Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 134

Thread: Stalin was right and Trotsky a criminal

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    772
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    but it was the country's relative isolation in a sea of bourgeois capitalism that created the geopolitical friction-from-without.
    And this will happen again and again and again. Insanity I believe is the word; doing the same thing over and over despite knowing it will fail.

    Lets look at Kurdistan. Do you think that 31 million Kurds can form a socialist government that can combat reaction?
    Blame Turky; Blame the US; blame god it does not change the fact that socialism in that country cant last without support from the people who reside in the states that oppose the Kurds

    Only a genuine international revolution against our respective governments can hope to achieve socialism because states will NEVER allow socialism to grow.

    Externally it means war; internally it means oppression.
    Only when the governments of the world are abolished can socialism grow without oppressive resistance; only social reaction which is far far easier to combat then organized totalitarians.
    Without the state capital and reaction has no power.

    Its like racism. Without power racism is just hate; with power hatred becomes systematic and dangerous. States give power to reaction.
    The U.S.S.R. ultimately fell to internal reaction; not external pressure. This is the expected response.

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you create a platform for reaction your will fail. Government is that platform,

    What happened in Russia will never happen again because we socialist learn that you cant trust a Leninist. Historically you Vangardists have murdered and imprisoned us. Next time we wont abide you taking power. Next time the revolution will be against politicians and cops and the state. It really does not matter who sits on the thrown; we will burn down the castle regardless. I am here in hopes that you wont be sitting in it when I light the fire.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Red Zone
    Posts
    17
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OnFire View Post
    What are we supposed to do? Be just as idealist as the anarchists and throw away the revolution? One has to safeguard the revolution and that takes hard choices. The other result would be the total destruction of socialism and the eradication of the peoples republic. The Paris commune and the Spanish "revolution" were crushed bc of their unwillingness to defend the revolution against the capitalists. The anarchist Makhno Movement in Soviet Russia from 1918 to 1921 fought the Red Army without respite and was allied in this fight against the Red Army with Kulaks and Black Hundreds of White Russia.

    One may believe that socialism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two. This is a mistake as communists believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly Marxists-Leninists hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. After the proletariat has conquered political power it has to destroy the old state machine and substitute for it a new one consisting of the organisation of armed workers while tthe anarchists deny that the revolutionary proletariat should utilise its state power, its revolutionary dictatorship.

    Karl Marx opposed this anarchist nonsense from the first day it was put forward by Bakunin. The whole internal history of the IWA is evidence of this. From 1867 onwards the anarchists were trying, by the most infamous methods, to conquer the leadership of the International - the main hindrance in their way were Marx and Engels. Anarchism rejects the principles of scientific socialism (Marxism-Leninism) and has only a very disruptive role in the struggle for socialism. It is an reactionary ally of imperialist capitalism.

    According to the founding statement of the Communist International in January 1919, the aims of Marxist-Leninists are that the working class must seize political power, establish its rule (Ďthe dictatorship of the proletariatí) and proceed to build a socialist society. The working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the state and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society anew.

    The cornerstone of Marxism-Leninism is the proletariat, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism-Leninism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: ĎEverything for the masses'.

    ZZZZZZZ. You also want to defend and justify the killings of anarchists too, or endorse them? You may aswell when you come out with writing like this. It would not be the first time I have heard it. Marxist-Leninists, true heroes of the working people, killing any working people who do not like them or their glorious leader Stalin who I might add whilst the topic came up on the Spanish civil war, really helped those anarchists "throw away the revolution" as you put it BY KILLING A TON OF THEM AND HELPING THE FUCKING FASCIST. Communists believe that anarchists are the enemies of the revolution? And you speak for all communists/marxist now? Not all marxists follow what you do, and I really do not believe that Marx would like it either, in fact i'm convinced he wouldn't. Remember this - workers make the revolution, not fucking Stalin or anyone else, none of this shit even matter to working people today they don't give a fuck and won't be "won over" by preaching to them about Stalin or the socialist bastion of hope fucking North Korea. Yeah, there are differences between marxists and anarchists, but what you fail to understand is that there are obviously many similarities, the obvious thing to do is to work towards the common goal of helping the workers in class struggle. That is it. I cannot stand it when I see these views which just completely throw aside all of the efforts, contributions and sacrifices by anarchists and make claims like anarchists are not real socialists and are the apparent "real enemies of marxism". What "marxism" is this exactly? One which endorsed killing other workers who are organizing and trying to help in class struggle? That's not marxism. No communist would kill workers and neither should they. I mean fucking seriously, what is next what you are going to come out with? That we are wanting jewish domination of the world and the destruction of the white race? Keeping on with these age old problems and arguments in this manner is not helping anything.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to KaneLives For This Useful Post:


