Debate on Democracy @ Ymir

[Billy Score]

how can you oppose me, ymir, if i agree with the paleosocialist stance on practically everything then?

[Leif]

You are not a paleo-socialist, Mazdak.

[Billy Score]

You are not a paleo-socialist, Mazdak.

You've convinced me:rolleyes:

[Leif]

You've convinced me:rolleyes:

I don't have to, your counter-socialist ideas are all self-admissions. Must we continue this argument?

[Billy Score]

I don't have to, your counter-socialist ideas are all self-admissions. Must we continue this argument?
yes. because i never "admitted" to anything of this nature. Modern "marxists" are filth. i have conceded this and that i disagree with the end goal of marxists and their internationalism. this doesn't say anything about socialism or economics.

[Leif]

yes. because i never "admitted" to anything of this nature.

I will re-post what you have stated:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/billybobzombie/mazfascistpolitics.jpg

Economic socialism, apart from certain concessions given to workers in all modern countries, is not possible while an elite controls the means of production. Fascism was a political response to the growing power of social-democracy through legal means. The conservative middle-classes of Europe threw their support behind fascist politics precisely because its use of illegal violence and coercion would fight the rising tide of socialism. There is no way for a country to have both socialist economics and fascist politics, as the two negate one another.

Modern "marxists" are filth.

Pseudo-socialists are worse.

i have conceded this and that i disagree with the end goal of marxists and their internationalism.

Ignoring your [lack of] analysis about the possibility of communism, your disagreement with internationalism makes no sense from a socialist perspective. How can one be a socialist, that is, in favor of the working class and their endeavors to take control of society, while not supporting the fact that the working class has no borders. Marx was an internationalist, the Soviet Union was internationalist, as the USSR had many separate nations within its "country" or "union."

this doesn't say anything about socialism or economics.

What is fascism?
"Fascism is the merge of state and corporate power" - Mussolini

What are fascist politics?
Strike-breaking, mass-violence, subordination of the working class to corporate power.

Furthermore, the very basis of all modern socialism lies within the concept of equality and democracy. You do not support these things.

You basically disagree with every conclusion and position held by "paleo-socialists."

[Billy Score]

untrue. I disagree with you. i am against democracy as in western democracy. your screenshot only elaborates on this as i sympathize with the Iron Guard and other movements that were neither capitalist nore socialist but distributionist/third positionist.

The last stage, the communist stage is.. vague and undesirable. It is a goal which calls for an end to the state. what benefit comes from this to society?

[Berianidze]

untrue. I disagree with you. i am against democracy as in western democracy. your screenshot only elaborates on this as i sympathize with the Iron Guard and other movements that were neither capitalist nore socialist but distributionist/third positionist.

The last stage, the communist stage is.. vague and undesirable. It is a goal which calls for an end to the state. what benefit comes from this to society?

I agree with Mazdak on the final stage, communism. I've considered myself a Marxist-Leninist, but as Mazdak and others have stated, found myself completely out of touch with the New Left movement, and utterly disgusted by the neosocialists and modern day marxists. I don't adhere to Marx, Lenin, or Stalin's words as dogma, and although I may have ideas that were not shared by the likes of these men, and in fact may have more to do with common sense than pure marxism, doesn't mean that my ideas (nor Mazdak's) stand in contrast to socialism.

Furthermore, the very basis of all modern socialism lies within the concept of equality and democracy. You do not support these things.

Nor do I, but I don't see how our rejection of democracy makes us any less socialist; democracy is anti-progress and inefficient. Why should we fool ourselves into believing that socialist democracy is any better than bourgeois democracy?

[Billy Score]

Originally Posted by Ymir
Furthermore, the very basis of all modern socialism lies within the concept of equality and democracy. You do not support these things.


keyword being MODERN. I oppose virtually all modern social movements.

[Leif]

untrue. I disagree with you. i am against democracy as in western democracy.

The part about "unapologetic dictatorship" and "fascist politics" shows that you are against all forms of democracy. You need to articulate these things better, or stand by your own statements.

your screenshot only elaborates on this as i sympathize with the Iron Guard and other movements that were neither capitalist nore socialist but distributionist/third positionist.

There is no "third position." That was a term invented by the first French fascists in the early twentieth century. They claimed to be beyond "left" and "right." It does not matter where one stands in the right/left dichotomy but rather where one stands on the issue of class itself.

The last stage, the communist stage is.. vague and undesirable. It is a goal which calls for an end to the state. what benefit comes from this to society?

...the state is a tool of the ruling class, when classes are abolished, the state disappears along with class conflict. Who would want society to be perpetually divided? What do you think socialism is trying to accomplish? What is the point of socialism if there is no prospect of eliminating class conflict?

Nor do I, but I don't see how our rejection of democracy makes us any less socialist

Socialism has always been an attempt to democratize society and democratize the economy by extension. What type of "socialism" besides "national socialism" is against democracy?

democracy is anti-progress and inefficient.

What is progress? How is democracy inefficient?

I don't adhere to Marx, Lenin, or Stalin's words as dogma, and although I may have ideas that were not shared by the likes of these men, and in fact may have more to do with common sense than pure marxism, doesn't mean that my ideas (nor Mazdak's) stand in contrast to socialism.

