Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

On NK and other stuff

LOCKED
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 11:33
Pioneer
Post 22 Jul 2014, 09:16
Welcome comrade! I definitely need to read more about Juche. Any suggestions?

AldoBrasil wrote:
A sectarian and closed society as North Korea did managed material advances for the proletariat ?

Of course! Just take a look at South Korea, the propaganda of which presents it as a "heaven" compared to the "hell" of the north, whereas the proletariat suffers under the ruling class. I'd prefer an ideological inequity (that is, ultimately, a matter of personal choice) to the material&income inequity of capitalism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2014, 22:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 22 Jul 2014, 12:34
Quote:
A sectarian and closed society as North Korea did managed material advances for the proletariat ?
Honestly, I think that the most sectarian and dogmatic ones are those who "refuse" the achievements of Korean communists, paying attention to the appearance (i.e., to the language, to the aestethic style, to local traditions, etc.) of that country and not to the essence, to the socialist nature of its production relations, to the class character of the State, to the ideological achievements.

Quote:
Do they keep advancing materially ?
After the Arduos March of the '90s North Korean economy is growing, especially after Kim Jong Un's rise to power, as confirmed even by some imperialist sources.

Quote:
They made progresses i believe, but now, just as Castro's Cuba, they are stuck between going to socialism (and having the ruling class give power to the proletariat) or returning to capitalism.
DPRK has already built socialism and the proletariat and its allies are already in power. There is no antagonistic contraddiction between the Party's direction and the people's power.

Quote:
I definitely need to read more about Juche. Any suggestions?
The fundamental textbook of Juche is the essay On the ideas of Juche, written by Kim Jong Il. Also very important are works like Abuses of socialism are intolerable, Socialism of Our Country is a Socialism of Our Style as Embodied by the Juche idea, and, of course, Kim Il Sung's On eliminating dogmatism and formalism and establishing Juche in ideological work. All these works are easily readable on the Internet.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 11:33
Pioneer
Post 22 Jul 2014, 12:47
General_Shchelokov wrote:
Honestly, I think that the most sectarian and dogmatic ones are those who "refuse" the achievements of Korean communists, paying attention to the appearance (i.e., to the language, to the aestethic style, to local traditions, etc.) of that country and not to the essence, to the socialist nature of its production relations, to the class character of the State, to the ideological achievements.
Quote:
After the Arduos March of the '90s North Korean economy is growing, especially after Kim Jong Un's rise to power, as confirmed even by some imperialist sources.
Quote:
DPRK has already built socialism and the proletariat and its allies are already in power. There is no antagonistic contraddiction between the Party's direction and the people's power.
I think we are going to get along very well


Quote:
The fundamental textbook of Juche is the essay On the ideas of Juche, written by Kim Jong Il. Also very important are works like Abuses of socialism are intolerable, Socialism of Our Country is a Socialism of Our Style as Embodied by the Juche idea, and, of course, Kim Il Sung's On eliminating dogmatism and formalism and establishing Juche in ideological work. All these works are easily readable on the Internet.
Grazie compagno!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 23 Jul 2014, 01:09
I am still trying to figure out where in the marxist writings (not that i am in any way well versed in marxist writtings) marx did recomend a farther to son kind of personal ditactorship. Care to elighten me ?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2014, 22:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 23 Jul 2014, 12:27
AldoBrasil wrote:
I am still trying to figure out where in the marxist writings (not that i am in any way well versed in marxist writtings) marx did recomend a farther to son kind of personal ditactorship. Care to elighten me ?

According to Marxism, dictatorship cannot be "personal". "Dictators" are only the concrete incarnation of class forces, and not an indipendent historical factor. On this issue Lenin wrote:

“The mere presentation of the question, dictatorship of the Party or dictatorship of the class? dictatorship (Party) of the leaders or dictatorship (Party) of the masses?’ testifies to the most incredible and hopeless confusion of thought. . . . Everyone knows that the masses are divided into classes. . . ; that usually, and in the majority of cases, at least in modern civilised countries, classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are directed by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions and are called leaders. . . . To go so far . . . as to counterpose, in general, dictatorship of the masses to dictatorship of the leaders is ridiculously absurd and stupid” (see Vol. XXV, pp. 187, 188, Russian ed.).

For a correct evaluation of each leader we mustn't look at his parents; we must pay attention to the leader's own ability and knowledge. Until now, the Kims have proved to be good leaders, regardless of their bloods relationships.
North Korea is not the only case of this kind in the history of socialist countries. In the USSR, for example, both Andrei Zhdanov and Yuri Zhdanov (father and son) had important roles in the Party's ideological apparatus.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 23 Jul 2014, 13:32
We're not Marx cultists. Past the planks of the Manifesto, we don't really look to random scattered things he said to decide everything for us like they're biblical passages. Instead, we agree with his analysis of the capitalist system and history, and then apply the conclusions taken from that to the real world.