  4. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    772
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Slogan: ‘Everything for the masses'.

    Actuality: "Lets murder workers for demanding equality." "Lets form a centralized bureaucracy that only members of my party can be elected.

    An ACTUAL example of this is a Russian Anarchist was Imprisoned for taking Soviet arms and distributing them to the masses.

    If ‘Everything for the masses' is to be believed then the why was the person providing for the people imprisoned? Because the guns where the private property of the communist party and we all know what happens when you steal from a capitalist; you go to prison and become a slave laborer.

    The true history of the U.S.S.R. is a lot sadder then the B.S. they teach in school.

    the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
    Yet against the words of Marx himself the government attempted to disarm the working class. This act unto itself proves the Marxist part of Marxist Leninism is a lie. Stalin also continued this Liberal practice of Anti-communist gun control.

    Marxist_leninism is shit socialism for wankers.

    Last edited by (A); 15th February 2017 at 22:34.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,992
    Rep Power
    56

    Default

    Not sure how a thread by some old school Stalinist bashing Trotsky based on some out-of-context quotes turned into a thread between the same old suspects (i.e antiochus and (a)) bashing each other over how many people the CNT killed during the Spanish Civil War.

    Also, I really wish this forum had some of the old school Trot hardliners left to dispute the claims made by the OP, it would make this thread more interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ale Brider View Post
    Marx had a particularly harsh critique of Proudhon, however. I don't see where Marx's work was based on anything Proudhon wrote. Their whole approach is very different. Marx had a background in German Idealism and Materialism, his critique of economics was based on the English economists, and he drw some of his ideas from earlier utopian socialists (while criticizing them, too) but I don't see where Proudhon influenced Marx.
    Marx was generally pretty harsh to everyone he critiqued. Also, Proudhon had some pretty problematic views like his antisemitism (as did Bakunin).
    Socialist Party of Outer Space

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    957
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    OnFire, this isn't your work. Why didn't you post a source? https://espressostalinist.com/marxis...sm/trotskyism/

    I really don't like these history battles over personalities. I'd prefer discussing their ideas that are relevant in modern practice. For example, critiques of permanent revolution, transitional programs, ect., but I guess this the history forum. Still, this thread is mildly amusing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinister Cultural Marxist
    Also, I really wish this forum had some of the old school Trot hardliners left to dispute the claims made by the OP, it would make this thread more interesting.
    Nothing like a good old tendency war. This would probably be like fifteen pages now if they were still around.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to John Nada For This Useful Post:


  8. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,473
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    And this will happen again and again and again. Insanity I believe is the word; doing the same thing over and over despite knowing it will fail.

    Lets look at Kurdistan. Do you think that 31 million Kurds can form a socialist government that can combat reaction?
    Blame Turky; Blame the US; blame god it does not change the fact that socialism in that country cant last without support from the people who reside in the states that oppose the Kurds

    Only a genuine international revolution against our respective governments can hope to achieve socialism because states will NEVER allow socialism to grow.

    Externally it means war; internally it means oppression.
    Only when the governments of the world are abolished can socialism grow without oppressive resistance; only social reaction which is far far easier to combat then organized totalitarians.
    Without the state capital and reaction has no power.

