|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:02 am
Gracchvs It can get weird for new people, but having posted rather consistent positions in this guild for the three and a half years, I don't feel the need to post everything in each thread. Not knowing me or my posting habits (When I am active, I tend to flood the guild with posts. Just look at the 'latest post' column... top half is mine, all mine. When active, I am the most active member of the guild), you might see a position of mine as lacking something, but usually that is only because I have posted it in another thread that is within recent memory. You have gone considerably Trotskyist in comparison to your earlier posts.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:25 am
Gracchvs Because I own nothing but my capacity to labour, and have to sell that capacity to labour in order to get money to live. I believe that means I am a proletarian, a member of that class called the proletariat since the Great Revolution. You do own public property as in State capitalist businesses seeing as a portion of your taxes goes towards these state run monopolies. Thus since you do own a business how can you technically be a proletarian unless you dont view public ownership as your ownership as well. Quote: That sentence has to be one of the most butchered you have posted here. I seriously hope english is not your native language. If it is... Ouch. But your ability to express your thoughts is not the thoughts themselves, and that is what I have to try to deal with here: I follow an ideology built on the research of certain members of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, this is true. But where is the problem? The proletariat doesn't, in general, have the education to learn tthe things necessary to turn socialism into a science, and so it was left up to the better members of the petty/bourgeoisie. Hopefully this is a response to what you said. If not... Thats the point of Thesis and anti thesis if the proletariat class cannot lead itself then the vanguard will initially be lead by the former middle class not the proletariat. For as you just stated the proletariat isnt educated enough or as a vietnamese Senator stated "sometimes the people dont know whats good for them." That statement prompted the General Will comparison that the general will does not have to be the majority IE the proletariats will either but of a different social class that makes the decisions for said lower social class. Quote: rolleyes I am not a member of the petty bourgeoisie because I do not have my own business. Quiet simple. I am a proletarian. If you are saying that socialism itself is a petty-bourgeois ideology because there will be a period of transition between class society and classless society during which there will be an interpenetration of class and classless ideology and conceptions of right... Nothing can save you. You do own a company due to State capitalism, whether you view so or not is up to your own opinion. Socialism will have petty bourgeois ideology inherently. There is no denying that petty bourgeois ideology will be a problem even after the state collapses unless we are talking centuries of the states existence. Even then you will have traces such as the bartering system of the feudal system in capitalism. Quote: Its not like these things will go away from bloody coup de dat coup de etat its an ideological battle here it takes way beyond our life time for communism to take route seeing as socialism still carries alot of petty bourgeois concepts. Socialism doesn't carry bourgeois concepts. Let us go to what L has said on this matter, no doubt whwre you have gotten your understanding from, and read it properly: Quote: "Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions). But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is: "... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal." The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs). we are not talking about 'concepts' but of right. That is, the right to the product of labour. The manner in which this is dealt with at that time is still in the bourgeois fashion, as eemplified in the stalinist motte 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their work.' Also, immediately, yes, culture, ideology and habbits will be completely changed after the revolution. That is the very essence of a revolution. The diifference is the amount of change, and the world in which they opperate. If it is a written law with a basis in human rights rather then universal scientific laws it makes itself fall under bourgeois ideology. Equal rights as Marx stated in your quote that laws fall under bourgeois ideology. I understand the quote "each according to his ability each according to his needs" but that does not mean that there is social equality just economic equality. Also with the labor being distributed this way does this mean that we shall also have projects like the German atktion T4 project? So that labor is more towards equality in reality rather then in fictional bourgeois humanist ideology? Ideology and habbits will not change from 1,2 or 3 generations tho. Unless of course we are talking unconventional/unethical means by bourgeois ideology such as for example "Microsoft people edition" ^.^ blaugh blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:03 pm
