True. Also, if you try to classify Leonardo DeCaprio, I don’t think bourgeoisie really works, I prefer rich spoiled little bastard.
OK, it’s a reasonable distinction.
**
You’re mixing up definitions. I don’t think I was entirely clear enough though. Bourgeoisie are those who control the means of production. As a computer programer you don’t actually controll anything. you are sellign you’re labor power to someone else.
**
I loved this quote. I’m just picturing Prince Charles in a monkey cage throwing feces at al the little British Schoolkids who have come to oggle him.
**
Well I wouldn’t nesecarily call all proletarians heroic. it sorta depends on what you do during a revolution.
**
Ahhhh. Sigh Really, and yet we have over a quarter of all children living in poverty right here in the US. (and since the line for poverty is so out of date, I would say much more than that. You are simply repeating myths that the bourgeoisie perpetuates. Going to college doesn’t make you one. Starting your own company doesn’t. Even if everyone did go to college, there would be far more workers than bourgeoisie. Who will work for those companies?
**
Actually, I do most of my work off the internet for precisely the reasons stated. I started this thred as something of an introductino to myself, to clear up some of the misconceptions. AND TO GET PEOPLE TO STOP FUCKING CALLING ME A LIBERAL OR A HIPPIE! As I stated earlier, they are not made member’s of the bourgeoisie. And most people don’t even work with computers. Also don’t foget the US still has quite the industrial base.
**
Because it doesn’t. It benefits a select few.
I’m going to take this opportunity to also engage in more shameless quote posting. Even though it doesn’t have much directly to do with Lemur866’s post. Why? because as I stated earlier, my point is education, and I think this will help you to understand some of my views.
also from engels
Because I’ve stated earlier that I won’t be answering questions like that in this thread. Some other time. Don’t worry, probably in a few weeks.
OK, if you believe all of this stuff, you can be guaranteed I will not call you a Liberal again. That would be painting you as far, far to the right of where you actually are. But it sure sounds lke hippie stuff. Yikes!
Storm the capitol, burn parliament, hang the fat cats!
Thank you. We can get in the discussion over hippies later. GOD I HATE THEM!!!
I’m glad I’ve been able to clear up some stuff for you. Feel free to ask any more questions.
I have picked up a few distinctions between what I have thought about Socialism, and what you explained in this thread. To my great disappointment, not too many distinctions. I guess we’ll disagree forever on several points, but that’s the beauty of this country - we’re allowed to disagree without either having to kill the other. (Which, by the way, is one of the real sticking points of socialism - those who disagree may do so in the grave).
But the quote you introduced:
Only Half True (at least today). Is it not to the benefit of the worker to have a law that says his neighbor may not kill him or rape his daughter? Also, does it not benefit the worker to be protected from ‘undue’ seisure of his property? I know very well how much the bourgeois, the rich, corporations, and other (what you consider evil) entities depend on the law, but there are just as many protections for the ‘worker’. Care to argue this? Seems like the quote really bends things here to argue for socialism, when we know socialism cannot work without laws.
Anyway, I’m off to that capitalist retreat known as Lake Tahoe - have a great weekend, you socialist (not liberal, notbastid.
Well first off. Have fun at Lake Tahoe. I always like it their in the Summertime. Great place.
**
Well, glad I could clear them up for you. I think that the biggest misconception, the one I have to work hardest to overcome, is the idea that I support China, Korea, or Cuba. Sure, I support Cuba in it’s struggle against an imperialist superpower, but anyone who claims it’s not a dictatorship is just a bit looney. Also, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with socialism, or even working to get rid of it. The problems came during times of revolution when those who disagreed took up arms and started fighting. When it’s you or them, there isn’t much choice. In case anyone misunderstands me (they always seems to :rolleyes: ) I do agree that at points governments that called themselves socialist (but in reality were dictatorships), killed those who have disagreed with them.
And I’m really glad you brought up this following point, it was something I was going to get too, but forgot about
**
Now, I’m goig to be throwing some more quoted here. You all might want to put on some safety goggles.
Now. Although I’ve stated that the state is based on class interests, that doesn’t mean there aren’t nonclass aspects of society. What’s important to remember is that the class character of society permeates and infects every aspect, including these.
I give an example from a book by Hal Draper.