Find me a socialist movement that shared the following positions:

-Anti Democracy (in all forms)
-Anti Equality
-Pro "fascist politics"


What I find most annoying about this entire ideological situation is that you, Mazdak and Rice, have always been the biggest dogmatists and ideologues. You labeled yourselves as "Marxist-Leninists," denouncing contemporary leftist movements as out-of-tune with the original positions of Marxism (correct) and now suddenly you feel its ok for yourselves to ignore the core ideas of Marxist socialism! The complete hypocrisy and flimsiness of your own positions are what bother me the most. I am content that the majority of individuals on these forums are not Marxists, nor even socialists, as that allows for good debates. You two, however, paraded yourselves as "Marxist-Leninst" hardliners being so angered at those who rejected or revised Marxist theory, and then completely flipped positions! Now you, Mazdak, admit to no longer being a Marxist, and shows quite oddly that he is not familiar with even the basic concepts of Marxist thought.

[Anarch]

...the state is a tool of the ruling class, when classes are abolished, the state disappears along with class conflict. Who would want society to be perpetually divided? What do you think socialism is trying to accomplish? What is the point of socialism if there is no prospect of eliminating class conflict?

And what is the State, Ymir? I could very well make an argument that even without a ruling class, the State will nonetheless stand, though its character will have changed significantly. And I think Ixabert and Mazdak may even agree with me.

[Billy Score]

The part about "unapologetic dictatorship" and "fascist politics" shows that you are against all forms of democracy. You need to articulate these things better, or stand by your own statements.

the purpose of a state is to provide direction. Democracy(both in its direct form and in its modern form) does not do this. It is, as plato said, a marketplace of governments where various insincere demagogues parade lobby around their rhetoric with the hopes that the the voters will take their line. The party or the person sells the product and the voter buys it. Rarely do the parties change anything. And even if a party does wish to change things, it does not have the time frame to do it. The people will grow bored and move on to the next party who capitalizes on the first's "unfulfilled promises" and such. This party undoes anything the first party did. The works of one party are undone by the works of the next and so forth. Under such a situation, there is no opportunity for anything but stagnation. Codreanu's critiques of democracy are excellent for they show it for what it is (this is what i have against FANATICAL dogmatist marxists, they would refuse to give credit where it is due or examine valid points made by the other side.) Democracy is a tool of business because the parties, the people who wish to run are always going to need financial backing. they either must therefore be aristocrats by birth (and very wealthy aristocrats at that) or be tools and lackeys of the agendas of big business and lobbying groups.

How is any of the above good for the people? For progress. I am concerned not just with ending injustice against the downtrodden by RAISING men to be more then just what they are today. Ancient values and ideas on nobility and honor are incompatible with the eunuch petty politics practiced by "democratic societies."

I also point to Sparta. Sparta was the most "communistic" society of the ancient world undoubtedly. They were hardly a democratic state. What happened to the democracies of athens? They were divided by petty rivalries and destroyed more from within (as pericles said(paraphrased), "I fear the passions of Athenians more than the machinations of our enemies"). Spartan had almost 700 years of stability, Athenians only were productive when democracy was bent (either by pericles or by thucydides or any athenian leader who became leader and stood in power for years). And either way, none of these athenian leaders were able to pursue their agenda to the same level that the Spartan Kings could. Why? because they had to hide behind rhetoric of democracy.

I also submit that rule by edict will never be as effective as rule by decree. Mankind cannot be made to obey laws that are made by equals. If bush had been a king in the 5th century, you can be sure that the number of protesting voices would be very few. Why? because when the king makes a decree it carries more weight than edict. An edict is only obeyed because of enforcement, while a decree is obeyed for MORE than just this, it is obeyed because the King's words carry weight.

I and rice are probably more informed on marxism then all the marxism online/che livers put together. The difference is i understand that marxism is not biblical. It is not everything and there is more to society than class war. And once you successfully establish a socialistic state, what then? You say "ok everyone go out and vote" and the capitalists simply win the election and stomp out your sorry excuse for a party.

There is no "third position." That was a term invented by the first French fascists in the early twentieth century. They claimed to be beyond "left" and "right." It does not matter where one stands in the right/left dichotomy but rather where one stands on the issue of class itself.

Yes, beyond left and right is a fair way to put it.



...the state is a tool of the ruling class, when classes are abolished, the state disappears along with class conflict. Who would want society to be perpetually divided? What do you think socialism is trying to accomplish? What is the point of socialism if there is no prospect of eliminating class conflict?

The agenda of the state is important, as is the nature of the ruling class. For example, the frequent accusation against the soviet communists was that they lived opulent lifestyles while their people were downtrodden. This is obviously false for the most part. However let us look at Stalin or Dzerzhinsky, for example. Both were anything but parasitic to society. The problem with the ruling class of the modern world (and through much of history) is its parasitic nature. It gives nothing back to the people and seeks to enrich itself far more than to do anything for its nation. Was this Stalin? was this Dzerzhinsky? Certainly not. But the problem is that in modern society the ruling class also justifies itself and its enriching itself with rhetoric. That a system has to justify itself at every turn to its people is a sign of weakness.


Socialism has always been an attempt to democratize society and democratize the economy by extension. What type of "socialism" besides "national socialism" is against democracy?

It has been an attempt to make a more effecient society and remove or weaken a corrupt and decadent ruling class. Democratic socialism is ... self castration (See: Scandinavia)

What is progress? How is democracy inefficient?

I addressed this in the first .. paragraph thing.

Find me a socialist movement that shared the following positions:

-Anti Democracy (in all forms)
-Anti Equality
-Pro "fascist politics"
find one socialist movement worth a damn in either Europe or the United states.