    Its like racism. Without power racism is just hate; with power hatred becomes systematic and dangerous. States give power to reaction.
    The U.S.S.R. ultimately fell to internal reaction; not external pressure. This is the expected response.
    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you create a platform for reaction your will fail. Government is that platform,

    What happened in Russia will never happen again because we socialist learn that you cant trust a Leninist. Historically you Vangardists have murdered and imprisoned us. Next time we wont abide you taking power. Next time the revolution will be against politicians and cops and the state. It really does not matter who sits on the thrown; we will burn down the castle regardless. I am here in hopes that you wont be sitting in it when I light the fire.

    You're being one-sided yet again and not addressing any of my points -- this is bad etiquette.

    You're showing that you'd rather ignore my politics and demonize me into some stereotype of your choosing than to acknowledge what I'm actually saying.


    I'll invoke this line from IBIA, which pertains here:


    Quote Originally Posted by IbelieveInanarchy View Post

    To be honest, conversations get boring when the statist brings up some person who lived 100 years ago and then say "but that person, who said he was an anarchist, did something bad. You say you are an anarchist, therefore you are bad" This is only used as a distraction and is not actually attacking the position your adversary is holding.
    Quote Originally Posted by IbelieveInanarchy View Post

    When someone says they are a stalinist, they imply that they follow stalins praxis and methods, so you can attack these premises. If someone says they are an anarchist, they propose anarchy, not non-anarchy as happened under kroptkin.

    (And I'm not a Stalinist, as I've already mentioned.)


    ---


    (A), the main topic that you're unable to address is how a revolutionary workers collective administration could be formulated -- participants tend to throw around terminology (generalizations) without specifying what those entities actually could or should look like.

  9. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    772
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    I have already addressed it on several threads with you but OK.

    "how a revolutionary workers collective administration could be formulated"

    The reason I hate the "Soviet Union" is because it was not a Union of Soviets. If it where I would be a hardline Leninist and we would all be living in fully automated luxury Leninism by now.
    Unfortunately Leninism turned out to be Liberalism and here we are.

    The formulation that the Soviet Union should have taken is to form a Union of Soviets. A free association between all workers within Russia and internationally.

    As Marx had insisted was necessary ALL workers would be at once armed and organized to defend their community's against internal reaction and external invasion.

    Instead of a Class of Politicians demanding Obedience the Dictatorship of the proletariat would rule.

    I have not read it all but here is an example of what the Syndicalists in Spain worked towards.
    http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-confederal-concept-of-libertarian-communism

    I mean just go to the Anarchist Library and look up "organization" or "praxis" or whatever. You are asking me to teach you when the actual books are all available for free.

    http://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  10. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,473
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    I have already addressed it on several threads with you but OK.

    "how a revolutionary workers collective administration could be formulated"

    The reason I hate the "Soviet Union" is because it was not a Union of Soviets. If it where I would be a hardline Leninist and we would all be living in fully automated luxury Leninism by now.
    Unfortunately Leninism turned out to be Liberalism and here we are.

    No, Leninism consolidated state power and then gave way to Stalinism -- you keep ignoring the revolutionary *foundations* and initial shaping of that society. It was never 'liberalism' because 'liberalism' implies a democratic process of electing politicians who then may or may not regulate business appropriately.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    The formulation that the Soviet Union should have taken is to form a Union of Soviets. A free association between all workers within Russia and internationally.

    Well, this is a formulation -- council communism, basically, that I find to be problematic. With today's Internet-based communications there's no longer any real logistical need for representatives of any kind.

    I find it strange that you rail against any kind of state-like elitism / substitutionism, but then see no problem with using a fixed, standing institution of worker-elected representatives, to specially handle higher and broader expanses of responsibility for socio-political policy.

    Certainly all people involved in whatever specific projects, as with their own work-effort inputs, could just all co-participate with an administrative side from each of them, for collective, cooperative results.


    Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms






    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    As Marx had insisted was necessary ALL workers would be at once armed and organized to defend their community's against internal reaction and external invasion.

    Instead of a Class of Politicians demanding Obedience the Dictatorship of the proletariat would rule.

    This is a *shift* for you since you've been consistently arguing *against* any kind of workers administration, which is exactly what the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is. You may want to elaborate on what the 'dotp' would entail, according to your own conception of this newfound position of yours.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    I have not read it all but here is an example of what the Syndicalists in Spain worked towards.
    http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-confederal-concept-of-libertarian-communism

    I mean just go to the Anarchist Library and look up "organization" or "praxis" or whatever.
    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    You are asking me to teach you when the actual books are all available for free.

    http://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index


    No, you're exaggerating -- I'm not *requesting* that you 'teach', I'm saying that you should be able to specify what the particulars of your chosen politics are, without any internal contradictions within. Otherwise, what's the point of revolution if people don't know what direction they're headed in -- ?

  11. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    772
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post
    No, Leninism consolidated state power and then gave way to Stalinism -- you keep ignoring the revolutionary *foundations* and initial shaping of that society. It was never 'liberalism' because 'liberalism' implies a democratic process of electing politicians who then may or may not regulate business appropriately.
    That is only true if Liberalism is the process of electing politicians who then may or may not regulate business appropriately.
    The U.S.S.R. HAD elections.
    No more or less fraudulent/legitimate then any other. Liberalism is the ideology that founded the modern "democratic" Republic. Republican/Liberal; still Liberalism.

    The U.S.S.R. was a socialist republic with duly elected officials; law and order; all the good stuff that the U.SofA had.
    Liberalism; Capitalistic or socialistic are both just the preface to fascism.

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post
    Well, this is a formulation -- council communism, basically, that I find to be problematic. With today's Internet-based communications there's no longer any real logistical need for representatives of any kind.

    I find it strange that you rail against any kind of state-like elitism / substitutionism, but then see no problem with using a fixed, standing institution of worker-elected representatives, to specially handle higher and broader expanses of responsibility for socio-political policy.

    Certainly all people involved in whatever specific projects, as with their own work-effort inputs, could just all co-participate with an administrative side from each of them, for collective, cooperative results.


    Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms




    Free association.

    Did you miss this part or just Ignore it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post
    This is a *shift* for you since you've been consistently arguing *against* any kind of workers administration, which is exactly what the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is. You may want to elaborate on what the 'dotp' would entail, according to your own conception of this newfound position of yours.
    It depends on your interpretation of the term "Dictatorship of the proletariat"

    A dictatorship is absolute rule of one. Meaning one person is the ruler. Now if the term was "Dictatorship >OVER< the proletariat; lenin would have been right on the money; however the term is Dictatorship >OF< the proletariat. If looked at from an Anarchist perspective this means that each Proletariat would rule himself individually; not at all collective rule.

    Dictatorship=Rule of one
    Of the = in respect to
    proletariat = Working class

    The rule of the individual worker. Worker self rule = the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post
    No, you're exaggerating -- I'm not *requesting* that you 'teach', I'm saying that you should be able to specify what the particulars of your chosen politics are, without any internal contradictions within. Otherwise, what's the point of revolution if people don't know what direction they're headed in -- ?
    "(A), the main topic that you're unable to address is how a revolutionary workers collective administration could be formulated"

    I have done so time and time again. I have provided links to information relating to your query.

    Their would be NO collective administration. A non-consensual collective (those under the administration of others) is a Class relation that is unneeded and detrimental.
    How hard is it to get.

    The free association of Workers is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

    If the workers rule themselves; Seize the means of production; Protect each other and work together to provide for themselves as equals; then we have achieved communism. Complete and total Anarchy!
    A society free of Rulers. How we get there is via the direct action of the working class against state, class and capital.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  12. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,992
    Rep Power
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Nada View Post
    Nothing like a good old tendency war. This would probably be like fifteen pages now if they were still around.

