had the mustace and the beard. Didn't he also wear a monocole?

No, pince-nez, which, being Teddy Roosevelt's favoured style, we know to be undeniably badass.

 

[Ajidica]

The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine. Ukrainian Anarcho-communists.

Oh. The Black Army. I need to read up on those guys, but I've never been very interested in what is essentialy Agrigcultural anarchism.

No, pince-nez, which, being Teddy Roosevelt's favoured style, we know to be undeniably badass.

Why does the late 19th/Early 20th century have so much in the way of badass clothing? Or is it only because awsome people lived at that time?

 

[civver_764]

Teddy Roosevelt was a dick.

 

[Ajidica]

Sure, but he was still awsome. Who else would lead a horse-less cavalry charge? Who else could be a wealthy New Yorker yet still accepted by cowboys? Who else would send the Navy to Asia after Congress denied him a 'world tour' budget and then go to Congress telling them to open up their pocketbooks, otherwise their precious navy is stuck in Asia.
Sure, he was an imperialist, but he also tried to break up trusts and begin implemending larger welfare programs. Surely that has to count for something.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Teddy Roosevelt was a dick.

NO he was not. He was just a bully with a huge club in Cuba.

Btw, is your signature suggesting a liberation for a Arab-only nation in the whole of Palestine?

 

[civver_764]

Sure, but he was still awsome. Who else would lead a horse-less cavalry charge? Who else could be a wealthy New Yorker yet still accepted by cowboys? Who else would send the Navy to Asia after Congress denied him a 'world tour' budget and then go to Congress telling them to open up their pocketbooks, otherwise their precious navy is stuck in Asia.
Sure, he was an imperialist, but he also tried to break up trusts and begin implemending larger welfare programs. Surely that has to count for something.

I think his progressivism is a bit overstated. He was a terrible war criminal.

Btw, is your signature suggesting for Palestine? That would mean second Holocaust for the Israelis.

How?

 

[Traitorfish]

Why does the late 19th/Early 20th century have so much in the way of badass clothing? Or is it only because awsome people lived at that time?

It really makes you wonder if the Confucians are on to something, doesn't it?

Teddy Roosevelt was a dick.

So was Trotsky. "Badass" and "nice" have nothing to do with each other.

Edit: Look, it's very simple:

Is there really anything more to say?

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

I think his progressivism is a bit overstated. He was a terrible war criminal.

How?

I changed my question.

 

[civver_764]

Btw, is your signature suggesting a liberation for a Arab-only nation in the whole of Palestine?

A return to the 1947 borders.

 

[Dachs]

A return to the 1947 borders.

Nationalism seems unbecoming for an ostensible anarchist like yourself

 

[civver_764]

Nationalism seems unbecoming for an ostensible anarchist like yourself

I'm not allowed to be realistic? Anarchy is the end goal, I doubt it would start in Palestine or Israel.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

A return to the 1947 borders.

Unrealistic.

Where are the Israelis supposed to live after the return to 1947 borders? The Negev?

 

[aelf]

Well, if you think like that, it's good for you. Marx on the other hand would denounce Habermas as much as he denounced pretty much everyone else apart from Engels. That's his problem, and that's why people who do not have black-and-white views must be resolutely against him: in his world there's not much place for anyone else.

Whatever I'm doing, at least I'm not claiming to know what's in the head of a dead man.

You should read some Popper, or indeed Marx. The latter's claim to scientificity was precisely that he was postulating from empirical evidence - records of past history. Popper's counter-argument was that empirical evidence does not prove a theory as Marx thought it would. It merely means the theory works for a particular case. Popper's original idea was to judge a theory on its predictive power, rather than on how many verifying evidences you can find. For dialectics, everything in the world can be interpreted in such a way as to verify the thesis-antithesis-synthesis circle. But that means its predictive power is precisely zero, for the reason I mentioned in the last post. Basically, only if a theory makes a somewhat dangerous prediction - that can refute the theory if it did not realise - the theory is meaningful. The fact that science is not infallible is not a concession, but the very reason it is rigorous: it's not dogmatic. If Newton's mechanics is proved wrong in certain circumstances, it's wrong in those circumstances, and scientists don't preach it as the absolute truth.

Sure I read Marx. How do you think I can answer you at all? Marx did not have uniform views on everything throughout his life, and this is apparently something you have always failed to grasp.

As for theory being proven through prediction, maybe you don't really have a correct understanding of theory? I can see why that would be an important criterion in science. But I can't see why you want to throw out any theory that is not able to predict the future nor indeed attempts to do so. Seems like a dumb thing to do considering not everything we do is about predicting the future.