What I find most annoying about this entire ideological situation is that you, Mazdak and Rice, have always been the biggest dogmatists and ideologues. You labeled yourselves as "Marxist-Leninists," denouncing contemporary leftist movements as out-of-tune with the original positions of Marxism (correct) and now suddenly you feel its ok for yourselves to ignore the core ideas of Marxist socialism! The complete hypocrisy and flimsiness of your own positions are what bother me the most. I am content that the majority of individuals on these forums are not Marxists, nor even socialists, as that allows for good debates. You two, however, paraded yourselves as "Marxist-Leninst" hardliners being so angered at those who rejected or revised Marxist theory, and then completely flipped positions! Now you, Mazdak, admit to no longer being a Marxist, and shows quite oddly that he is not familiar with even the basic concepts of Marxist thought.


I haven't flipped, but i simply see it as inconvenient to say i am a marxist when the vast majority of marxists, when marxism is associated with liberalism, with feminism, with miscegenation, and with judaism. If marxists sort themselves out and go back to their roots then i might be inclined to change my position.

[Ixtab]

And what is the State, Ymir? I could very well make an argument that even without a ruling class, the State will nonetheless stand, though its character will have changed significantly. And I think Ixabert and Mazdak may even agree with me.I think by 'state' you are thinking of 'government'. Communists do not seek to abolish government. When Communists say the State will wither away, they mean nothing more than that the masses, not a special apparatus (a State), will discharge state functions. Mazdak doesn't seem to understand the Communist doctrine on the State, nor do most non-Communists, partly because they don't have any notion of what 'State' means in Marxist parlance. If you are going to define government as 'state', then of course Communists do not seek to abolish the State. But that would be an ahistorical use of the term.

Lenin wrote,
". . . communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is nobody to be supressed--"nobody" in the sense of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the population. We are not utopians, and do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to supress such excesses. But, in the first place, no special machine, no special apparatus of supression [the State] is needed for this; this will be done by the armed people itself, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilised people, even in modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scruffle. . . . And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consists in violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the masses, their want and their poverty."

[Fade the Butcher]

It is, as plato said, a marketplace of governments where various insincere demagogues parade lobby around their rhetoric with the hopes that the the voters will take their line. I highlighted this excerpt about Plato's views of democracy in Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies and put an exclamation point besides the page.

"In their stead he uses invective, identifying liberty with lawlessness, freedom with license, and equality before the law with disorder. Democrats are described as profiligate and niggardly, as insolent, lawless, and shameless, as fierce and as terrible beasts of prey, as gratifying every whim, as living solely for pleasure, and for unnecessary and unclean desires. ('They fill their belies like the beasts', was Heraclitus' way of putting it.) They are accused of calling 'reverence a folly . . .; temperance they call cowardice . . .; moderation and orderly expenditure they call meanness and boorishness', etc. 'And there are more trifles of this kind', says Plato, when the flood of rhetorical abuse begins to abate, 'the schoolmaster fears and flatters his pupils . . ., and the old men condescend to the young . . . in order to avoid the appearance of being sour and despotic.' . . . 'But the height of all this abundance of freedom . . . is reached', Plato continues, 'when slaves, males as well as female, who have been bought on the market, are every whit as free as those whose property they are . . . And what is the cumulative effect of all this? That the citizens' hearts become so very tender that they get irritated at the mere sight of anything like slavery and do not suffer anybody to submit to its presence . . so that they may have no master over them.'"

Ibid., pp.42-43

[Jonathan]

I will re-post what you have stated:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/billybobzombie/mazfascistpolitics.jpg
That's some bitch.

[Billy Score]

I think by 'state' you are thinking of 'government'. Communists do not seek to abolish government. When Communists say the State will wither away, they mean nothing more than that the masses, not a special apparatus (a State), will discharge state functions. Mazdak doesn't seem to understand the Communist doctrine on the State, nor do most non-Communists, partly because they don't have any notion of what 'State' means in Marxist parlance. If you are going to define government as 'state', then of course Communists do not seek to abolish the State. But that would be an ahistorical use of the term.


On the contrary most "communist" seem to have no notion of what "state" means in Marxsist parlance (thus you have marxists on the same side as anarchists on issues, identifying more with anarchists and denouncing stalin).

[Leif]

In regards to the state:

Scientific socialism does not believe hierarchy, organization, and administration will dissappear in a communist "utopia." All of these things are intrinsic to civilization itself and their positive contributions to society outweigh any alternatives (what is the alternative?) Scientific socialism theorizes that the 'state,' being controlled by the ruling [middle] class, is only an instrument of maintaining political power, and thus oppressing those who are, for all practical purposes, disenfranchised from participation within the political system; the working class, the unemployed, and some segments of the middle-class itself.

All non-"oppressive" organs of the state are easily replaced by organizations not connected to the power-structure of the state itself. That is why Marx and Engels theorized that once the working class had organized their "coup d'eta" and taken command of the state, it would simply disappear as a functional entity in society. One will notice that today many jobs officially administered by the state are actually done by corporations (ex. almost all non-combat oriented occupations in the U.S. army.) In a socialist society these would be more like syndicates and trade unions. There is no need for a professional police or military force to maintain the authority of the ruling class by coercing the general population. It sounds odd until one realizes that most acts of force committed by a state are directed at its own population. That's not to say that crime in a communist 'utopia' will be allowed to go unhindered, but that, as Lenin says, having removed power from the [bourgeois] state, the people will enforce whatever legal codes are necessary by themselves. (One does not need a silver badge and a uniform to recognize injustice.)

I believe the anarcho-syndalist areas of Spain were once like this, although I do not have much information on them, and were probably wiped out during and after the Spanish Civil War...They were too ahead of their time, I think.