    This forum used to be full of crazy tendency debates ... the good old days ...
    Socialist Party of Outer Space

  13. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    65
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sinister Cultural Marxist View Post
    Marx was generally pretty harsh to everyone he critiqued.
    Actually that's why I started to like his writings in the first place.

  14. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    772
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Did you get a chance Ale to read that link on Proudhon and Marx?

    http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html

    I am still interested in your response.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  15. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    65
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post
    Did you get a chance Ale to read that link on Proudhon and Marx?

    http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html

    I am still interested in your response.
    Checked the link, not read the full article yet, but I will. It's not really long but it seems it has some interesting points. It's the references, I always like to read up on them too if they are available, just to be sure but that takes time. I will probably not be shaken in my core thoughts about the most important influences of Marx, but it never hurts to look at what other tendencies have to offer.

  16. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,473
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    That is only true if Liberalism is the process of electing politicians who then may or may not regulate business appropriately.
    The U.S.S.R. HAD elections.
    No more or less fraudulent/legitimate then any other. Liberalism is the ideology that founded the modern "democratic" Republic. Republican/Liberal; still Liberalism.

    The U.S.S.R. was a socialist republic with duly elected officials; law and order; all the good stuff that the U.SofA had.
    Liberalism; Capitalistic or socialistic are both just the preface to fascism.

    Well, I'm not going to bicker. I think a better, more-appropriate term, though, would be 'revisionism'. (You still haven't addressed my point that the society had proletarian-revolution *origins* that shaped it fundamentally differently than a typical Western bourgeois liberal democracy, as with direct bureaucratic control over mass industrial production. It's *still* different on the world stage as we can discern through current politics -- the Democratic Party anti-Russia hysteria.)


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Free association.

    Did you miss this part or just Ignore it?



    It depends on your interpretation of the term "Dictatorship of the proletariat"

    A dictatorship is absolute rule of one. Meaning one person is the ruler. Now if the term was "Dictatorship >OVER< the proletariat; lenin would have been right on the money; however the term is Dictatorship >OF< the proletariat. If looked at from an Anarchist perspective this means that each Proletariat would rule himself individually; not at all collective rule.

    Dictatorship=Rule of one
    Of the = in respect to
    proletariat = Working class

    The rule of the individual worker. Worker self rule = the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    I just happen to be looking for an addressing of *particulars* of the post-capitalist political economy -- I find 'free association' to be far too vague when actual *materials* have to be controlled, administrated, and distributed to those who need or want them.

    I have my own model, of course, but I'm always interested in what others conceptualize as the 'post-capitalist economics of a freely liberated mass production'.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    "(A), the main topic that you're unable to address is how a revolutionary workers collective administration could be formulated"

    I have done so time and time again. I have provided links to information relating to your query.

    Their would be NO collective administration. A non-consensual collective (those under the administration of others) is a Class relation that is unneeded and detrimental.
    How hard is it to get.

    It's not that I don't 'get' it, it's that I *disagree* -- you can say 'dotp' all you like but if material production is stuck within circumscribed separatist communes then it's *not* communism. And if you rely on trades / exchanges *among* the separatist communes then you're using exchange values that take on a life of their own, rising to prominence over actual human need.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    The free association of Workers is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

    If the workers rule themselves; Seize the means of production; Protect each other and work together to provide for themselves as equals; then we have achieved communism. Complete and total Anarchy!
    A society free of Rulers. How we get there is via the direct action of the working class against state, class and capital.