I am sorry. the computer I am using atm is so tiny, that I cannot deal with these posts adequately (17cm screen... about 8 inches). When I get access ti the house computer, I will reply here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:30 pm
Comrade Robson You're right. Its revisonism, my mistake. But poisonious nontheless. It's not "ALL about" individual freedoms. As i said before, Individual freedom is not the goal of communism, but a consiquence. Then what is the point, to you? I hardly think everyone who advocates Communism shares the same reason for wanting it. But go on, tell me what you think the goal should be. I'm also interested in why a few others, like Soviet Tank, want Communism, when they so fully reject any notion or desire for individual freedom or rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:27 pm
Quote: You have gone considerably Trotskyist in comparison to your earlier posts. Would you say that my views now are in contradiction to the views I held in 2005, or would you say that my way of expressing those views is different? I think it is the latter. Quote: You do own public property as in State capitalist businesses seeing as a portion of your taxes goes towards these state run monopolies. Thus since you do own a business how can you technically be a proletarian unless you dont view public ownership as your ownership as well. I do not own those companies. The state owns those companies, and funds them through tax money. There is a big difference. If what you were saying is true, I would have shares in ste run businesses proportionate to the taxes I paid the previous year, and recieved dividends from those shares, and could vote in a new leadership for the company if I decided to excersise my rights as a shareholder. I do not hold shares, I still less, do I hold enough shares to live on. That is the whole point: Can you live on a source of income other than your own labour? If the answer is no, you are a proletarian. If the answer is yes, but I must suplement the other income with my own labour, you are petty bourgeis. If the answer is no, you do not have to work, and recieve all of your income through profit, then you are bourgeois. Stop trying to play with words. I am a proletarian, so much so, that I am frequently on the verge of sinking into the lumpenproletariat. But there is no danger of me rising to petty-bourgeoisdom just yet. Quote: Thats the point of Thesis and anti thesis if the proletariat class cannot lead itself then the vanguard will initially be lead by the former middle class not the proletariat. Ah, no. Thesis and antithesis? where the ******** did you pull those out from? The fact that the working class does not have the time to figure out marxism does not stop it from taking marxism as its own once it was invented. Because there is no need to do all the initial figuring out, marxism can be taken as is by ther working class, and used in their own situations. There is no more need for the bourgeoisie to entre our political movement, though of course some will. Some honestly, some with the aim of derailing it. Quote: Socialism will have petty bourgeois ideology inherently. There is no denying that petty bourgeois ideology will be a problem even after the state collapses unless we are talking centuries of the states existence. Even then you will have traces such as the bartering system of the feudal system in capitalism. If you read the quote, it says bourgeois right, not petty bourgeois ideology. It may only seem life a different word, but it is extremely important. Bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology will exist as long as the conflict with the exploiters exists, but almost the moment it is over, there will be no source for those ideologies, and all that will be left is to find the correct path forward. Quote: If it is a written law with a basis in human rights rather then universal scientific laws it makes itself fall under bourgeois ideology. Equal rights as Marx stated in your quote that laws fall under bourgeois ideology. You have no idea what you are talking about do you? I know I sure don't. Quote: I understand the quote "each according to his ability each according to his needs" but that does not mean that there is social equality just economic equality. So you are saying that economic equality does not on its own create social equality? That people will be seperated into different classes even though there is no material difference between them? That is idealism. Quote: Ideology and habbits will not change from 1,2 or 3 generations tho. No. The first generation after the completion of the revolution, that is, after the final voctory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, will be able to make the transition to full communism. We hope. You cannot declare one way or the other prior to the event without decent knowledge, which we do not have on the subject. Quote: "Microsoft people edition" Thank god I just woke up. If I was going to bed, I'd be having nightmares. Quote: Then what is the point, to you? I hardly think everyone who advocates Communism shares the same reason for wanting it. To reach the next stage of social evolution. With the expansion of production and material equality, and a really ******** rational use of resources, we will be able to do awesome stuff, like go to Mars, and make cyberbrains. That, and you know, THE ELIMINATION OF EXPLOITATION OF MAN BY ******** MAN. Yeah, that is a pretty big point there. Quote: But go on, tell me what you think the goal should be. Um, communism? Quote: I'm also interested in why a few others, like Soviet Tank, want Communism, when they so fully reject any notion or desire for individual freedom or rights. Don't listen to Tank. He follows Chuche. I really think he is in it for the fun, rather than actual belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:58 pm