[quote=Mazdak]the purpose of a state is to provide direction. Democracy(both in its direct form and in its modern form) does not do this. It is, as plato said, a marketplace of governments where various insincere demagogues parade lobby around their rhetoric with the hopes that the the voters will take their line. The party or the person sells the product and the voter buys it. Rarely do the parties change anything. And even if a party does wish to change things, it does not have the time frame to do it. The people will grow bored and move on to the next party who capitalizes on the first's "unfulfilled promises" and such. This party undoes anything the first party did. The works of one party are undone by the works of the next and so forth. Under such a situation, there is no opportunity for anything but stagnation. Codreanu's critiques of democracy are excellent for they show it for what it is (this is what i have against FANATICAL dogmatist marxists, they would refuse to give credit where it is due or examine valid points made by the other side.) Democracy is a tool of business because the parties, the people who wish to run are always going to need financial backing. they either must therefore be aristocrats by birth (and very wealthy aristocrats at that) or be tools and lackeys of the agendas of big business and lobbying groups.[/quote]

Codreanu had a 'political party' as well. Political factions are impossible to remove from such large and complex societies as today. In noble and aristocratic societies there were constant power struggles between competing Lords, it was not a solid monolithic political system. From a 'moral' perspective, such societies are more injust than socialist societies due to the fact that it doesn't matter what Lord controls the power structure to the masses of people, because they have no say in their own government regardless.

[quote]I also point to Sparta. Sparta was the most "communistic" society of the ancient world undoubtedly. They were hardly a democratic state. What happened to the democracies of athens? They were divided by petty rivalries and destroyed more from within (as pericles said(paraphrased), "I fear the passions of Athenians more than the machinations of our enemies"). Spartan had almost 700 years of stability, Athenians only were productive when democracy was bent (either by pericles or by thucydides or any athenian leader who became leader and stood in power for years). And either way, none of these athenian leaders were able to pursue their agenda to the same level that the Spartan Kings could. Why? because they had to hide behind rhetoric of democracy.[/quote]

Small, coherent, city-states are not viable in the modern world (nor was Athenian democracy anything like what exists in the West today, or in the society envisioned by Marxists.) The organization of society by a small number of noblemen is no-longer possible. Even if one acknowledges that the majority of capital in today's society is in very few hands in proportion to the amount of capital itself, this is impossible for the capitalist to manage completely by himself, and falls to subordinate business employees and partners.

[quote=Mazdak]I also submit that rule by edict will never be as effective as rule by decree. Mankind cannot be made to obey laws that are made by equals.[/quote]

Why should we obey laws merely for obeying itself? How is it justice to have an individual or group of individuals who are, for practical purposes, above the law? Despite the improbability of such a system ever taking control of developed society in the future, why is it desirable?

[quote=Mazdak]And once you successfully establish a socialistic state, what then? You say "ok everyone go out and vote" and the capitalists simply win the election and stomp out your sorry excuse for a party.[/quote]

Having established socialism, the people will never let go of their gains. It was the increasing power of social-democracy that created the response of Fascism in Europe. The conservative governments of the middle-class needed a political movement to ignore legality in order to crush socialism, and they did. The social programs now entrenched in American society are taken for granted by most of the population, and any discussion of removing them (such as Social Security) will be fiercely attacked.

[quote]The difference is i understand that marxism is not biblical.[/quote]

Then why do you treat it like a religion and deify the Soviets? Your "marxism" has always been little more than hero-worship. I don't have a problem with clearing the names of these people and upholding them as heroes, but this is far more 'biblical' than anyone who bothers to read and understand [usually resulting in support of] Marxist theories.

[quote]find one socialist movement worth a damn in either Europe or the United states.[/quote]

The RCP seems decent, although I haven't contacted them personally as they have no headquarters near my area. I believe they describe themselves as "Marxist-Leninists" and validated the USSR and PRC to some extent. The ISO seems like a good organization as well, although they are Trotskyist and somewhat 'liberalized' from what I saw of them. They seem to concentrate heavily on secondary issues. In any case, this is irrelevant, as you can and will not be able to find a socialist organization that is against equality or a general concept of democracy.

[quote]I haven't flipped, but i simply see it as inconvenient to say i am a marxist when the vast majority of marxists, when marxism is associated with liberalism, with feminism, with miscegenation, and with judaism. If marxists sort themselves out and go back to their roots then i might be inclined to change my position.[/quote]

You say you aren't a communist because today's communists are following mostly neo-liberal rhetoric? What is this supposed to accomplish?

[quote=FadeTheButcher]Ymir,

I would add to this that the fundamental reason 'anti-racism' triumphed in our society in the first place is because it suited the needs of the ruling class. If your goal is to maximize the extraction of profit from your workers, then racial considerations are not going to be of much importance to you. Bill Gates doesn't care what color his workers are. He doesn't care about their ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, or personal creed either. He wants mass immigration from abroad in order to drive down wages and cut expenses. Racism (like all other forms of collective association) is a barrier that impedes the expansion of the capitalist system. That is why 'white supremacy' was done away with. It was no longer useful. Most potential 'consumers' and 'workers' in this world are nonwhite. Virtually all major multinational corporations either support multiculturalism and anti-racist agitation or fund anti-racist organizations outright because of this. They downplay and relativize cultural themes like Christmas for this reason as well.

