Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
And now a little bit about the history of modern communism. None of what follows should be construed as me advocating communism, since I don't think it's practical with humans as we are (as plutarck pointed out).
Marx proposed that socialism, being the next step to communism, could be achieved by the revolution effecting the dictatorship of the proletariat -- the proletariat class would get to control the bourgeois, the intelligentsia, and the peasantry. Democracy would exist within the proletariat, and this situation would be only a short temporary step to socialism. An important feature of marxist theory is that socialist revolution could only occur in a highly industrialized states, where proletariat constitutes majority of population.
In comes Lenin. He introduced two major changes to marxism.
First of all, he posited that the pre-existing prevalence of proletariat is unnecessary, that a socialist revolution could occur in a largely agricultural country (which Russia was, at the time). This is of course at odds with Marx on a fundamental level, because the very feature that defined proletariat and gave it its power -- the separation from the means of production -- was not a factor for the peasants and farmers. In retrospect, this amendment of lenin's seem like an ad-hoc BS to say that revolution is possible in Russia, a largely pre-industrial country.
The second change was more insiduous, and was IMO what led to the horrors of Soviet tyranny. Lenin posited that the socialist revolution should be led and controlled by an elite cadre of professional revolutionaries, the Communist Party -- he didn't think that the revolution could be more-or-less spontaneous, as Marx predicted, nor did he think that a revolutionary state should be truly democratic; he saw the people as sheep who needed to be guided by the said elite. Of course, in making such a claim, Lenin set the groundwork for the oligarchy that followed.
Now historically, the second claim was very interesting. In Russia in 1917, there were two revolutions -- the February and the October revolution. the former led to emplacement of a transitional democratic government under Kerensky that had an agenda that we would call social-democract today -- the same as it practiced in many European democracies; among other things, that government explicitly called itself transitional, and their main goal was to stage a country-wide democratic elections. that revolution was supported by the majority of the Communist party, the so-called "mensheviks". That word actually means "minority" -- in a very orwellian case of re-writing the history, Soviet historians claimed that the majority of the communists, the ones who were for social-democrat agenda, were actually the minority.
The rest of the communist party, the so-called "bolsheviks" (which means "majority", even though they weren't), led by Lenin, weren't happy with that state of affairs -- they knew that the mensheviks and Social-Revolutionaries (SR, another important radical party at the time) and other social-democrat types would win the election, they knew that bolsheviks lacked the popular support. Since they were led by Lenin, they were also guided by his ideology -- and due to that, due to Lenin's explicit programme of elite cadre controlling the sheeple, they were able to seize control of the key military units stationed in Saint-Petersburg, and then stage what amounted to a military coup.
Bolsheviks were easily able to suppress the mensheviks, since the latter were much less organized, and weren't really interested in controlling the people, not even "for their own good", as bolsheviks were. It's this very organization and ideology of bolsheviks that still allows their descendants to exercise such disproportionate control over the leftist rallies and gatherings.
At the time, there were other communist theorists, most prominent of them being Trotsky, who opposed Lenin in a variety of ways. Trotsky, exiled in USSR, became very influential among the western socialists and communists. He advocated what was very similar to modern anarcho-socialism -- that is, a socialism combined with minimum of tyranny and maximum of self-governance, the "socialism from below".
OK, let's get back. So now you see that there's a significant difference between Marx and Lenin, and between Lenin and Trotsky and other communist theorists. However, most western communists are Trotskists and not Leninsts!
So, when you make statements about how communism is evil and dead and everything, the first question you have to ask is -- who will be identified as "communist" for the purpose of applying the above opinions? And the answer is clear -- pretty much anyone with the name "socialist" or "communist" attached to them, as well as various other leftist radicals, feminists, pinko commies, and other frequent visitors in JK's wet nightmares. It's easy to forget, especially for those who willingly blind themselves, that most of those thusly classified would reject Leninism outright, and be as horrified as you are by the perversion that USSR was.