That requires adapting to circumstances. In North Korea's case, yes, the central figurehead's rule has been passed down monarchically. Family-based nepotism is something that exists in every society (we do tend to support our kin first and foremost), and is very strong in Korea. Park Chung-hee's granddaughter is President of South Korea right now, for example, and she didn't even have to hold some post like Governor of Texas first. It's just seen as inviting stability and cohesive government, since who's the leader is decided in a pretty clear-cut way that illiterate people can easily understand, even if it's "backwards." And "figurehead" is also the key; Kim Jong-Il's power was at best equal (and by most accounts less than) with the military top brass, and he was raised by them more than by his father. Kim Jong-Un is a blatant puppet of them; he might have purged those who weren't Kim loyalists, but it's them who govern more than he does.

I have serious problems with the North Korean regime, but I would defend it against imperialist aggression, and it being the technical equivalent of a constitutional monarchy is honestly pretty low (though present) on my list of issues with it.

General_Shchelokov wrote:
Honestly, I think that the most sectarian and dogmatic ones are those who "refuse" the achievements of Korean communists, paying attention to the appearance (i.e., to the language, to the aestethic style, to local traditions, etc.) of that country and not to the essence, to the socialist nature of its production relations, to the class character of the State, to the ideological achievements.

My respect for you just shot way, way up.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 23 Jul 2014, 13:39
So what you are saying to me is that a personal ditactorship doesnt exist, never existed, anywhere in the world ?

You are trying to take Marx approach to history and by castrating it, generate a reason for the concentration of power in Korea in the hands of a single man.

Of course this single man cannot hold power all by himself (he is not neither smarter nor stronger physically than some million people), but, the concentration of power in a single hand is the result of an specific political structure that Marx was against (Pls tell me where in marxist writings he did sugest Marxist countries to create father-to-son kind of royalty in the future marxist countries, you cant).

But, I will reproduce here the set of questions in typed in another DPRK thread (and they went unanswered) :

1 - Is marxism science ?
2 - Can science be teached ? (IE.: Can it be communicated ?)
3 - If it can be teached, can it be teached to the point where the teacher knows nothing more than the student ? (IE.: Can it be communicated in totality ?)
4 - If science can be teached to the point of being perfectly comprehended by others, can it happen that a group of persons share the same ideas (by being teached about the same science) ?
5 - If a group of people (potentially infinite - if there where infinite people willing to learn the science) learns and share the same concepts, can they be interchangeable ?
6 - If they are interchangeable, would it be more legit - as to avoid a personal ditactorship - to divide time in power between all those that are capable of governing ?
7 - If we can divide time in power between people, do we need to share it via death and sucession as a kind of royalty ?
8 - if we dont need a royal sucession system were power passes from father to son, can we choose people in the party (assuming that the party is more than willing to learn about marxism) to head the country ?
9 - If we can choose from inside the ranks of the party, can they be elected (by the party or by the people) ?
10 - If someone heads the power from the momment it reaches power to his death, and his son assumes afterwards, can we detect that this sucession system was choosen to avoid power struggles across the party ?
11 - If there are indeed power struggles across the party, can we assume that this is because the party is not interested in marxism, or that the party is not at all versed in marxism ?
12 - If the party is not interested in marxism, can be that they are facading being marxist, while all they want is power itself ?
13 - Can it happen that not all of the people in the party are power hungry but that power has corrupted the leadership of the party to the point where the risk of power going into the hands of someone wrong becomes so great that it must be the son to assume the power ?
14 - If the last question is true, how can we prevent the son being power hungry itself ?
15 - If the 13º question is not true, can it be that the party is not well versed in marxism enough that they would not be able to govern the country and the father decided to invest all his time teaching marxism to the son ?
16 - If the last question is true, do you really need a full life to teach marxism ? Is it that hard ? Maybe, its not science ?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 23 Jul 2014, 13:54
Quote:
Park Chung-hee's granddaughter is President of South Korea right now, for example, and she didn't even have to hold some post like Governor of Texas first.


Sorry MissStrangeLove, you cannot use South Korean politics to give credibility to personal ditactorships like North Korea.

Two wrongs dont make a right.

Democratic aberrations in the ocidental capitalist countries dont validate a self proclaimed "peoples democracy", neither are excuses for a self-proclaimed comunist country to do equal or worse.

Neither the excuse of the leader being a puppet of the military (as if sharing power with the military) is enough to justify the personal ditactorship.

Both the personal despot or the military top branch is too little.

One of the most profound and necessary freedoms of a socialist country is freedom from the comodity fetichism, and all those ditactorships wont solve that.

Emancipation of the masses means that the masses should be able to govern themselves. URSS had 70 years to reach this goal. They barely tried.

North Korea, with a personal ditactorship and a cult of persanlity built around the figure of the leader cannot attain class conscienciousness neither make the masses able to think and decide for themselves. Using Marx as an excuse for a personal ditactorship, is the worst thing i've ever heard.