You are right that modern socialists (and leftists too) are misdirecting their fire at these secondary issues instead of the capitalist system itself. Conservatives in the United States have long used race as a wrecking ball to destroy working class solidarity. The Nixon administration promoted affirmative action to drive working class whites away from the Democratic Party. Mass immigration is supported because it drives down wages, undermines the unions, and keeps whites away from the Democratic Party. This is why the Republican leadership makes constant use of anti-affirmative action, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-gay rhetoric but never does anything about these issues once in power. They want to discuss cultural and racial issues instead in order to gain popular support to win elections. They don't want to discuss class issues because their real agenda is class agenda (i.e., amnesty for illegals, CAFTA and FTAA, tax cuts for the ultra rich, privatization of social security, bankruptcy reform and so on). The Republican leadership would never go to the bat for a marriage amendment like they would for CAFTA. Socialists and leftists alike play right into this shell game by taking up all these stupid causes and making them integral to their agenda. The easiest way to defeat an enemy is to let him defeat himself.

The goal of the capitalist ruling class in America is the same today as it was in the Open Door notes of John Hay: an open society organized entirely in terms of economic function in which collective distinctions (i.e., race, class, nationality, ethnicity, religion, culture etc) are rendered meaningless. Such distinctions have to be rendered meaningless because collective distinctions can act as organizing principles around which resistance might arise. The enemies of the USA all have this in common: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Ba'athists in Iraq, Shi'ite mullahs in Iran, nationalists in Cuba, North Korea, Serbia, Vietnam, China and Nicaragua. The enemy is always the closed system, independent action in whatever form, denial of economic access to penetration and exploitation. Anything that gets in the way of this is bad. Anything that promotes this is good.[/quote]

I agree. That is why I'm fairly apathetic to race and gender issues, I see these things as symptoms of a larger 'ill.' My view on race and gender is this: everyone should be given an equal oppertunity (which includes economic means of striving towards oppertunity, i.e. socialism) and if they fail at achieving their desired occupation or status, so be it. Likewise, I do not care if most criminals are disproportionately black, white or Mexican. If there was a rational system of justice in society, the offenders would be incapacitated regardless of race or creed, and society would think nothing of it. If this means that certain ethnic groups are nearly completely removed from society, then it will be purely justice. I believe that many [most?] from every ethnic or racial group are capable of holding [I]some[/I] productive function in society given a fair chance, but if Negroes remain disproportionately at-odds with civil society under a system of equal oppertunity, the offenders will be removed as any other criminal would be. (There is the argument that they recieve more than equal oppertunity today, but one must add that race-specific oppertunities of any kind are not truly equal oppertunity for all, which is necessary to maintain a system of justice)

Top sum up the rant: I don't care if negroes or other minorities are prosecuted so long as they recieve a fair trial and dealt with like any other criminal should be. However, anyone that fights for justice only for women or minorities or Whites isn't fighting for justice at all.

The topic was also discussed as "cultural marxism" here:

[url]http://www.speakeasy.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=2492[/url]

[Billy Score]

I am thinking of splitting this thread into its original component and my dispute with ymir. Does anyone wish to oppose this desicion?

Codreanu had a 'political party' as well. Political factions are impossible to remove from such large and complex societies as today. In noble and aristocratic societies there were constant power struggles between competing Lords, it was not a solid monolithic political system. From a 'moral' perspective, such societies are more injust than socialist societies due to the fact that it doesn't matter what Lord controls the power structure to the masses of people, because they have no say in their own government regardless.



I do not deny this (however i will dispute that Codreanu had a "political party" persay. He had far more than this as the Legion of St Michael represented more than just a political group but a group who wished to change the society entirely on a social, economic, and cultural level. It was also a religious group and they were deeply involved in the countryside with the peasantry leading prayer sessions and doing various public services for these communities). But look at the pope. The pope had no army (i mean, substantial army, of course the pope had plenty of mercenaries etc) yet his power extended OVER that of the western european kings. A holy roman emperor went barefoot before a pope for 3 days begging for forgiveness. The pope's rule was one by decree, his words affected the people to the point where his word was virtually law. Why was this? It was rule by decree, it was the mythos, the mystery, the awe of the papacy. Modern leaders are not held in awe. Even Bush's supporters don't view him as any different than them, if he passed a law they didn't like they'd oppose it and him.
However, if the Pope decreed something, it was taken quite seriously (of course, this was not always the case, there was always a law breaker or a sinner but this is not the point. The point is that the sinner knew he was doing wrong and felt guilt for it, or was far more hesitant. No catholic king in the middle ages thought it was trendy to oppose the pope until Henry VIIIth. The pope's spiritual authority granted him power equal to that of the most mighty kings of europe. Think of how that kind of power, or utilizing the rule by decree would aide in putting through laws that would be unpopular with the majority for selfish reasons. In a "democratic" society, selfish individualism is the king of all.

There is no need for a professional police or military force to maintain the authority of the ruling class by coercing the general population.
In a barebones communist nation (and i use the term nation simply to designate the society, i acknowledge that it could not be called a "nation" persay) this might sound reasonable, but first of all there is GETTING to that point. Also, this is quite.. shaky ground. No police? No military? How does this society defend itself from outside invasion and foreign encroachment? How does this society try people when it is so decentralized or enforce law? who is to say that what one person views as injustice, another views as perfectly fine? The difference between a "ruling class" and ideologues, or the leadership style i advocate is that the ruling class of capitalist societies is concerned entirely with maximizing profits and retaining power (and fade's post on the subject was excellent). Society should not be based simply on the first goal. Obviously, the state (ie the government) should be extremely interested in preserving itself as it is the vanguard of its ideas, the future of its goals can only be realized if it retains power unopposed.

Society is more than just its economic system (ie socialism) but there has to be more to it, and my problem with cultural marxists and neosocialists is their intergrating degenerate and licentious agendas and tagging it with the socialism.


Why should we obey laws merely for obeying itself? How is it justice to have an individual or group of individuals who are, for practical purposes, above the law? Despite the improbability of such a system ever taking control of developed society in the future, why is it desirable?