The needs of society, no matter how class-neutral in origin or intention, cannot be met without passsing through the political (and other) institutions set up by a class-conditioned society; and it is in the process of going through these channe;s that they are shaped, sifted, skewed, molded, modeled, and modulated to fit within the established framework. This is how the class nature of society asserts itself, even without malevolent purposes or sinister plots.
The state has a main purpose. That is to protect the interests of the ruling class, whatever class that maybe. It also has three suplemental tasks.
Public functions: sanitation, fire departments, etc. Sometimes more is done, sometimes less.
National boundries: The state need to advance the interests of it’s own ruling class before all others.
Mediation: the ruling class is not monolithic. The state must intermediate disputes within the ruling class.
All of these three functions are subsumed to the primary function of the state. If that function is threatened, you see the state forget about the other tasks. It takes on a role of self-preservation of the ruling class at any cost.
Also, the “protections” for workers fall undeer the categories of substitutions for direct force, that the state uses to keep it’s power.
Well, it been a little while but I had two things to bring up.
The first one was asked in this thread here.
Namely, is profit sharing a slight form of socialism? The answer is unequivocly no, for several reasons.
First there is the definition of Socialism by Marx. This requires worker control of “production” not worker’s control of one company. the workers also need to take hold of the state machinery. Plus the workers have no control over the company, the capitalist still makes all of the descisions, the management is still in place. The management is not accountable to the workers. And so on and so on.
Even if the workers did contol it, a coopertive, it wouldn’t be anything like socialism. the group would have to function like a unit of capital, with all the disadvanages that entails. Somewhat like what exists in China, or Cuba. In those cases the entire country acts as an individual unit of capital (more or less).
The second point was a clarification for Mr.Zambezi. He didn’t understand how I could support socialized Health Care, and I didn’t make a very good argument. Here is an attempt at a better one.
As stated earlier, the main function of the state is a repressive reactionary one. Namely to protect the interests of the ruling class (even if they are too shortsighted to do it themselves). The state also has three auxillary functions. One of those is providing basic services. As a Socialist, I oppose anything that will increas the main function of the state, if workers support it, I will argue against them supporting it, so on and on. the part of the state that provides services, is distinct. There is no problem with supporting increases in services from that section. Of course, maybe I wouldn’t. It’s a case by case basis. you have to look at the social forces driving the change, andthose who are opposing it. And the actual reasons for doing so. Then you take into account how this will further the future organization and self-confidence of the working class, and make a descision to support it or not. Does that make sense? Of course I don’t expect you to agree with it, just for it to make sense to you.
As for whether art that glorifies your cause is good art, I’d say that it’s good propoganda, but not necessarily good art. But I’m assuming others have felt differently.
Ultimately, I’m not quite sure why Socialists care about art to begin with. Perhaps due to my own preconceptions of what is or isn’t a political matter, as when I think about my own political theories, art has never come to mind. On the other hand, if the people (collectively) own what they produce, then I guess they’d own works of art too, which would give them say in what art should contain. Or am I misunderstanding how things would work?
Oh, and a stupid question that you’ve probably answered before. You stated that you wanted to be refered to as a Socialist, not a liberal or a hippie, etc. But, IIRC, you’ve identified yourself as a Communist in the past too. Is there a difference between the terms, or are they interchangable? In common parlance, Socialism is usually used to mean a less “extreme” or non-totalitarian form of Communism, e.g. the USSR was Communist but Sweden is Socialist. But I’m interested in what the difference between the two terms is to you (if you think there is one).
Art? bascialy, you have to take art in it’s context. The impressionist painters were a reactonary anti-working class movement. they arose directly out of the crushing of the paris commune, etc,etc. Yet, you can’t deny that they make beautiful art. Picasso’s Geurnica is an ugly piece. but, taken in context it becomes powerfully anti-war. Is True-lies bad because it’s racist or just becaue it’s a bad movie? on and on. there are some who would condemn art for the medium. But, you do have to look at it for what it intended to acomlish. This allows us to see “triumph of the will” as a great movie, and not be disgusted at it. make sense?
Socialism and Communism. the terms are very interchangable and also have strict definitions. You have to take them in the context they are used. Like democratic. The Democratic republic of Kapuchea is obviosly not, and people who call themselves Democrats obviously aren’t supporters of it (although some might be).
for the classical defintitions of communism and socialism read the communist manifesto. Marx actually goes over several subtypes of socialism. at the time of the First world war, the bolsheviks in russia where called Social Democrats. They changed their name to Comunist to distance themselves from the sellouts and generall cowardice of the other parties that called themselves social-democratic.