When Marx says that the personal ditactorships of history are supported (directly and indirectly) by much more people (the ditactor powerbase plus the ignorant masses), he does this in order to show that people are way stronger than they think they are, not to support personal ditactorships like korea.

He is saying, in other worlds, that all personal ditactorships are suporter unknowingly by the masses, and that the masses have already a power and say in society, waiting to be harnessed by socialist knowledge.

A ditactorship, a personal one like Stalinist URSS, Kin Jong Il-ist Korea etc, will only work - intentionally or unintentionally - to avoid making the masses wake-up for their power and capability to rule themselves into socialism.

This is termidorianism, just like the french revolution went front an authentic and expontaneous revolution, to a bonapartist ditactorship.

This is similar to the bugueoise revolutions that inviting the power of the masses with chants of liberty, stoped dead cold when the borgeoise reached power (claiming that liberty was already achieved) instead of continuing all the way into emancipation and the realization of all enlightment ideals (because that would mean end of private property of the means of production).

All socialist revolutions based on a leading class that leads the proletariat into socialism failed all in the same spot, because a leading class of professional revolutionaries, even if not corrupting themselves, recreates the conditions for the masses to be lead astray by any bonapartist group that happens to reach power after the revolution. Bolchevism cannot fight the commodity fetishism (nor teach self-government) for the masses, because people dont usually learn from theory, but from examples. And being lead into revolution is itself an example of servitude, not of freedom and freely associated people.

"We dont want to liberate people, we want to allow people to liberate themselves."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 23 Jul 2014, 15:05
AldoBrasil wrote:
Sorry MissStrangeLove, you cannot use South Korean politics to give credibility to personal ditactorships like North Korea.

Two wrongs dont make a right.

No, but it shows a culture where family bonds are seen as more of a sign of stability than in the West. Even here we have political dynasties; the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Romneys. Korea has an even stronger emphasis on it, usually requiring less of members of those dynasties, whether it's Kim Jong-Un or Park Geun-hye. That doesn't make it a good thing, it's flagrant nepotism that goes beyond anything most of us would find understandable (say, beyond loaning a family member money you wouldn't some random stranger). But Kim and Park didn't come to power without tons of people vetting them. In Park's case she was chosen by her party's bureaucracy for a reason. Probably the stability of the party, and the decision was proven smart when she was elected to national leadership. In Kim's case he was chosen by his party's bureaucracy for a reason too. The stability and continuity of government in his state.

Quote:
Neither the excuse of the leader being a puppet of the military (as if sharing power with the military) is enough to justify the personal ditactorship.

What it shows is that the military and party bureaucracies are more powerful than the figurehead and can remove him if he goes against their wishes, just like Khrushchev was removed in the USSR. It'd be hard to argue that it isn't monarchical, but calling it a personal dictatorship is a different story. It's a bureaucratic (so, still proletarian) dictatorship.

Quote:
One of the most profound and necessary freedoms of a socialist country is freedom from the comodity fetichism, and all those ditactorships wont solve that.

What does centralized leadership, a political structure decided based on the circumstances a revolution takes place in, have to do with commodity fetishism?

And I'd say they're actually better off than the West on that since North Korea, like most socialist states, lacks much in the way of hard currency. This is actually something Western critics often attack them for, but it shows plenty of the things one would buy with that are simply provided.

Quote:
Emancipation of the masses means that the masses should be able to govern themselves. URSS had 70 years to reach this goal. They barely tried.

Bullshit, and either left-communist impossibilism or outright liberalism. They didn't "barely try" at all.
What were the soviets, if not the masses being able to govern themselves? A bureaucratic structure gradually did take their place and the soviets lessened in importance, but even then the masses weren't just randomly oppressed with no say in their state.

Quote:
North Korea, with a personal ditactorship and a cult of persanlity built around the figure of the leader cannot attain class conscienciousness neither make the masses able to think and decide for themselves.

The cult of personality around the Kims is a huge problem, and has held back progress everywhere it was tried. Whether it's Stalin's cult of Lenin, Mao/Hoxha's cult of himself, or the Kim family cult. But it doesn't mean people can't attain class consciousness.
As a state where workers own the means of production and fought long and hard for that, there obviously is some class consciousness, and saying otherwise is to defame those who died fighting for the workers' emancipation there. That's not to say there are no problems, and that the Kim family don't play a huge role in those problems, but what you're doing is essentially echoing Fox News-style propaganda and claiming the DPRK is a place where class consciousness outright doesn't exist because the people there are just so naive and dumb.

Quote:
When Marx says that the personal ditactorships of history are supported (directly and indirectly) by much more people (the ditactor powerbase plus the ignorant masses), he does this in order to show that people are way stronger than they think they are, not to support personal ditactorships like korea.

Or maybe they haven't risen up because they don't want to? Maybe they think rule by the current national bureaucracy with Kims symbolizing it is better than the alternative, chaos and a power vacuum South Korea and NATO could leap into, turning the country into a gigantic sweatshop?