Now one can argue that Leninism was the only practical way to implement socialism. However, even if true, such an argument would at most amount to saying that various "pinko commies" are impractical and irrational, rather than that they are evil for supporting what USSR stood for (because they don't).
aerocontrols,
The problem with your 'popular definition' is that, first of all, it's not that popular; and more importantly, that it's exclusive -- that it reduced socialism and communist to Soviet ideology. What i am saying is that while you can argue that USSR practiced a version of socialism, you cannot argue that any socialist or communist is necessarily endorses Soviet ideology. My point is that there are plenty of socialists and communists who didn't, and to say "they are neither socialists nor communists" would be simply stupid.
Marx proposed that socialism, being the next step to communism, could be achieved by the revolution effecting the dictatorship of the proletariat -- the proletariat class would get to control the bourgeois, the intelligentsia, and the peasantry. Democracy would exist within the proletariat, and this situation would be only a short temporary step to socialism. An important feature of marxist theory is that socialist revolution could only occur in a highly industrialized states, where proletariat constitutes majority of population.
In comes Lenin. He introduced two major changes to marxism.
First of all, he posited that the pre-existing prevalence of proletariat is unnecessary, that a socialist revolution could occur in a largely agricultural country (which Russia was, at the time). This is of course at odds with Marx on a fundamental level, because the very feature that defined proletariat and gave it its power -- the separation from the means of production -- was not a factor for the peasants and farmers. In retrospect, this amendment of lenin's seem like an ad-hoc BS to say that revolution is possible in Russia, a largely pre-industrial country.
The second change was more insiduous, and was IMO what led to the horrors of Soviet tyranny. Lenin posited that the socialist revolution should be led and controlled by an elite cadre of professional revolutionaries, the Communist Party -- he didn't think that the revolution could be more-or-less spontaneous, as Marx predicted, nor did he think that a revolutionary state should be truly democratic; he saw the people as sheep who needed to be guided by the said elite. Of course, in making such a claim, Lenin set the groundwork for the oligarchy that followed.
Now historically, the second claim was very interesting. In Russia in 1917, there were two revolutions -- the February and the October revolution. the former led to emplacement of a transitional democratic government under Kerensky that had an agenda that we would call social-democract today -- the same as it practiced in many European democracies; among other things, that government explicitly called itself transitional, and their main goal was to stage a country-wide democratic elections. that revolution was supported by the majority of the Communist party, the so-called "mensheviks". That word actually means "minority" -- in a very orwellian case of re-writing the history, Soviet historians claimed that the majority of the communists, the ones who were for social-democrat agenda, were actually the minority.
The rest of the communist party, the so-called "bolsheviks" (which means "majority", even though they weren't), led by Lenin, weren't happy with that state of affairs -- they knew that the mensheviks and Social-Revolutionaries (SR, another important radical party at the time) and other social-democrat types would win the election, they knew that bolsheviks lacked the popular support. Since they were led by Lenin, they were also guided by his ideology -- and due to that, due to Lenin's explicit programme of elite cadre controlling the sheeple, they were able to seize control of the key military units stationed in Saint-Petersburg, and then stage what amounted to a military coup.
Bolsheviks were easily able to suppress the mensheviks, since the latter were much less organized, and weren't really interested in controlling the people, not even "for their own good", as bolsheviks were. It's this very organization and ideology of bolsheviks that still allows their descendants to exercise such disproportionate control over the leftist rallies and gatherings.
At the time, there were other communist theorists, most prominent of them being Trotsky, who opposed Lenin in a variety of ways. Trotsky, exiled in USSR, became very influential among the western socialists and communists. He advocated what was very similar to modern anarcho-socialism -- that is, a socialism combined with minimum of tyranny and maximum of self-governance, the "socialism from below".
OK, let's get back. So now you see that there's a significant difference between Marx and Lenin, and between Lenin and Trotsky and other communist theorists. However, most western communists are Trotskists and not Leninsts!
So, when you make statements about how communism is evil and dead and everything, the first question you have to ask is -- who will be identified as "communist" for the purpose of applying the above opinions? And the answer is clear -- pretty much anyone with the name "socialist" or "communist" attached to them, as well as various other leftist radicals, feminists, pinko commies, and other frequent visitors in JK's wet nightmares. It's easy to forget, especially for those who willingly blind themselves, that most of those thusly classified would reject Leninism outright, and be as horrified as you are by the perversion that USSR was.