Communism came to imply Stalinist Russia. As such, I’m not a Communist or a Stalinist. The orginiztion I used to be a part of, called itself socialist to distance itself from Stalinist Russia. To refer to Sweden, I commonly call them Social-Democratic countries, since they really have nothing to do with Socialism. Likewise the Socialist part y in France is a Social Democratic party.
So I may refer to myself as Socialist or Communist pretty interchangably. You just have to take it in context.
It’s obvious that Marx forms the basis for your political views…i.e. all that stuff about bourgeois and proletarians and workers and revolutions and such.
I understand that you are not in favor of dictatorship, but I fear that advocating marxism and supporting violent revolution is a recipe for dictatorship.
If you wish, we can distinguish between social-democratic countries like Sweden and pure socialist/communist/marxist countries. However, there are plenty of nice social-democratic places to live. Sweden is very nice, I hear. But every place that’s called itself marxist has been a hell-pit.
And marxist tends to indicate snobbish intellectuals who haven’t left the univrsity in 30 years. I do frequently call myslef that too though. I also refer to myself as Sorelian on occasion.
Yes. For that matter, I agree with it. Probably one of my favorite novels ever is Heart of Darkness, parts of which are causally sexist and racist (or at least appear so to our sensibilites), but I don’t think that decreases the greatness of its art. And thanks for your opinion on the terms.
I don’t think I’ve ever been so entertained in my life. Two pages of debate on socialism and no mention anywhere of unions, the representative, self-organized organ of workers.
I did a search of the page just to make sure.
Socialism as defined by Marx & Engels had at its heart a total hostility to industry and industrial society. I don’t have the Communist Manifesto in front of me, but somewhere in there it states, in language that would have made Pol Pot proud, that cities are the inevitable result of capitalist development, and it either implied or came out & said that cities would have to be destroyed. Yes, there is a difference between liberals and socialists: no liberal is looking to destroy industrial society or the cities that we live in. Destruction of industry is the whole point of socialism. Which is why, oldscratch, you said that in a world where chickens are raised for consumption instead of profit we wouldn’t need inspectors. No, we wouldn’t. Because there wouldn’t be any industry.
Pol Pot was not an aberration. Fidel Castro is not an aberration. The USSR and Mao were not reductio ad absurdums, they were the perfectly logical end result of an ideology that hates, to its bones, the idea of industrial development. Which is why you haven’t mentioned unions even so much as once.
Well, obviously someone not only knows nothing about socialism, but also can’t be bothered to do a simple search in google for the communist manifesto. If you had bothered, you could have read it, and answered the question for yourself. But, since you couldn’t be bothered to take the time, I guess I will. You are completely 100% absolutely wrong.
Happy to be of service.
Marx and socialism in general not only saw nothing wrong with cities. But, also saw the coming revolution as arrising from them. The civil war in france, which I have already linked to (another case where you couldn’t be bothered to actually follow a link and read) has no anti-city feelings, and is the only case where Marx actually talks about what a future socialist government might look like.
The idea that socialsim in the USSR was anti-industrial is a joke. Ever see that art-movement known as socialist realism? The fetishism of industry as one big phallus.
As for why I ahve not brought up unions? Well, no one else has.
And I finish with a quote frm the “anti-industrial” communist manifesto
Hey, it’s not pantom’s fault that he blindly believes what’s been force-fed to him since age three, without bothering to go read the document himself. I happen not to be a Marxist, just a bloody liberal (though with strong socialist leanings); I did, however, read Marx very thoroughly myself–Manifesto, a good bit of “Das Kapital”, and assorted other writings–so that I could use my brain to form my own opinion.
Pantom: go read the stuff without a prejudeced reactionary mindset, and you’ll find that even if you don’t agree with the politics, everything you’ve said is dead wrong.
Well, obviously someone not only knows nothing about socialism, but also can’t be bothered to do a simple search in google for the communist manifesto. If you had bothered, you could have read it, and answered the question for yourself. But, since you couldn’t be bothered to take the time, I guess I will. You are completely 100% absolutely wrong.
Happy to be of service.
Marx and socialism in general not only saw nothing wrong with cities. But, also saw the coming revolution as arrising from them. The civil war in france, which I have already linked to (another case where you couldn’t be bothered to actually follow a link and read) has no anti-city feelings, and is the only case where Marx actually talks about what a future socialist government might look like.