Quote:
A ditactorship, a personal one like Stalinist URSS, Kin Jong Il-ist Korea etc, will only work - intentionally or unintentionally - to avoid making the masses wake-up for their power and capability to rule themselves into socialism.

Or, maybe the material and cultural conditions in those countries make a despotic rule an unfortunate necessity. The USSR was just coming out of Tsarism. South Korea was just as despotic, if not moreso (at least the masses all had participation in the North), before the late 80s.

Quote:
All socialist revolutions based on a leading class that leads the proletariat into socialism failed all in the same spot, because a leading class of professional revolutionaries, even if not corrupting themselves, recreates the conditions for the masses to be lead astray by any bonapartist group that happens to reach power after the revolution.

And yet every successful socialist revolution has been a vanguardist one, predicated on a class-conscious party raising awareness among the masses instead of just waiting until they all spontaneously decide to revolt just because. And those states have generally restored capitalism when vanguardism was rejected and the social democracy you seem to love was moved towards. Funny how that works. Meanwhile, non-vanguardist revolutions like anarchist ones have all failed, because they inherently involve a bunch of people doing their own thing with little in the way of coherent overarching strategy or any tactical unity.

Historically the centralization that went along with that has been a problem in my view, and has provided the infrastructure for capitalist roading and restoration down the line. But in the USSR's case it also has to be recognized that they faced a Civil War far more brutal than the actual Revolution, immediately after taking power. Given those circumstances, the centralization there was probably a necessity. It can even be said that in the DPRK's case, with South Korea on the border and the continual threat of foreign invasion throughout its history, some degree of centralization was necessary to preserve the gains of socialism. Revolution doesn't just happen in some already-perfect world or in a vacuum, there are real threats it faces and hard choices that have to be made to rise to those challenges.

Quote:
Bolchevism cannot fight the commodity fetishism (nor teach self-government) for the masses, because people dont usually learn from theory, but from examples.

And yet it did. What were the soviets if not self-government, and really the closest thing to direct democracy that's existed in ages? And of course people learn more from example, that's why Lenin's slogan was "peace, land, and bread." Tangible benefits everyone could understand and recognized as a step up, not academic ivory-tower talk.

EDIT: Also, essential goods were cheap in the Soviet Union, so saving was common. Luxury goods weren't anywhere near as subsidized, so that undermines your talk on commodity fetishism. Though I'd actually say some should have been subsidized more than they were, like Cuban cigars. Otherwise they're a great economic tool to undermine socialist states, since if your basic needs are all provided for, the only way you'll have people clamoring for a different system is if they seem to have so much that even things nobody needs are affordable.

Quote:
And being lead into revolution is itself an example of servitude, not of freedom and freely associated people.

Wow, you're really starting to sound like Robert Conquest or someone like that. The Bolsheviks attained freedom and freely-associated people. Early in the Soviet Union, these were the foremost political power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_%28council%29 To say that's servitude because it happened in a well-structured, strategically coherent revolution basically amounts to echoing a liberal capitalist line, whether born out of outright liberal attitudes (like I'm seeing) or impossibilism.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 23 Jul 2014, 16:15, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 23 Jul 2014, 15:24
Quote:
And yet it did. What were the soviets if not self-government, and really the closest thing to direct democracy that's existed in ages?


You make that remmark again and again. If you have a true power of the soviets, why do you need to be lead by Stalin and other bureucratic people ?

Simply, because "having a soviet" is not tantamount of trully having a soviet.

IE.: Joining a bunch of people in a room and telling "lets vote for comrad stalin", and then people repeatedly vote in what they are taught to... This is no soviet, this is a facade of soviet used to jutify stalinism.

You had the gosplan in soviet union, people told what they liked and wanted and the gosplan made the plans.

This is not the vigour of a people's assembly. You have a father figure in head and the soviet is just used to make his decisions more palatable.

In a true soviet state theres nothing besides the soviets itself. The soviet is trully supreme.

The objective of any and all socialist revolutions is to build that kind of power structure.

First by dennouncing the pseudo separation of government into economic sphere and political sphere, by letting the soviets rule the factories and other means of production. And later, having the soviet decide it all, via concentric rings of power.

Theres one element that links almost all ditactorships and similar concentration of power. The projection of father figure into ruling politicians.

Papa Stalin is the leader of a great family, as is Kin Jong Il.

The society is made out of families, each family joins another one in a concentric ring of authority. Theres where the likes of hitler, pol pot, king jong il derives their power.

We must break with this. Grown man have no parents. They are their own head (and the heads of their families and childs).

While people find opportunity to have someone else to think for them, there is no true soviet. At least not in spirit. Because people find it easier to not burden the risk of doing mistakes. They fear being collectibely the heads of the state, becuase that means an unbearable burden.

What i am talking about commodity fetichism ?