  17. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    868
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sinister Cultural Marxist View Post
    Also, I really wish this forum had some of the old school Trot hardliners left to dispute the claims made by the OP, it would make this thread more interesting.
    I was really tempted to give it a good smash - I mean, it's not hard to quote Lenin to point out all the times he argued with Stalin and praised Trotsky. But it kind of just seems petty and irrelevant. Plus I'm not really 'orthodox' in my general support of Trotsky over Stalin.
    Strengthened and hardened in the revolutionary melting-pots of the great industrial centres, toughened by repeated economic struggles, victim of crisis and unemployment, witness of the blatant injustice which allows the same cities to contain the palaces of the parasites and the slums of the workers, the proletariat is certainly the revolutionary class, and consequently the only class whose violence can put an end to the social war. - Victor Serge


  18. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    772
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Chris you cant say

    t's not that I don't 'get' it, it's that I *disagree*
    And then say

    if material production is stuck within circumscribed separatist communes then it's *not* communism.
    This proves the first statement to be Incorrect.

    You clearly dont understand free association if you see people being split up into administrative regions that are inherently separate from each other; Free association is not just of communes working together as a voluntary confederation; its all of society and every member of the society that is federated in such a way. With our globalized market system it would be easy for several worker collectives or idnvidual workers to work together or "freely associate" for their mutual benefit; which is communism.

    You would police that cause; Regulating and administering the association between individuals; That is NOT communism and IS totalitarianism and requires in no small way a class based hierarchy.
    An administrator class that regulates the working class is not significantly different from social democratic Capitalism (I mean the ideology did come from a social democrat after all). A top down economic and social hierarchy that put the haves on top and the have not's on the bottom; That separates the ones who make the rules and the ones who have the rules enforced upon them. This will never happen again if there is to be an honest revolution.

    Again I will repeat myself; The administration of material goods will be up to the worker/s that produced the good. The production of goods when controlled by workers; will be designated for the good of the community's that produce them. We have SEEN THIS WORK Autonomously during the Spanish civil war. Left without administration the community's voluntarily federated to meet multiple community's demands.

    The Unions in the city drove out and made deals with the farmers. Goods produced in the city that farmers need to live in exchange for food that would have been sold to the supermarkets that the farmers cant eat. My working to gather as a larger community (community; the root of communism) you create the material conditions for socialism; worker control over production.

    Without Administration the community's free associated to meet there respective needs. No government needed.

    To make it short and simple; the workers will administer their own production based on the need of the people they produce for.
    Last edited by (A); 17th February 2017 at 17:38.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  19. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,473
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Chris you cant say

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    It's not that I don't 'get' it, it's that I *disagree*

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    And then say

    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    if material production is stuck within circumscribed separatist communes then it's *not* communism.

    Yes, (A), I can -- these are apples-and-oranges. The first statement is my own subjective opinion and value-judgment, and it has nothing to do with the second statement which makes an *empirical* estimation ('separatist communes') in relation to standing theory ('communism').


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    This proves the first statement to be Incorrect.

    No, this is horseshit reasoning on your part.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    You clearly dont understand free association if you see people being split up into administrative regions that are inherently separate from each other; Free association is not just of communes working together as a voluntary confederation; its all of society and every member of the society that is federated in such a way. With our globalized market system it would be easy for several worker collectives or idnvidual workers to work together or "freely associate" for their mutual benefit; which is communism.

    Your conception is *dependent* on [1] the scope of federation, and [2] the market system. Conceivably the federation as it is interdependently formed could pick-up-the-slack for wherever market relations fail to adequately supply goods and services to unmet human need, but then this is just like capitalism's existing dichotomy between the public and private sectors.

    I have no doubt that liberated workers would be able to (physically, socially) 'freely associate', but this isn't the *difficult* part -- the reason I pursue this issue is because the *material world* of production of goods and services would have to *correlate* to organic human demand (need, want), and also to any currency in use under your 'market' economics.

    Here's a diagram to yet-again illustrate this point / argument comprehensively:


    Pies Must Line Up






    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    You would police that cause; Regulating and administering the association between individuals; That is NOT communism and IS totalitarianism and requires in no small way a class based hierarchy.