Also, if Marxism was dogmatic, why is there more than just orthodox Marxism? And if dialectics can be twisted to form any conclusion, how can it result in something strictly dogmatic? You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, update your arguments. You've been saying the same things over and over for a long time and not once have you actually addressed refutations of those. Just because you insist that something is bad doesn't make it so.


PS: You should read The Black Swan on the accuracy of predictive models when applied to modern society. The author likes Popper too and shares similar views about Marx, so it would even be an enjoyable read for you. However, he doesn't seem to think that his arguments point towards the dismantling of most of the social sciences. Well, which sensible person would, since the culling of anything non-predictive would eliminate very useful research in fields such as development, where predicting anything is difficult at best but things still have to be done for progress to be possible?

 

[Dachs]

I'm not allowed to be realistic? Anarchy is the end goal, I doubt it would start in Palestine or Israel.

Yeah, 1947 borders aren't "realistic". Even Hamas knows that.

 

[Traitorfish]

Where are the Israelis supposed to live after the return to 1947 borders? The Negev?

Link to video.

Just an idea, y'know?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But if Lenin hadn't cracked down on the Mensheviks, could he have prevailed against Kerensky and Kornilov? I'm not sure. One of the Bolsheviks greatest strength was a near monopoly of ideology.

Kornilov was dead before the October Revolution. Kerensky was powerless before any crackdown on the Mensheviks.

This crackdown was not necessary, though, until the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries made it necessary. Their obstinate refusal, not merely to cooperate with the Bolsheviks, but to engage in active resistance and terrorism against them is what led to the Red Terror. Before their actions, revolutionary terror was restricted purely to bourgeois targets. Though the ultimate goal of Lenin was a single party, he was never insistent that it be purely Bolshevik-led, or at least not Bolshevik-dicated. The Communist government was meant to be the Vanguard of the People, not the Bolshevik faction. Indeed, they reserved seats in the government for trade unions, anarchists, Mensheviks, and SRs. That everyone else but the Left SRs left the government is their own fault, not his nor the Bolsheviks'. The resulting consolidation into the Communist Party is often played up, by both sides, as being the Bolshevik goal all along, when in fact it was adaptation to the situation at hand, like most developments in early Soviet/Sovnarkom history.

Oh. The Black Army. I need to read up on those guys, but I've never been very interested in what is essentialy Agrigcultural anarchism.

Makhno was just as cruel and two-faced as the Bolsheviks. He changed sides whenever he wished.

Why does the late 19th/Early 20th century have so much in the way of badass clothing? Or is it only because awsome people lived at that time?

There's a good reason steampunk is so popular.

 

[Ajidica]

I forgot Kornilov was dead. Thats what I get for watching Eisensteins October.

 

[Alassius]

That assumes that there is any reasonable "you" that could usurp power, which Anarchists and Left-Communists contest by demanding that socialism be attained collectively by the entire proletariat. You may dismiss the possibility of non-Vanguardist revolution, but that doesn't mean you can assume that all radicals necessarily pursue it.

There is a difference between "not all radicals pursue centralisation" and "no radicals pursue centralisation". For your system to work, it must not fail because of the radicals who do pursue it. Otherwise, you cannot "extend [it] to all humans", and you are confined to small scale collectives where you can gather like minded people together. Which is not a bad thing per se, but I suspect you'll not be satisfied with that.

Not that I'm gonna diss Lenin. He was pretty legit, there was just a lot of problems he had to deal with. I think the USSR would have had a lot of potential under him.

This is what I mean. Some people, like civver or Cheezy, are going to vote for the strong dictator because "there was just a lot of problems ... to deal with." Would your system survive this?

Left-Anarchists argue that the proletariat is capable of voluntary cooperation and collective self-management, without the need for imposed authority or centralised government. While individual freedom is considered paramount, it is not an Egoist conception of freedom, and so disallows selfish or harmful action, and acknowledges both negative and positive liberties as vital and co-dependent. As such, all actions undertaken would be in reference to the broader context, both on and individual and collective level, so that no one individual or collective of individuals over-stepped their boundaries. Coordination would be possible beyond an immediate level, through a system of bottom-up delegation, and would, ideally, extend to all humans.
Of course, there's different ideas about how this would be achieved, what form it should take, how it will be maintained, etc., but suffice to say it's more complex than "smash the state, and we'll all be fine"- indeed, it is perhaps the most openly labour-intensive form of society yet proposed, demanding the involvement of the entire capable population.

The bolded part is the crux of matter. By "disallowing", do you mean that you have a system to forbid people from being selfish, by for example punishing them? Or do you mean that when everyone adopts your ideology, nobody would even think about being selfish? Or is it that your theory does not consider the question at all?