Because that another case were the power to decide is placed outside man.
Its the state that decides, its the market, the unknown natural forces, its the gods.
And men always finds a way to project the reasons for his own choices into external things. Totens.

No, the state should be the consequence of the soviets. The soviets choose the state that they will have. Because they already do. Because we cant avoid chosing. Even wen man deposites his confidence in a leader, believing that this father figure will solve everything for him - as long as he is obedient (and this can go so deep that man becomes able to kill other man for stupid things like : "he is jew") - even them, he is chosing, chosing to be lead nevertheless.

Man should be stuck by this lightning that is liberty. To awaken, and face the fear of solitude that responsability generates.

You are alone in the world when you dont have a father (either because he died objectively or because assuming an adult posture makes you have to face reality with your own choices).

Thus, Korea, Soviet Union, Cuba, whatever socialist state we had, never incited true freedom.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 11:33
Pioneer
Post 23 Jul 2014, 20:06
AldoBrasil wrote:
The soviets choose the state that they will have.
And what do you do in case the soviets decide the return of market elements and capitalism? You sit back and allow them their "rightful" liberty? We all know full well what the capitalists are capable of doing. From coup d' etats (Greece, Panama and many others) to staged "revolutions" (Prague, Timisoara, Egypt, Libya and so on). The reactionary elements of society do not automatically "die out" right after the revolution. The USSR experience taught us that they lurk and they conspire to overthrow the worker's state. If you allow your socialist country to become a libertarian merry-go-round, you will no sooner turn your back to a given soviet and you will be shot in the head by the lackeys of capitalism.

AldoBrasil wrote:
Man should be stuck by this lightning that is liberty.
And man should not be stricken by this lightning called liberalism.


AldoBrasil wrote:
never incited true freedom.
What's ultimaltely true "freedom" ? Freedom to express yourself? Freedom to own a large property if you are "hardworking" ? Freedom to own a store and capitalize on other people's work? Freedom is neither.
Freedom is not to worry about starvation and joblessness, freedom is thinking for the general good, freedom is working happily together towards a brighter socialist future.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 23 Jul 2014, 20:27
Quote:
And what do you do in case the soviets decide the return of market elements and capitalism?


You accept, simple as that. Or do you think you are a kind of god that has the right to impose your will above the masses ?

But, theres the possibility that they are not instructed enough. This means that all important pre-revolutionary work of instructing the masses was not done properly.

Quote:
What's ultimaltely true "freedom" ?


Freedom is a state where man recognizes himself as the author of his acts and the consequences of his acts.

I can show that your definition of freedom (being free from the worries of the material life) is just a decoy to justify stalinism, it can be transformed into "As long as the masses have material suport from the state, it doesnot matter if Stalin or any other person rules and the masses obey."

Freedom is work. But not all work is free.

Alienated work is not free, it is a source of slavery. Non-alienated work is free.

But how ?

When the proletariat discovers that when they work they reproduce the means of exploitation, that they are the producers of the reality that opress them, them the act and the consequences of the act are reconnected (i am trying to be succint), men recognizes himself as author of history, of the society, the state etc.

So, in capitalism, as men cannot recognize hilself as the total author of history, instead thinking that the big names of history are the authors (philosophers, writers, kings etc), so he looks at the jobless and dont know why there are always joblesness. He looks at the beggars, the famelics etc, and cannot recognize his own personal contribution to the existence of such categories, because he cannot reconect his work to the consequences of his work. He doesnt recognizes himself in the consequences of his acts. He is alienated.

In capitalism men think that to be free is to be able to do anything that he wants. He doesnt know that in doing so, there are unknown consequences. So he suffers back the consequences of his acts without understanding. The rich medic who doesnt care about the poor is robbed. He is shot, suffers. He doesnt want to suffer. He done what he wanted, he tought he was free. Yet, an unforeseen consequence comes up and forces him to do what he doesnt wants (suffer). Only by reconnecting back work and consequences we start to be free. But not only that, because man is limited in its choices by the options presented to him by the material reality, and the reality of other people. Science and work are the tools of liberty, as science allows us to choose correctly, and work allows us to change the reality to match what we want.

So, to be free, man need to want to be free, he must learn that he is not free at all, but that it is possible to set him free. We must inspire in them the desire to be free. We must show them what is holding them back. We must show how to overcome their limits.

We cannot adopt a paternal figure to the people leading them to socialism, because then they stop wanting responsability, the leader becomes itself a limit. We must show, tell, but they, the masses, the people, are the only ones capable of getting free, not only in knowlegde, but in the material reality.

Because once i say to the proletariat : Fight that guy. Fight that other guy. Ally with another one. Play, dance, produce. The proletariat keep looking to me to find someone able to tell then what to do. If they dont find me, they look to someone else who roses to be their leader, ad infinitum.

I might very well be honest, and lead them to somewhere safe. But i cant lead forever, i will die, get replaced. Who guarantees that the next leader will be honest ?