Now one can argue that Leninism was the only practical way to implement socialism. However, even if true, such an argument would at most amount to saying that various "pinko commies" are impractical and irrational, rather than that they are evil for supporting what USSR stood for (because they don't).
aerocontrols,
The problem with your 'popular definition' is that, first of all, it's not that popular; and more importantly, that it's exclusive -- that it reduced socialism and communist to Soviet ideology. What i am saying is that while you can argue that USSR practiced a version of socialism, you cannot argue that any socialist or communist is necessarily endorses Soviet ideology. My point is that there are plenty of socialists and communists who didn't, and to say "they are neither socialists nor communists" would be simply stupid.
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Kodiak
'Democracy' is regarded to include 'republic' both by majority of population, and by political scientists. It's only a small stupid minority who screech "republic is not a democracy" these days -- minority like you, who jump at the chance to feel smug about knowing something, without actually bothering to know it.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
Victor Danilchenko said:
Well, it seems we still disagree...at least I have the advantage of ethical discourse.
Victor Danilchenko said:
Then why are "Islam" and "Communist" specialized terms, but not "Democracy", which is to mean the term created (your own requirement, as evidenced above) by the city-states of ancient Greece to mean direct governmental representation?
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
Victor Danilchenko said:
You are the one who is arguing what socialists and communists are not, not I.
aerocontrols
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Kodiak
In short, Kodiak, nobody who matters (neither general population nor political scientists) use "democracy" the way you used it. And it was your stupid ignorant smugness that ticked me off, not the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about.
There is no authoritative definition for "islam", and thus the popular definition is the only one that matters. There is authoritative definition of communism, as set forth by Marx and accepted by political scientists, and -- guess what? -- known and recognized as being distinct from socialism by many, many non-specialist people, especially outside USA, and including the communists themsevles.
A veneer of tact makes up for ignorance, I suppose.
because since then, the people who use the term the most -- political scientists -- changed its meaning to include representative democracy. "Communism", however, still means to political scientists what it meant to Marx a century and a half ago. For that matter, there are plenty of people (non-PoliSci) around the world who recognize "communism' to be distinct from socialism and from USSR totalitarianism.
In short, Kodiak, nobody who matters (neither general population nor political scientists) use "democracy" the way you used it. And it was your stupid ignorant smugness that ticked me off, not the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about.
There is no authoritative definition for "islam", and thus the popular definition is the only one that matters. There is authoritative definition of communism, as set forth by Marx and accepted by political scientists, and -- guess what? -- known and recognized as being distinct from socialism by many, many non-specialist people, especially outside USA, and including the communists themsevles.
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,512
Kodiak said:
Does anyone know where I can buy 'The Victor Danilchenko Lexicon' ?
Send me $50 right away. I promise to talk very slowly to you upon receipt.
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,512
Kodiak said:
Yes. With respect to your ability to comprehend English, the measured quantity of speech sounds ought be slowed.
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,512
Kodiak said:
What did you expect? You have to pay me the $50 first.
Communal size
An interesting take on the maximum size of communes is discussed in "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. He talks to an Amish leader, and a US business leader who agree that dividing the operation when it reaches 150 people increases "corporate" health. Below that size you can know everyone, much above that you are a victim of the exponential growth of lines of communication. You can 'know of' your fellows but not know them.
As well the limit on age of religious communes is much longer than 70 years, some of the Hutterite colonies in Europe, e.g.
While I am citing, my favourite authour, His Excellency (the consort of our Governor General) John Ralston Saul in his "The Doubter's Companion: A Dictionary of Agressive Common Sense" gives this for
CAPITALISM A concept which has moved beyond the stage of sensible discussion.
Capitalism can be a useful social tool or a weapon of unabashed human exploitation. Which it will be depends entirely on the way it is regulated. ...Capitalism is happiest in a non-democratic society. Not that any old dictatorship will do.... Capitalism was reasonably content under Hitler, happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco and delirious under Pinochet.
Moving back to the topic Saul gives this for
MARXIST The only serious functioning Marxists left in the West are the senior management of large, usually transnational corporations. The only serious Marxist thinkers are NEO-CONSERVATIVES (q.v).