Quote: That, and you know, THE ELIMINATION OF EXPLOITATION OF MAN BY ******** MAN. Yeah, that is a pretty big point there. And isn't this because exploitation is a violation of personal freedom and rights? I was asking what he thought the goal of Communism was, since he disagreed the goal of Communism had anything to do with a desire for personal freedom and rights. I doubt you really meant to say that the goal of Communism is Communism. Though the question wasn't directed at you in the first place. Quote: Don't listen to Tank. He follows Chuche. I really think he is in it for the fun, rather than actual belief. I honestly have no idea who Chuche is. And yea, I gave up taking Tank seriously a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:21 pm
Quote: And isn't this because exploitation is a violation of personal freedom and rights? Not at all, it is because individual appropriation of the result of production is in complete contradiction to socialised production. It keeps it back. Whatever my sympathies, I am a communist out of logic, not because I want to make people's lives better. That is merely a consequence of communism. Quote: I was asking what he thought the goal of Communism was, since he disagreed the goal of Communism had anything to do with a desire for personal freedom and rights. He isn't here right now, so you have to deal with me, sorry. Besides, considering the wide range of views, and the varying discussions in this thread, I thought I would unify them for a bit. Quote: I doubt you really meant to say that the goal of Communism is Communism. Yes and no. Communism is the goal of communists, but it is just as much a means to an end. For some people that end is liberty, for me, it is economic emancipation (literally: emancipation of the economy from private interest so that it may grow in its won interests. Harrah for abstractions brought to life!), but even more than that, it is simply social evolution, so that while it is our goal, it is also a means to the next stage of social life. No communists think communism is the end of history. But as marx has said: it will be the real begining of history. Quote: I honestly have no idea who Chuche is. Not who, what. It is North Korean stalinism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:31 pm
Gracchvs I do not own those companies. The state owns those companies, and funds them through tax money. There is a big difference. If what you were saying is true, I would have shares in ste run businesses proportionate to the taxes I paid the previous year, and recieved dividends from those shares, and could vote in a new leadership for the company if I decided to excersise my rights as a shareholder. I do not hold shares, I still less, do I hold enough shares to live on. That is the whole point: Can you live on a source of income other than your own labour? If the answer is no, you are a proletarian. If the answer is yes, but I must suplement the other income with my own labour, you are petty bourgeis. If the answer is no, you do not have to work, and recieve all of your income through profit, then you are bourgeois. Stop trying to play with words. I am a proletarian, so much so, that I am frequently on the verge of sinking into the lumpenproletariat. But there is no danger of me rising to petty-bourgeoisdom just yet. Lmfao Lumpenproletariat! If it is a State run business it should be just as fine depending upon what party controls the state. Market Socialism has proved rather affective in its coroportism . Welfare and seniors are bourgeois that’s good to know I always wanted to get rid of those humanist institutions. Economic stimulus packages are a supplement to your standard income making all who receive stimulus packages from said state followers of bourgeois ideology. Your not in danger because you already are one due to your culture/ideology making you inept to fully shed those traits no matter what. Quote: If you read the quote, it says bourgeois right, not petty bourgeois ideology. It may only seem life a different word, but it is extremely important. Bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology will exist as long as the conflict with the exploiters exists, but almost the moment it is over, there will be no source for those ideologies, and all that will be left is to find the correct path forward. Quote: "Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions). But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is: [ "... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal." So those that do not work harder then others shall starve as well according to societies needs/wants correct? Thus creating further equality towards the bourgeois equality. If the person with more kids does not have the output labor to support said kids should he have reproduced? Just because they are cut does not mean they are a threat. Capitalist purists/free markets peoples still exist even though a free market hasn’t existed since the 1920’s (atleast in the states). Socialism as the first stage of communism is inherently bourgeois because the first stage cannot nor will not abolish said Bourgeois right not till the later stages does this bourgeois law such as in communism does this law not exist. I am stating that said 1st stage cannot and will not be able to get rid of said bourgeois right till much later on then. It is not till the higher stage of communism aka Stage 2 is this bourgeois law thrown away entirely for instance . Quote: On the Higher stage of communism, Marx“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the divison of labor and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished. After labor has become not only a livelihood but life’s prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly-only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribed on its banner “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” Only at the Higher stage aka stage 2 is the bourgeois right able to be abolished. Thus stage 1 Socialism the first stage of communist development does have Bourgeois rights. Quote: So you are saying that economic equality does not on its own create social equality? That people will be seperated into different classes even though there is no material difference between them? That is idealism. Really? It already happened under Stalin. The Party due to the purges could not become a separate economic class but was a different social class in comparison to kulaks. That’s not idealism that’s reality. You can have no economic classes and have separate social classes for as Marx stated people are inherently unequal making it a bourgeois concept for equal rights for said workers/populace unless there were different social classes. What Im talking about are social norms found in sociology such as types of people normally found through 1-8 which are putting people in said categories IE social classes/social purposes. Quote: No. The first generation after the completion of the revolution, that is, after the final voctory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, will be able to make the transition to full communism. We hope. You cannot declare one way or the other prior to the event without decent knowledge, which we do not have on the subject. But Marx does and the Bolshevik revolution has shown that the first generation has not been able to go past the first stage of communist development IE Stalinist collectivism even then by the skin of its teeth. In fact let me add what you forgot to add to the end of that quote you keep pestering me about. Quote: This is a “defect” says Marx but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any standard of right. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change. Now , there is no other standard than that of “bourgeois right.” To this extent therefore, there still remains the need for a state which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production , would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products. The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, and classes and consequently no class can be suppressed. But the State has not yet completely withered away, since there still remains the safeguarding of “bourgeois right,” which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away compeletly, complete communism is necessary The quote above does not mention anything about any first generation nor does it even remotely look/sound like this process is quickly done due to Bourgeois right ideology problem. Thus it is pretty safe to conclude that due to the Bourgeois right the state could not wither away till we are dead. This is because bourgeois ideology will still be predominantly in our memory/culture (the dominant culture we grew up in)/social environment etc. The final victory is the battle against Bourgeois right which is ideological/cultural due to the lack of standard as Marx points out. Thus the final victory would be ridiculously hard/absurd if not impossible for the 1st generation or even the 2nd. Whose the idealist that thinks that it can be all done with 1 generation when we have people in Russia being pro Tsar!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:58 pm
A Nightmare of Eden Comrade Robson You're right. Its revisonism, my mistake. But poisonious nontheless. It's not "ALL about" individual freedoms. As i said before, Individual freedom is not the goal of communism, but a consiquence. Then what is the point, to you? I hardly think everyone who advocates Communism shares the same reason for wanting it. But go on, tell me what you think the goal should be. I'm also interested in why a few others, like Soviet Tank, want Communism, when they so fully reject any notion or desire for individual freedom or rights. The Goal of Communism? The end of enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, the vanishing antithesis between mental and phyisical labor; after labor has not only become a means of life but a prime want; after the productive forces have increased with the all around development of the individual and all springs of co-operative wealth flows abundently ; and when bourgeiose right has been crossed in its entirety. Each according to his ability, to each according to his needs Im paraphrasing Marx of course, but im sure you get the jist. Now the question i pose to you Eden is what your definition of "rights" are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:05 pm