Did the people of Soviet Union fight back when Gorbachev started his capitalist turn ?

No, why ? Because they were doing what they were used to do. Look at the leaders, do what they want. Do not hesitate, do not ask questions. The great leader gave us food, shelter, jobs. He knows best...

No, people should be up to the task to decide, to argue, to vote in assemblies. Everyone should be able to lead sometimes, if not only to experience what it is to lead. Everyone should feel responsible, able to take choices, and risks (because science is never able to fully explain everything), and bear the consequences without pointing culprits. There are no culprits in history.
Last edited by AldoBrasil on 23 Jul 2014, 20:57, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 23 Jul 2014, 20:41
AldoBrasil wrote:
You accept, simple as that. Or do you think you are a kind of god that has the right to impose your will above the masses ?

So, old-fashioned Southern lynch mobs should be supported because they were the will of the masses. Cool beans.

Giving people what they want is important, sure, but not if it means sacrificing basic human dignity.

Quote:
Freedom is a state where man recognizes himself as the author of his acts and the consequences of his acts.

That's the world we have now. The problem with that philosophy: man isn't the author of his acts. Our actions, ultimately, come from a mix of our experiences and prior circumstances (and the biases from those), cultural biases, and genetic factors. We're all not only influenced, but shaped by the world around us. This is also the problem with "let's just do whatever the people want"-style vulgar populism; what they want is framed by the culture around them and might easily not be what benefits them. A redneck lynch mob is a perfect example.

What you're proposing is basically shallow liberal atomism, and not socialism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 23 Jul 2014, 21:08
Quote:
So, old-fashioned Southern lynch mobs should be supported because they were the will of the masses. Cool beans.

Giving people what they want is important, sure, but not if it means sacrificing basic human dignity.


Do you trully think that people want lynch mobs ? Do you trully think that a leader alone is able to stop a lynch mob ?

But, i will delve into your poor example, to show that what i say still holds water.

Whats wrong with lynch mobs ?

We can tell by comparing to the proper rule of law.

What are the differences ?

In the rule of the law people are allowed to defend themselves, or to have someone more knowledgeable to defend them.

Punishment is hold back until the person to be punished is allowed to be proved guilty beyond doubts.

But, why so ? Its a kind of elitism ?

Nope, its just plain simple KNOWLEDGE, SCIENCE.

How so ?

Simple. What happens if your brother, a love one etc, gets lynched while being innocent ? What happens to the lynch mob when they discover that they killed an innocent ?

So, knowledge of legal procedings evolve right to avoid that mistakes.

See what i have done ?

The lynch mob usually is not wrong in what they want to achieve (justice) but their ignorance of the means to achieve true justice makes them achieve the opposite (injustice).

Science comes back to rebalance and develop a way to allow them to get the truth most of the time.

When they act without knowledge of how to proceed legally, they achieve the opposite of what they wanted, so they get an unforeseen consequence.

We have an exception in the case of lynch mobs of the kind perpetrated by the likes of ku klux klan, but rest assured, they are a minority, or else slavery would not have stoped in the USA, and in the event that they are still majority, how do you think that a leader will stop their killings ?

Even them, i can still say that racism in the style of KKK is just another unforeseen consequence of the ignorance about science and about the root origins of slavery that are present exactly at the core of the economic relations estabilished by people and so is squarely one effect of the exact same thing that marx was talking about when he critizised capitalism.

So, i never said "do whatever the masses want". Because they already do, and the burgoise are already all set to exploit this.

Freedom, in my definition, is knowing the consequence of your acts, to be able to fully chose without being surprised by the consequences.

In other words, there is no freedom without a free material reality plus science, knowledge, spiritual freedom and development.

Both are pre-conditions for a free society and by consquence a free man.

Quote:
That's the world we have now.


Of course it is not. Or else, we would be living in a world were every worker knows that he receives less than he produces in commodity. Thats surely not true.

In our time, that exact specific relationship stabilished between proletariat and capitalism is the exact thing that generates all sorts of social problems and awnfull consequences. If men doesnt know this, then he cannot know the consequences of his acts (in that case, his work), so he cannot recognize himself as the author of history, so he cannot accept himself as responsible.

Poverty must be consequence of a bad government, of bad politicians, of gods, of astrology, of a curse, of sin etc, everything but the proletariat ignorance itself.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 23 Jul 2014, 21:25
Quote:
Do you trully think that people want lynch mobs ? Do you trully think that a leader alone is able to stop a lynch mob ?

Rednecks in the post-Reconstruction South sure did, and all hell broke loose when Reconstruction ended. Widespread lynching lasted from then until the federal enforcement of anti-lynching laws, and even then some persisted until the Civil Rights Act. Oppression was used to change the culture surrounding the system of slavery and restrain impulses born out of it. Kind of like a dictatorship of the proletariat and capitalism.

Quote:
Whats wrong with lynch mobs ?

Gee, I don't know...