Because a society that is obediant is a society that is orderly. You misenterpret my use of the term "above the law." I mean for a leadership that does not practice hypocrisy, that abides by the laws they create. However the leaders should be aware of their own fallibility. They cannot begin to believe whatever mythos, whatever "religion" they have attached to the State. This is, as i said, what the Ptolemies did. The idea is to allow science to flourish unimpeded by religious ignorance but at the same time allow virtue and tradition to flourish without sterile and amoral science eroding them.

Basically the only thing that separates me from a "marxist", the only dispute i have is that to a marxist there is class struggle and then there is victory and socialism is established. I care about liberation of the working class. I care about overthrowing the decadent elite, but i also care about establishing a BETTER society not just in terms of distribution of wealth. Degeneracy does not die with the redistribution of wealth.

Having established socialism, the people will never let go of their gains. It was the increasing power of social-democracy that created the response of Fascism in Europe. The conservative governments of the middle-class needed a political movement to ignore legality in order to crush socialism, and they did. The social programs now entrenched in American society are taken for granted by most of the population, and any discussion of removing them (such as Social Security) will be fiercely attacked.

Practically all of the eastern bloc nations and the USSR show otherwise. The people, despite now recognizing that they were better off under the socialist, and the socialist governments in all these nations collapsed. Why? Selfish individualism for one thing. Of course, it is more complex then just what i have said, but obviously the people in these nations at that moment did not care about their gains. What is to say that the same would happen anywhere else? Why risk everything you've fought for and and everything you've worked for?? All of history is filled with people crucifying their saviors (and i am not referring to christ here).

Then why do you treat it like a religion and deify the Soviets? Your "marxism" has always been little more than hero-worship. I don't have a problem with clearing the names of these people and upholding them as heroes, but this is far more 'biblical' than anyone who bothers to read and understand [usually resulting in support of] Marxist theories.

Untrue. And even so, i defend hero worship and support it. I have had plenty of debates defending stalin that certainly were not hero worship. I admit that i have said things in jest, as all of us certainly have but i certainly have never blindly "followed the leader."

The RCP seems decent, although I haven't contacted them personally as they have no headquarters near my area. I believe they describe themselves as "Marxist-Leninists" and validated the USSR and PRC to some extent. The ISO seems like a good organization as well, although they are Trotskyist and somewhat 'liberalized' from what I saw of them. They seem to concentrate heavily on secondary issues. In any case, this is irrelevant, as you can and will not be able to find a socialist organization that is against equality or a general concept of democracy.

ROFL!!! The RCP is another worthless organization. Bob Avakian is a drug addled hippie turd who embarasses the left everytime he opens his mouth. How can you take someone like him seriously? The RCP is nothing more than a Bob Avakian personality cult. "Uh like dude we've gotta overthrow the capitalists.... woahhh"

http://www.rwor.org/chair_e.htm has some priceless writings by this great genius of the left :rolleyes:



You say you aren't a communist because today's communists are following mostly neo-liberal rhetoric? What is this supposed to accomplish?



There is no benefit to attaching oneself to a movement that has forgotten itself. The communists of a century ago were not the communists of today. The communists of day have hijacked the label and turned it into .. well something embarassing. Even saying or bringing up che guevara embarasses me to some degree because of how che guevara has being turned into a commodity and how many stupid teens who have no appreciation at all for him would probably spout off about che too. The average person would see me as no different from them. Modern "communists" take up stupid causes and make themselves noticed as weak and effeminate on this (such as the tookie case). They cannot change anything so long as their ranks are saturated with pacifists, drug addlied ex hippies and teenagers looking for something to piss of their parents with.

I support marxist movements when they have not been hijacked by cultural marxism and i support pretty nearly all the socialist states in existance today.

[Leif]

I am thinking of splitting this thread into its original component and my dispute with ymir. Does anyone wish to oppose this desicion?

Sounds good.

[Leif]

The pope's rule was one by decree, his words affected the people to the point where his word was virtually law. Why was this? It was rule by decree, it was the mythos, the mystery, the awe of the papacy. Modern leaders are not held in awe. Even Bush's supporters don't view him as any different than them, if he passed a law they didn't like they'd oppose it and him.

Popes can be killed. Decrees can be challenged. In fact, there have been multiple instances in which rival individuals claimed the title of "Pope."

In any case, why would a socialist want some individual, whose authority extends above everyone else and issues "decrees." Why should we follow a law because one man says so? The bourgeois abolished these feudal politics, and to attempt them would be regressive.

In a "democratic" society, selfish individualism is the king of all.

How is having the majority of people decide the laws as selfish as having one individual dictate the law?

In a barebones communist nation (and i use the term nation simply to designate the society, i acknowledge that it could not be called a "nation" persay) this might sound reasonable, but first of all there is GETTING to that point. Also, this is quite.. shaky ground. No police? No military? How does this society defend itself from outside invasion and foreign encroachment?

Everyone would be armed and trained for military defense.

How does this society try people when it is so decentralized or enforce law?

Much easier than any other society, considering everyone would have the authority to make "arrests."

who is to say that what one person views as injustice, another views as perfectly fine?

Referendums.

The difference between a "ruling class" and ideologues, or the leadership style i advocate is that the ruling class of capitalist societies is concerned entirely with maximizing profits and retaining power (and fade's post on the subject was excellent). Society should not be based simply on the first goal.

I agree.

Obviously, the state (ie the government) should be extremely interested in preserving itself as it is the vanguard of its ideas, the future of its goals can only be realized if it retains power unopposed.

I agree.