    No, I have no interest in any power-structure-type government or institution for any kind of 'policing' purpose -- I agree that such would not be necessary, post-capitalism, and post-commodity-production. Here's my framework to refresh your memory:


    labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'






    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    An administrator class that regulates the working class is not significantly different from social democratic Capitalism (I mean the ideology did come from a social democrat after all). A top down economic and social hierarchy that put the haves on top and the have not's on the bottom; That separates the ones who make the rules and the ones who have the rules enforced upon them. This will never happen again if there is to be an honest revolution.

    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Again I will repeat myself; The administration of material goods will be up to the worker/s that produced the good. The production of goods when controlled by workers; will be designated for the good of the community's that produce them.

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    We have SEEN THIS WORK Autonomously during the Spanish civil war. Left without administration the community's voluntarily federated to meet multiple community's demands.

    Source -- ?


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    The Unions in the city drove out and made deals with the farmers. Goods produced in the city that farmers need to live in exchange for food that would have been sold to the supermarkets that the farmers cant eat. My working to gather as a larger community (community; the root of communism) you create the material conditions for socialism; worker control over production.

    I don't have any *principled* difference with this bottom-up approach to a post-capitalist collective production. My concern is a sheerly *logistical* one -- that localist communes, and even a 'larger [federated] community' of several communes, would be *insufficient* and *too varying* over the whole to meet and surpass the functionality (such as it is) of present-day capitalism.

    In other words we need a social infrastructure of liberated-production that far supersedes today's patchwork of favoritist international relations and corporate commerce, by using liberated mass industrial production at the *global* scale, ultimately. *Getting* there could certainly be bottom-up, per-item, at varying scales depending on each good / service and the organic demand for it.

    But I see too much abstract social-network-making in the 'federated' proposal, as though new diplomatic relations have to be formally / officially built, to cover standards for exchanges of goods and services across any two communes. This is the very definition of the professional hierarchical bureaucratic state-like apparatus that you abhor, and I don't favor this anarchist flavor of such, either.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Without Administration the community's free associated to meet there respective needs. No government needed.

    To make it short and simple; the workers will administer their own production based on the need of the people they produce for.

    Yes, I *agree* on the principles, roughly, but I've expressed realistic concerns regarding your particular favored *implementation* of such, and will continue to do so. You may want to eventually respond on some of these.

  20. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    772
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Still stuck on free association huh.

    I cited my source (red text are links you know) and you misunderstood what I meant by Market again.
    What I was referring to is the global inter-connectivity of production that already exists due to the Global marketplace.

    In Spain the workers where able to seize production and provide for there community's using a system of Labor backed currency and Free exchange of Mutual aid.
    Thanks to Global Capitalism we already have a global market place. When the workers control production they will logically and fairly demand a fair trade for their labor if they are to send the product of it over seas or across the world until a long lasting exchange of labor can be agreed upon by all members of the deal.

    Economic Democracy must be the active decision making of the participants at the source of the production. I being the Liberated Laborer have 100% autonomy and decision making over my own labor.
    I do not exclusively own capital so my only authority is over my own labor. Democracy being my impact on the world via my own labor.

    Equality means not having authority over others. Economic equality is free access to the means of production; Communism is the society of autonomous individuals using that access to voluntary benefit their community.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

  21. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    traveling (U.S.)
    Posts
    11,473
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Still stuck on free association huh.

    No, what I said was this:


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    I have no doubt that liberated workers would be able to (physically, socially) 'freely associate', but this isn't the *difficult* part

    ---


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    I cited my source (red text are links you know) and you misunderstood what I meant by Market again.
    What I was referring to is the global inter-connectivity of production that already exists due to the Global marketplace.

    In Spain the workers where able to seize production and provide for there community's using a system of Labor backed currency and Free exchange of Mutual aid.
    Thanks to Global Capitalism we already have a global market place. When the workers control production they will logically and fairly demand a fair trade for their labor if they are to send the product of it over seas or across the world until a long lasting exchange of labor can be agreed upon by all members of the deal.

    But where does communism offer a system that requires *deal-making* -- ?