Image


Maybe that has something to do with it. I explicitly referred to "Southern redneck lynch mobs," and you know it.

Quote:
So, knowledge of legal procedings evolve right to avoid that mistakes.

And those take a level of suppression to implement. The bourgeois revolutions that established those republican systems repressed the power and influence of feudal lords. They had the masses on their side, but their own vanguard parties who didn't just do whatever the vaguely-defined "masses" decided. In some cases that was for ill, the American bourgeois revolution halted at the Constitutional Convention, but in other cases that was for the best.

Quote:
We have an exception in the case of lynch mobs of the kind perpetrated by the likes of ku klux klan, but rest assured, they are a minority, or else slavery would not have stoped in the USA,

Slavery stopped in the USA only by force of arms. By Union troops marching in, slaves being freed, and the threat of slaveholders being classified as traitors (that last part not carried out). Not even most of the people who voted Republican in 1860 saw slavery as that pressing an issue, beyond its expansion outside of the South which would compete with their own farming. Lincoln himself took that same view, and he won in the Republican convention against radicals like William Seward who were abolitionist in a much broader sense.

The Confederacy itself feared white workers in the South rebelling too, so if it transpired that way it also would have ended only by force of arms.

Quote:
and in the event that they are still majority, how do you think that a leader will stop their killings ?

They're not a majority anymore, but my example was to show that the vaguely-defined "masses" (by which you seem to mean 50% + 1 of an area's population; and if you mean a bigger majority than that it's even sillier) should not always get their way. Because it may be predicated in biases that don't actually benefit them as people.

Quote:
Even them, i can still say that racism in the style of KKK is just another unforeseen consequence of the ignorance about science and about the root origins of slavery that are present exactly at the core of the economic relations estabilished by people and so is squarely one effect of the exact same thing that marx was talking about when he critizised capitalism.

Right. So, people can be ignorant and subject to elite biases that don't benefit them in the slightest. Even masses of people. So there does need to be a vanguard pushing for historical progress and human decency, who don't just go along with whatever 50% + 1 of the people say they want just because.

Quote:
So, i never said "do whatever the masses want". Because they already do, and the burgoise are already all set to exploit this.

Your anti-vanguardism explicitly implied it. Don't go back on what you argued, you explicitly said that a vanguard is a bad idea because it's going against what the masses want. "You accept, simple as that. Or do you think you are a kind of god that has the right to impose your will above the masses ?"

Quote:
Of course it is not. Or else, we would be living in a world were every worker knows that he receives less than he produces in commodity. Thats surely not true.

Yeah, I see you went back and dishonestly changed what you said after you posted it. Originally you just said that freedom is a world where man recognizes himself as responsible for his own decisions and the consequences thereof. That's individualistic atomism. It's the predominant worldview right now, under liberalism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 23 Jul 2014, 21:32
Quote:
Slavery stopped in the USA only by force of arms. By Union troops marching in, slaves being freed, and the threat of slaveholders being classified as traitors (that last part not carried out).


So can we assume that Abraham Lincoln did not have to do all work by himself, right ?

When we talk about savage state (and i believe that slavery is a kind of savagery) we can only talk in terms of power. Yet, a single man cannot have power to produce the results intended. He first needs to gather supporters.

See the point ?

"history" makes us think that the leader alone decided and produced the results. Yet, a single anti-slavery dude alone cannot produce anything tangible. The idea must reach something we call hegemony (at least in a certain geographical space and time) to set the masses moving and achieve a result.

But then we ask, why do we need abraham lincoln to tell the people that slavery is not good ?

Can the masses, all by themselves, provided that they are lead by the correct idea (science), produce the same result ?

Can a bunch of abolicionists (instead of the single one) produce the same result without having to resort to the leadership of a single dude - the father figure, to tell them what to do ?

We know that the single dude cannot produce the results. But can the masses that this single dude lead produce the result without needing the single dude ?

What happens when knowledge about the human condition is soo common, as to reach everyone, that everyone already knows what to do without needing anyone to tell them ?

Can we call that communism ?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 23 Jul 2014, 21:38
AldoBrasil wrote:
So can we assume that Abraham Lincoln did not have to do all work by himself, right ?

No, but a vanguard party started the trend and pushed it forward enough that it was federal agenda. Nobody's talking about a "single man" except you. I've seen those arguing against you mention bureaucracies, vanguards, never a "single man" because none of us are monarchists and even they have advisers.

It's just a colossal strawman to beat down states you don't like. Which happen to be the states that have actually pushed towards socialism. It's kind of hilarious and just shows how useless left-communism is. But though it's kind of a bitchy thing to say, I'm honestly not convinced it's not straight-up liberalism in this case.

Quote:
"history" makes us think that the leader alone decided and produced the results. Yet, a single anti-slavery dude alone cannot produce anything tangible. The idea must reach something we call hegemony (at least in a certain geographical space and time) to set the masses moving and achieve a result.