"Bottom-up delegation" is hardly more complex than "smash the state, and we'll all be fine". What if people at the bottom disagree with each other? Suppose half the population are lazy and do not want to work, how do you "demand" them to participate? What does your "coordination" involve when some people don't listen to you?

Whatever I'm doing, at least I'm not claiming to know what's in the head of a dead man.



Sure I read Marx. How do you think I can answer you at all? Marx did not have uniform views on everything throughout his life, and this is apparently something you have always failed to grasp.

As for theory being proven through prediction, maybe you don't really have a correct understanding of theory? I can see why that would be an important criterion in science. But I can't see why you want to throw out any theory that is not able to predict the future nor indeed attempts to do so. Seems like a dumb thing to do considering not everything we do is about predicting the future.

Also, if Marxism was dogmatic, why is there more than just orthodox Marxism? And if dialectics can be twisted to form any conclusion, how can it result in something strictly dogmatic? You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, update your arguments. You've been saying the same things over and over for a long time and not once have you actually addressed refutations of those. Just because you insist that something is bad doesn't make it so.


PS: You should read The Black Swan on the accuracy of predictive models when applied to modern society. The author likes Popper too and shares similar views about Marx, so it would even be an enjoyable read for you. However, he doesn't seem to think that his arguments point towards the dismantling of most of the social sciences. Well, which sensible person would, since the culling of anything non-predictive would eliminate very useful research in fields such as development, where predicting anything is difficult at best but things still have to be done for progress to be possible?

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll keep that in mind.

Popper did not argue for dismantling social sciences either. In fact, by arguing that science is fallible, he kind of promoted social sciences: if hard sciences can fail too, surely you cannot dismiss other studies on the grounds that they can fail?

Now, there's a difference between "social sciences are not intrinsically trustworthy" and "social sciences are intrinsically wrong". It could be the case that a particular theory happens to be right, without being scientifically rigorous. For example, the invisible hand. What that means is a theory like the invisible hand can still fail at certain circumstances. Because it doesn't try to be the theory of everything that applies everywhere no matter what, it leaves room for alternative theories. For certain markets - I'm sure you'll come up with a long list yourself - you can argue that state planning works better.

The first corollary is that you must not forbid people from disagreeing with the invisible hand. This I reckon is the difference between autocrats wearing the liberal clothing and a true (classical) liberal. I might think Marx is wrong for most parts, but I'm acutely aware that it's my opinion, and not universal truth. A true liberal defends the rights of his opponents, no matter how much he disagrees with them. An autocrat claims he represents the one and only truth. The paradox of Marxism trying to be dogmatic but yet has more than a few interpretations was precisely the reason Trotsky was exiled. The theory presupposes a single version of the truth, it cannot tolerate dissidence. But if the dissidence is marginally reasonable, you cannot remove it by simple arguments, so the only resort was to remove the dissident physically.

The second is that while a social theory may be right, or more predictive than other theories, it is inherently less trustworthy than hard sciences. If you drop an iron ball from a tower, you can be fairly sure how long it will take to hit the ground, because the science behind it is well-understood. Social phenomena can easily be more complex than the most advanced physics studies. If you lower taxes you can't be as certain if you'll get better growth. Conversely if you abolish classes you can't be certain that all social ills will be gone. Marx's fault was that he was too confident to consider how his theory could fail. He left no guards against failures, so when things went wrong, they went as wrong as possible. A social policy must therefore be evaluated not on how good it will be when it works, but on how bad it can be when it fails. On that measure, capitalism (especially the welfare kind) is vastly superior to communism, even if the best of the former looks horrible compared to the utopian vision of the latter. It is still theoretically possible for someone to figure out how to prevent Soviet failures when constructing a communist society, though that is about as likely as the Second Advent. Until that happens, communism must not be attempted again.

 

[civver_764]

This is what I mean. Some people, like civver or Cheezy, are going to vote for the strong dictator because "there was just a lot of problems ... to deal with." Would your system survive this?

If I was a worker living under the Czar yeah I probably would have supported the Bolsheviks. Right now I would never accept a vanguard.

I'm not a Leninist.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is what I mean. Some people, like civver or Cheezy, are going to vote for the strong dictator because "there was just a lot of problems ... to deal with." Would your system survive this?

First, you do not know how either of us would vote, and there is nothing in what has been said which could even hint at an answer to that, so you are reading what you want to read.

Second, why would I be voting for a dictator?

Third, why is this something "our" system must "survive?" Civver's views and my own are quite different, you know. Not that I expect you to understand the difference, because all socialism is Stalinism to you.