    The very definition of 'deal' implies 'transfers of materials in exchange for monetary compensation', and that means some kind of *exchange value* is being embodied in whatever currency is being used, even if the societal infrastructure is all collectivized and somehow detached from the active economy of monetary exchanges.

    Yes, the collectivization of the means of production would be a significant step, but I don't see any evidence or reasoning from you that shows the *viability* / feasibility / functioning of a patchwork-communal landscape in the direction of communism since you insist on retaining exchange values for inter-communal material cooperation.


    Quote Originally Posted by (A) View Post

    Economic Democracy must be the active decision making of the participants at the source of the production. I being the Liberated Laborer have 100% autonomy and decision making over my own labor.
    I do not exclusively own capital so my only authority is over my own labor. Democracy being my impact on the world via my own labor.

    Equality means not having authority over others. Economic equality is free access to the means of production; Communism is the society of autonomous individuals using that access to voluntary benefit their community.

    Yes, nothing here is controversial -- I've phrased my own position on this as follows, from another thread:


    Quote Originally Posted by ckaihatsu View Post

    [T]he layout of *work roles* would be the 'bottom' of 'top-down' (though collectivized) social planning, and would be the 'top' of 'bottom-up' processes like individual self-determination.
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...29#post2879529


    But -- to me, anyway -- your description still sounds too *vague* and doesn't attempt to specify how such a system would be moving towards an ultimate communism.

    In our past discussions you've been unable to say how *priorities* for the use of collectivized machinery (factories) would be handled, except to say 'it's anarchy -- let them fight it out', which is just *ridiculous*.

    You've been unable to specify how personal property would be distinguished from collectivized production goods (factories), so I maintain that you haven't resolved the dichotomy between the public sector and the private sector. (How would liberated laborers be compensated for their work inputs towards the construction of new, public infrastructure -- ?)

  22. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    772
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    But where does communism offer a system that requires *deal-making* -- ?
    A Liberated laborer ONLY has his labor. Whether he voluntarily gives it to his community or keeps his labor all to himself.
    If you take away a workers right to labor on his own accord for his own interests (self,family,community) then he is NOT liberated and just a worker; A class of subservient producers who have no say in their own productive powers.

    Without autonomy their is no communism.

    The stateless community of free people, that is communism; the solidarity of equals in freedom; that is Anarchy.
    If the workers cant/dont voluntarily work together for their mutual aid and benefit then there will never be communism.

    The deal is the free exchange of labor between equals.
    "I will help you build your fence if you help me lay my new floor"

    This is a free exchange of labor... would this be Illegal in your polity?
    Because this is the basis for socialism. Working together as a unified class for our own benefit instead of the benefit of our exploiters.

    Lets expand the scope.

    "Will you farmers grow us city folk our food? in exchange we will provide for you items that we manufacture only in the city's that you need/want.
    Again; a free exchange of labor that we saw WORK in Spain DURING the civil war. During a time of Upheaval the free exchange of labor was still used by communists seeking to create a new society.

    Theory is meaningless without bread. Unless the producing class is able to provide for itself freely their can be no revolution. Without "Deal-making" their can be no revolution.

    "Anarchy is freedom from coercion, violence, servitude, law, centralization and the state. An anarchic society rests on voluntariness, communication, contract, agreement, alliance and people."

    AKA the free association of workers who work together for there Mutual aid and benefit or "communism."
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all menís happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

Similar Threads

  1. Was Trotsky a revisionist?
    By BolshevikOG in forum Learning
    Replies: 248
    Last Post: 16th April 2014, 20:40
  2. Views of Stalin as a person and his actions?
    By Always Curious J in forum Learning
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 26th May 2013, 10:00
  3. Stalinís spy in the Fourth International
    By Small Geezer in forum History
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 7th May 2012, 10:15
  4. Do you support Stalin?
    By Comrade1 in forum History
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 12th May 2011, 11:04
  5. Hitler was a socialist - A good short essay.
    By Anonymous in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 25th February 2003, 23:28

Posting Permissions

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