Society is more than just its economic system (ie socialism) but there has to be more to it, and my problem with cultural marxists and neosocialists is their intergrating degenerate and licentious agendas and tagging it with the socialism.

Everything but the economics is a secondary issue, resulting from the economic [material] arrangement of society.

Because a society that is obediant is a society that is orderly.

I agree. A society that has the option of making its own laws will obey them more fully than if they were 'imposed' from above.

They cannot begin to believe whatever mythos, whatever "religion" they have attached to the State. This is, as i said, what the Ptolemies did. The idea is to allow science to flourish unimpeded by religious ignorance but at the same time allow virtue and tradition to flourish without sterile and amoral science eroding them.

How are lies "virtuous" or moral?

Basically the only thing that separates me from a "marxist", the only dispute i have is that to a marxist there is class struggle and then there is victory and socialism is established. I care about liberation of the working class. I care about overthrowing the decadent elite, but i also care about establishing a BETTER society not just in terms of distribution of wealth. Degeneracy does not die with the redistribution of wealth.

What defines degeneracy? Why is democracy [socialism] degenerate?

Practically all of the eastern bloc nations and the USSR show otherwise. The people, despite now recognizing that they were better off under the socialist, and the socialist governments in all these nations collapsed. Why? Selfish individualism for one thing. Of course, it is more complex then just what i have said, but obviously the people in these nations at that moment did not care about their gains. What is to say that the same would happen anywhere else? Why risk everything you've fought for and and everything you've worked for?? All of history is filled with people crucifying their saviors (and i am not referring to christ here).

The USSR was state-capitalist by the time it dissolved. Why? Because of too much leadership allowing itself too much power. Even the anti-communist workers in Russia today don't want to give up the basic rights created by socialists. The more democracy was eroded in the USSR, and any country, the more it went towards a capitalist oligarchy. Let's not forget that all of the new capitalists in Russia were at one time wealthy party bosses.

Untrue. And even so, i defend hero worship and support it. I have had plenty of debates defending stalin that certainly were not hero worship.

Stalin is not, and has never been, the entire Marxist movement. You have defended that individual numerous times, but that is quite different from defending socialism.

ROFL!!! The RCP is another worthless organization. Bob Avakian is a drug addled hippie turd who embarasses the left everytime he opens his mouth. How can you take someone like him seriously? The RCP is nothing more than a Bob Avakian personality cult. "Uh like dude we've gotta overthrow the capitalists.... woahhh"

http://www.rwor.org/chair_e.htm has some priceless writings by this great genius of the left

This is just baseless libel. Bob Avakian is fighting for socialism; you are the one who has been embarassing us with your lack of elementary knowledge of socialism while claiming to be an e-Marxist-Leninist.

There is no benefit to attaching oneself to a movement that has forgotten itself.

Today needs a new movement, I agree, but this doesn't have to clash with the long tradition of socialism.

The communists of a century ago were not the communists of today. The communists of day have hijacked the label and turned it into .. well something embarassing.

I agree.

Even saying or bringing up che guevara embarasses me to some degree because of how che guevara has being turned into a commodity and how many stupid teens who have no appreciation at all for him would probably spout off about che too.

Wow...so you find it stupid that people turn someone into a demi-god myth and worship him?

Modern "communists" take up stupid causes and make themselves noticed as weak and effeminate on this (such as the tookie case).

Pointing out injustice and hypocrisy is not a stupid cause.

[Billy Score]

Wow...so you find it stupid that people turn someone into a demi-god myth and worship him?

Only when they turn him into a myth and worship him for the wrong cause, the wrong reason.

Pointing out injustice and hypocrisy is not a stupid cause.

Liberal social issues, cultural marxism and all the baggage that comes with it are stupid causes. And this defense of tookie came from the anti death penalty and pro "Rehabilitation" feeling that the modern west feels is so much more advanced then the "cruelty" of executing a criminal.

Today needs a new movement, I agree, but this doesn't have to clash with the long tradition of socialism.


All new movements DO CLASH with the long tradition of socialism. Rice, myself, Nuctemeron,the other hand, do not.


Popes can be killed. Decrees can be challenged. In fact, there have been multiple instances in which rival individuals claimed the title of "Pope."

In any case, why would a socialist want some individual, whose authority extends above everyone else and issues "decrees." Why should we follow a law because one man says so? The bourgeois abolished these feudal politics, and to attempt them would be regressive.


That the title of "pope" had such a great effect on those under them that it was worth the intrigue surrounding it only proves my position. The point is, on spiritual (and thus moral issues) the words of the popes were taken with much weight. Modern laws are only enforced on a physical (jail) or economic(fines, etc) level. The laws in the middle ages and even up to perhaps the 20th century were also enforced SOCIALLY because not adherin to them would guarantee that unless you were a person of extreme importance to the society, you would be ostracized. To do certain things in these days would have been "unthinkable" for all but the elites (nobles and aristocrats who were not fooled/bothered by religious or moral scruples) simply because it was something you didn't do. The people involved in the power struggles to become pope and intrigue against the popes WERE of these classes almost without exception. This shows a stark contrast to the majority, to whom the Pope was almost godlike himself.

"regressive and progressive", do not exist as far as i am concerned. As i have said, technology does not alone make progress and the progress of today is solely technological. There certainly is not "progress" or advancement in men, we are infact becoming weaker as we rely on technology, as we rely on machines to do things for us. As i have stated before, history has some semblence of being circular. Society runs like a pendulum, swinging from one extreme to its opposite at different times in history. This is an inevitable progression of events but ideas and social ideas that were taboo one generation are reversed in the next. This manifests itself in almost all aspects of society.