The idea that socialsim in the USSR was anti-industrial is a joke. Ever see that art-movement known as socialist realism? The fetishism of industry as one big phallus.
As for why I ahve not brought up unions? Well, no one else has.
And I finish with a quote frm the “anti-industrial” communist manifesto
quote:
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.
Sex is always better than devil worship. Well, except for when the devil gets frisky
.
My apologies for the above that repeats your stuff. I hit the submit button by accident.
Now,
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.
The above quote is from the section in the front in which Marx is giving the bourgeouis their due. Now a quote from the part in which he proposes what should actually be done:
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
These points were exactly what Pol Pot did in Cambodia, letter for letter. He followed the program. The results are obvious. Any questions?
And by the way, I read the entire CM, plus Das Kapital, Keynes and a bunch of other stuff more than twenty years ago. Be careful who you insult.
Damn that confused me: I was going, “oldscratch, that you?”
Anyway, you mihgt note that nowhere in there does it say, “perpetrate the wholsale slaughter of your citizens”. Duh. In fact, those are all pretty good goals you listed, if you ask me. Oh, and just so you can have a nice example of somebody following America’s word to a T, I refer you to Pinochet and his US-backed slaugher of the Argentina…
Well, let us take a look at a few other points in the program and what Pol Pot actually did. I would also caution anyone from taking a small pamphlet and basing an entire philosophy on it. Anyone who looks at that as the definitive answer on Communism, and doesn’t bother reading anything else of Marx and Engels isn’t too smart. And, of course, you never answered my question on “The civil war in France”. See, you can take three isolated points from pretty much any thinker of any time and twist them into justifying what you want. The fact that you are able to ascribe this to pol pot is nothing special nor outstanding.
not done. The proletariat was thin in Cambodia, Pol Pot killed quite a few of them, they had no place in the revolution.
Neither was done. In fact Pol Pot deindustrialized the country. Hmmm, I don’t see how you can be anti-industrial and call for an increase in productive forces?
Cambodia was definetely not an advanced country.
This wasn’t done. Instead Pol Pot evacuated the cities, abandoned manufacturing, and doomed everyone to a rural existence. Exactly what Marx had railed against earlier.
Considering that Pol Pot put children to work, in very hard labor, this also doesn’t stand up.
The other points also were not followed by Pol Pot, but it doesn’t really matter. The communist Manifesto was not intended as the Bible for future generations. It was a pamphlet for a plan of action for the time it was written. And if you think I’m impressed by you reading a short pamphlet and some economics texts, I’m not. And don’t worry, it doesn’t detract in any way your ability to be wrong.
Boy, you really are a shallow thinker, aren’t you?
Also: The Critique of the Gotha Programme, The Diary of Che Guevara, Mao’s Little Red Book, something by Engels on evolution (sorry, I don’t remember the name), and on and on. I went through my radical phase in my college days. In my college days is also when all the info on Pol Pot came out. All of us who were intellectually honest had to re-examine how we thought in the light of that holocaust. A lot of us left the program. Me, I re-adopted the liberalism of my parents, and was thrilled to death when a union, Solidarity, helped to overthrow the East European communists. Nothing like the workers rising up to overthrow their oppressors, eh?
Finally, look at where the revolutions took place: Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. None were particularly advanced industrially, for a reason: Marx’s analysis simply doesn’t apply to advanced industrialized countries. Whether or not he knew it doesn’t matter; apparently, by their actions, his followers do know it.
Conservatives follow a pattern: they always say the last reform was good, but this reform isn’t.
Radicals follow a different pattern: no, no that implementation of the idea is not the correct one. Mine is!
Sorry, you’re wrong. Regardless of how well-read you are.
Well, I should have expected as much of a former Maoist. If I had been a follower of a psychopathic, mass-murdering, egomaniacal dictator, I’d be a little bitter too.
If you knew anything about Socialism you would know that we enthusiasticly embraced Solidarity, and the revolutions that overthrew the dictatorships of eastern Europe. But, of course you don’t. You just want to skip into a thread make your little snide comments and skip out. Be my guest. If you want to ask some serious questions, or have something of actual importance to say, feel free to stick around. If you insist on spouting non-sensical statements like " Marx’s analysis simply doesn’t apply to advanced industrialized countries" without any proof, feel free to leave However we are getting off the terms of the original debate.
BTW, I also like how you threw in that last comment that I’m wrong. Without mentioning what I might be wrong about. Real good sign of a deep thinker there.