Comrade Robson A Nightmare of Eden Comrade Robson You're right. Its revisonism, my mistake. But poisonious nontheless. It's not "ALL about" individual freedoms. As i said before, Individual freedom is not the goal of communism, but a consiquence. Then what is the point, to you? I hardly think everyone who advocates Communism shares the same reason for wanting it. But go on, tell me what you think the goal should be. I'm also interested in why a few others, like Soviet Tank, want Communism, when they so fully reject any notion or desire for individual freedom or rights. The Goal of Communism? The end of enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, the vanishing antithesis between mental and phyisical labor; after labor has not only become a means of life but a prime want; after the productive forces have increased with the all around development of the individual and all springs of co-operative wealth flows abundently ; and when bourgeiose right has been crossed in its entirety. Each according to his ability, to each according to his needs Im paraphrasing Marx of course, but im sure you get the jist. Now the question i pose to you Eden is what your definition of "rights" are So basically what you said is the goal of Communism is (in less fancy terms)...individual freedom...joining two kinds of labor...and that's basically it? I couldn't find any other goal in all that wanking. I know what Marx said. But the issue you're trying to avoid and failing rather badly at is that you're admitting that individual freedom and rights are a goal, if not the goal, of Communism. The first bolded statement points out the bit about individual freedom, the second of rights. My definition of rights is exactly what the definition is...Wikipedia puts it best I guess: Quote: Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions. I'm not sure why you want me to define it as it's a pretty much agreed on term by everyone. What isn't agreed on is what should be a right and what shouldn't. I'm guessing you're like Trank and think that because rights are a human concept they should be ignored? I guess that gives everyone the right to kill you and Trank then? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:40 pm
A Nightmare of Eden Comrade Robson A Nightmare of Eden Comrade Robson You're right. Its revisonism, my mistake. But poisonious nontheless. It's not "ALL about" individual freedoms. As i said before, Individual freedom is not the goal of communism, but a consiquence. Then what is the point, to you? I hardly think everyone who advocates Communism shares the same reason for wanting it. But go on, tell me what you think the goal should be. I'm also interested in why a few others, like Soviet Tank, want Communism, when they so fully reject any notion or desire for individual freedom or rights. The Goal of Communism? The end of enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, the vanishing antithesis between mental and phyisical labor; after labor has not only become a means of life but a prime want; after the productive forces have increased with the all around development of the individual and all springs of co-operative wealth flows abundently ; and when bourgeiose right has been crossed in its entirety. Each according to his ability, to each according to his needs Im paraphrasing Marx of course, but im sure you get the jist. Now the question i pose to you Eden is what your definition of "rights" are So basically what you said is the goal of Communism is (in less fancy terms)...individual freedom...joining two kinds of labor...and that's basically it? I couldn't find any other goal in all that wanking. I know what Marx said. But the issue you're trying to avoid and failing rather badly at is that you're admitting that individual freedom and rights are a goal, if not the goal, of Communism. The first bolded statement points out the bit about individual freedom, the second of rights. My definition of rights is exactly what the definition is...Wikipedia puts it best I guess: Quote: Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions. I'm not sure why you want me to define it as it's a pretty much agreed on term by everyone. What isn't agreed on is what should be a right and what shouldn't. I'm guessing you're like Trank and think that because rights are a human concept they should be ignored? I guess that gives everyone the right to kill you and Trank then? neutral Firstly: If you know what Marx said then why the ******** are you vulgarizing his words? You picked out the words you thought pertained to your arguement "end","enslaving" and "individual" and tried to bring Marx to your side, the side of the enemies of Marxism, and the workers, The Revisionists. However you fall short and your vulgaizations will not go unchecked. I'll spell it out for you. "The end of enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor" means to end subjecting workers to the division of labour. The second part of the text in bold "development of the individual" Communism does away with borgeiose institutions which allows for a development for the individual. As I've said