And ideas don't move on their own. They need promoters, and instigators. That's what a vanguard party is for, and they "set the masses moving and achieve a result."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 23 Jul 2014, 22:00
But what did happen then, that the vanguard party was unable to set the ideas in motion so as to produce the effect of emancipating the proletariat, not only materially, but intelectually ?

Because, if they did manage that result, we must believe that marxism was wrong, because during the fall of URSS people did not opose it, at least not strongly enough to avoid the fall.

The people who done a revolution in 1917, where material and intelectual conditions where not good, could surely have done it again in 1991, provided that they wanted, and knew what they wanted. Provided that the power trully rested into the soviet hands...

You can argue that the russian army in 1991 was too strong to be oposed, yet, the very same army, who tried to depose Gorbachov and stop the fall, suddenly (by listening to their leaders) stoped, retreated and accepted the fall. Did the correct ideas not reach the military bases ? Did not the soviet soldiers know about marxism ? How come, did the military have not their political attachés ? Where the soviet columns not supposed to count on the intellectual services of the military political advisors (The correct name escapes me) ?

Or maybe they simple did what they were used to do, listen to the leader regardless of what, even in the great danger of the fall of socialism (for them, their world) ?

Or maybe they knew what was at stakes there, yet, did not feel that socialism was worth saving, and if that is true, why ?

I see a lot of stalinists and trotskysts tell that URSS fell from top to bottom. But what are those conditions that allows a soviet socialist state to fall from top to bottom ? Maybe that was because the soviets could not decide a dimme ? Maybe that was because the proletariat wasnt trully emancipated to know what was better for them ?

I catch the bolcheviques right here. Because when they use the excuse of "it was from top to bottom, people really liked socialism, but the wrong leadership made the wrong choices" they dennounce themselves. They implicitly say that the URSS was a country where everything was decided from top to bottom. Or else, if the say that the country was trully sovietic, them i must believe that the soviets themselves decided for the fall of socialism (as if, having experienced true socialism, they decided it was not worth it, in that case we can give up being socialists right now). We cannot have both.

So i accept the explanation that it was trully a top to bottom affair, and conclude from that that URSS never fully reached socialism, and that the root cause for this is that the group of professional revolutionaries was replaced by a bunch of greed and power hungry nomenklaturas, who never intended to emancipate the proletariat intellectually, and that this only happened because the idea of professional revolutionaries carry in itself the seeds of its own destruction, because it cannot overcome the contradiction between emancipation of the proletariat and its leadership.

Its a paradox. You need a strong leadership to guide the proletariat to socialism, yet, that very same leadership can be the cause of downfall. Why ?

See how bolchevism is useless ?

See why we need a strong and conscious proletariat instead of a strong party ?

See why the party must be a temporary element, suposed to die as soon as conscienciousness is teached to people, and people itself can carry on the job of deciding where to go ?

See why the party, the group of professional revolutionaries can be, if seeped in by the wrong elements, itself the major weak point of socialism ?

How can you kill a beast that has 1000 heads ?

How can you stop an emancipated people from achieving its own goals ?

Incomplete class conscienciousness can be reverted (and it was partially reverted in URSS).

But complete class conscienciousness cannot. If intelectual development reachs a certain critical mass, people itself will carry on reproducing it, in a similar vein as how the concept of morals are carried on by people today, from father to son, mother to child etc.

Touché !
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 24 Jul 2014, 02:09
Quote:
Dictators" are only the concrete incarnation of class forces, and not an indipendent historical factor.


Bonapartism? Also, even Marx called people dictators, like Napoleon III.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 11:33
Pioneer
Post 24 Jul 2014, 08:43
AldoBrasil wrote:
You accept, simple as that. Or do you think you are a kind of god that has the right to impose your will above the masses ?
You accept the reactionary forces???My right-wing-liberalism sensors have gone crazy. The vast majority of the working classes think with their stomach. In the first years following the revolution, it is almost certain that some will prefer the market to our equal salaries. Shall we respect their will and give up power, betraying the working class and our historic role?
AldoBrasil wrote:
I can show that your definition of freedom (being free from the worries of the material life) is just a decoy to justify stalinism
Stalinism doesn't need justification. All the achievements of the soviet people during the Stalin era speak for themselves. Unless one is a corrupted libertarian or CIA agent, of course.

AldoBrasil wrote:
Who guarantees that the next leader will be honest ?
That might be a problem. Collective leadership could be a solution.

AldoBrasil wrote:
Did the people of Soviet Union fight back when Gorbachev started his capitalist turn ?
Oh yes they did.

AldoBrasil wrote:
No, people should be up to the task to decide, to argue, to vote in assemblies. Everyone should be able to lead sometimes, if not only to experience what it is to lead. Everyone should feel responsible, able to take choices, and risks (because science is never able to fully explain everything), and bear the consequences without pointing culprits. There are no culprits in history.
Agreed. But many, many years after the revolution. Only when the previous generation was not even born during the revolution.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.