How is having the majority of people decide the laws as selfish as having one individual dictate the law?

The majority have only their own interests at hand. They may be opposed to a law because it intereferes with them personally even if it benefits society as a whole. If one individial (or a group) decide the laws, they do so on more sound ground. Farmers farm, brain surgeons do brain surgery, and political leaders make political desicions. If you are going to have brain surgery, do you trust it to a farmer? No, you trust it to someone who knows and understands what he is doing. The same is true with politics. The vanguard, remember?

Stalin is not, and has never been, the entire Marxist movement. You have defended that individual numerous times, but that is quite different from defending socialism.


I used stalin as an example. I have defended others at times as well. However most of the "hero worship" accusations would be attached to my support of Stalin.


I agree. A society that has the option of making its own laws will obey them more fully than if they were 'imposed' from above.



Not at all. The losing party, the group who loses the election, the referendum does not just say "OK" they will simply in effect ignore the referendum and go around the desicion. They also will continue to push their agenda.
For example, if wisconsin or a midwestern state were to take a vote or poll that said that 80% of the population was against gay marriage (there is a midwestern state where this is the case even). The 20 % are not going to accept a victory against their stance. They will still push for gay marriage. However, when there is someone above, when something that is not just another person DECREES the law, that 20% will not nearly be as strong, it will be marginalized to the point of being ignored or rooted out.


The USSR was state-capitalist by the time it dissolved. Why? Because of too much leadership allowing itself too much power. Even the anti-communist workers in Russia today don't want to give up the basic rights created by socialists. The more democracy was eroded in the USSR, and any country, the more it went towards a capitalist oligarchy. Let's not forget that all of the new capitalists in Russia were at one time wealthy party bosses.

I agree, but almost everyone who lived under soviet or eastern bloc rule all acknowledge that life was better, that things were better. Yet look at what their great "heroes" like Lech Walesa stood for. "democracy"?? They certainly were not any better than those they replaced. They were american-Nato lackeys and under their "democracy" Eastern Europe and Russia have spent this much time staggering to recover.


What defines degeneracy? Why is democracy [socialism] degenerate?

This did not pertain to what i said at all. How is democracy degenerate? There are certain issues that can be settled (in the form of democratic centralism) but many cannot. It is not a government with direction as it is temporary by nature. A people are not thinking about the next generation after generation, they are thinking about their lives and their childrens lives at most. They care about issues in the NOW and are concerned with these more so than any issues in the long term. No democratic government can institute real change to deal with issues of importance as it sways with the emotions of the masses. If they do not see IMMEDIATE or very quick change they dismiss the party, the issue as being a failure. This is incompatible with any state that seeks to advance people. For example, to default to "the people" on issues such as contraceptives or pornography is not going to create the kind of response that is needed (unless you gerrymander the hell out of them.) This leads to another point- the only way that any political party or ideologue gains ground over another is through finding loopholes. Gerrymandering, filibustering, etc. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, at least it takes time to get to that point. In a democracy the only way to achieve power is by corrupting the system.



Much easier than any other society, considering everyone would have the authority to make "arrests."



I don't like my neighbor. hell i hate the bastard. Time to make an "arrest". What you are talking about here sounds more like anarchy than anything else. This proposal is ASKING to be taken advantage of.

Everyone would be armed and trained for military defense.



Compulsary service? I support it but how do you organize an army, a military (and i am taking about a standing army, or an army that is actually organized. not loosely affiliated cells of militants).

[Berianidze]

Pointing out injustice and hypocrisy is not a stupid cause.

No, but when has the majority of the modern socialist movement made this their priority? Most socialists (in the industrialized West) attach themselves to liberal movements that pertain absolutely nothing to socialism. Just refer back to the "Tookie" Williams thread; those "socialists" weren't fighting for anything other than a liberal cause because they were offended by a black man (a criminal nonetheless) being executed. This type of behavior isn't isolated, even the groups that claim to be anti-revisionist still attach themselves to movements that have absolutely nothing to do with socialism; such as feminism, homosexual rights, etc.

Liberal social issues, cultural marxism and all the baggage that comes with it are stupid causes. And this defense of tookie came from the anti death penalty and pro "Rehabilitation" feeling that the modern west feels is so much more advanced then the "cruelty" of executing a criminal.
rofl, yes I didn't see you posted basically the same thing as me before I posted my response, but nonetheless, you are absolutely correct.

The majority have only their own interests at hand. They may be opposed to a law because it intereferes with them personally even if it benefits society as a whole. If one individial (or a group) decide the laws, they do so on more sound ground. Farmers farm, brain surgeons do brain surgery, and political leaders make political desicions. If you are going to have brain surgery, do you trust it to a farmer? No, you trust it to someone who knows and understands what he is doing. The same is true with politics. The vanguard, remember?
Agreed; most humans can never be trusted to openly and willingly comply and submit to the state, much less socialism. Human beings whom have been corrupted by the decandence of capitalism are going to react violently and irresponsibly after any revolution which seeks to collectivize and socialize the economy. It is expected that certain measures, of the utmost authoritarian nature, are the most reasonable and efficient means of prevent societal collapse. After the abolition of capitalism, politicians will no longer be able to reap huge financial benefits from their positions, and only the most dedicated and qualified individuals will be able to administer their jobs with the type of efficiency and manner acceptable. Such individuals are needed for societal order; otherwise either chaos ensues, or you find yourself unable to proceed with any great policy because you're being strapped down by the democratic process--where people are always more interested in ensuring their re-election than getting anything done; and even when they are capable any and all of their reforms will surely be revoked if and when they are replaced in power by the opposition.