twice already not a goal but a consiquence besides what i wanted you to draw attention to was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Thats why i made it bold in my last post, because that is in essence what Communists seek to achive. Secondly: I dont want Wikipedia's deffinition, i want your definition. Everyone has a their own definitions here on "rights". Lastly: who the ******** is Trank?, if you mean Tank, I never said they should be ignored, dont put words in my mouth. I believe logic should dictate the actions of Humans not emotions. Me and Tank are two diffrent people, and although i respect his veiws they are not my own. Trying to portray us as the "bad guys" wont get you anywhere. But i guess a Humanist Revisonist such as yourself has no other tactics? You've shown us that logic is out of the question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:41 pm
No. Ending the subbordination to the division of labour is not about individual freedom, not in the sence that you are advocating. The end result will be people who are more fully human than anything we have seen so far. To talk about rights in a bourgeois world in application to communism is... confusing. The main reason I have issues with talking about rights at the moment, and I think Rob would feel the same, is because we are talking about rights in completely different social contexts. Due to that, the language will be the same, but the meaning of the words said will be completely different. What is important is to get there. If you focus on rights and such now, you fall into Bakunin's trap, where you must create the new society within the old, or mmore exactly, the organisation must be a mirror of the future society. Not only that, but you ignore any qualitative transition periods, only allowing quantitative transition: the granting of more rights, and extending those rights, becomes your main concern, rather than employing all means to create a society where those rights become redundant. Joiing two kinds of labour. That is a really dismissive way of putting it, when it is one of the central aspects of communism. When intellectual labour and physical labour are joined in the one person, and where they are joined in every person, then we have a more fully developed human, and society, and the humans within it, can grow more fully, with greater direction and purpose. Quote: I'm not sure why you want me to define it as it's a pretty much agreed on term by everyone. What isn't agreed on is what should be a right and what shouldn't. The question for communists is more along the lines of what furthers the revolution. We need democratic rights in order to show people that bourgeois democracy will only oppress them, but during the revolution, we are bound to restrict people's rights, as a matter of war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:08 am
Gracchvs What is important is to get there. If you focus on rights and such now, you fall into Bakunin's trap, where you must create the new society within the old, or mmore exactly, the organisation must be a mirror of the future society. Not only that, but you ignore any qualitative transition periods, only allowing quantitative transition: the granting of more rights, and extending those rights, becomes your main concern, rather than employing all means to create a society where those rights become redundant. The point is to bring Humanity into a different plain of history, which with current technological means can/would possibly be more then human. See to raise this so called humanity into this idealistic perception would require such technology and a total belief in sciences. This means that sociology/psychology and others should be confirmed mathmatical sciences with certain qualitative formulas that are quantitive as you state. Qualitative positions tend to have a reactionary point to them. Let it be either Napoleon in the French Revolution or Khrushchev in the bolshevik revolution If your talking to me with this "You" What Im talking about rights are rights from Humanist Bourgeois ideology which prohibit sciences such as sociology/psychology from becoming dominant within culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:56 am
No, not to you. It was in reply to Eden. No. Not 'so called.' Humanity is a fact. One particular member of humanity is telling you this right now. Quote: This means that sociology/psychology and others should be confirmed mathmatical sciences with certain qualitative formulas that are quantitive as you state. Not necessarily. Just knowing the general trends of many things is enough for initial action. On the other hand, only in a classless society will such a perfection of science be possible. I say the victory of science is an effect of communism, you say it is the prerequisite. Here we have another difference. Quote: Let it be either Napoleon in the French Revolution or Khrushchev in the bolshevik revolution If you want to compare the Russian withh the French, you cannot do it like that. The Thermidor was the end of the intense revolutionary period and the consolidation of reaction. This also happened in Russia from 24 onwards, though much slower than the 2 days it took robespierre to get kicked out and cut. The russian Napoleon, minus being THE GOD OF WAR HIMSELF, was Stalin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