Marxism is primarily an analysis of how society works - or rather, how it must work. This dialectic is based on the struggle of the classes and the battle of the unregulated marketplace in which the strongest wins. It is a market-place which cannot be tempered, according to Marx. It must and will run free and so function as a battleground between those who have power and those who don't. The market-place will seek to maximize profits even if this is to the disadvantage of most. Profits and power are the truth of the economic struggle and economic determinism will decide the social structure.
Most functioning Marxists had stopped believing this sort of stuff by the end of the Second World War. They had come around to the ideology of stable bureaucratic management. In that they resembled the technocrats of Western governmental and corporate bureaucracies.
But these Western corporate managers and their academic acolytes were in fact thrown into a state of confusion by the colllapse of 1929. It seemed as if the pure capitalist analysis, of which they were the official inheritors, had failed. An unrestricted market-place had led not to ongoing growth and prosperity, but to total economic collapse. The ideology of a natural and general equiliibrium produced by competition had been given its chance and had self-destructed for all to see and suffer the consequences.
A good thirty-five years passed before the corporate leaders were able to erase from their own memory and from that of the pulic this failure. They then rediscovered with a virginal ideologic enthusiasm the virtues of the unregulated market.
This time they were supported by an intellectually sophisticated explanation for the dialectic provided by a group of economists at the CHICAGO SCHOOL (q.v.). They were able to dispense with the idea that public institutions could achieve social stability, protect the weak or encourage a wider distribution of wealth. Their new argument would have made Marx proud. It was not that they did not wish to help the weak or promote fairness. It was the natural rules of the market-place - the dialectic - which made the class struggle inevitable.
The only disagreement between the Neo-conservatives and Marx is over who wins the battle in the end. This is a small detail. Far more important is their agreement that society must function as a wide-open struggle.
Some people are suprised that Marxism should have re-emerged on the Right. However, ideas, once launched, become public property. And they often reappear in several disguises before discovering their true form.
My apologies for quoting at such length, but he gets me laughing and I can't stop. Is there some kind of 12-step for this?
An interesting take on the maximum size of communes is discussed in "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. He talks to an Amish leader, and a US business leader who agree that dividing the operation when it reaches 150 people increases "corporate" health. Below that size you can know everyone, much above that you are a victim of the exponential growth of lines of communication. You can 'know of' your fellows but not know them.
As well the limit on age of religious communes is much longer than 70 years, some of the Hutterite colonies in Europe, e.g.
While I am citing, my favourite authour, His Excellency (the consort of our Governor General) John Ralston Saul in his "The Doubter's Companion: A Dictionary of Agressive Common Sense" gives this for
CAPITALISM A concept which has moved beyond the stage of sensible discussion.
Capitalism can be a useful social tool or a weapon of unabashed human exploitation. Which it will be depends entirely on the way it is regulated. ...Capitalism is happiest in a non-democratic society. Not that any old dictatorship will do.... Capitalism was reasonably content under Hitler, happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco and delirious under Pinochet.
Moving back to the topic Saul gives this for
MARXIST The only serious functioning Marxists left in the West are the senior management of large, usually transnational corporations. The only serious Marxist thinkers are NEO-CONSERVATIVES (q.v).
Marxism is primarily an analysis of how society works - or rather, how it must work. This dialectic is based on the struggle of the classes and the battle of the unregulated marketplace in which the strongest wins. It is a market-place which cannot be tempered, according to Marx. It must and will run free and so function as a battleground between those who have power and those who don't. The market-place will seek to maximize profits even if this is to the disadvantage of most. Profits and power are the truth of the economic struggle and economic determinism will decide the social structure.
Most functioning Marxists had stopped believing this sort of stuff by the end of the Second World War. They had come around to the ideology of stable bureaucratic management. In that they resembled the technocrats of Western governmental and corporate bureaucracies.
But these Western corporate managers and their academic acolytes were in fact thrown into a state of confusion by the colllapse of 1929. It seemed as if the pure capitalist analysis, of which they were the official inheritors, had failed. An unrestricted market-place had led not to ongoing growth and prosperity, but to total economic collapse. The ideology of a natural and general equiliibrium produced by competition had been given its chance and had self-destructed for all to see and suffer the consequences.
A good thirty-five years passed before the corporate leaders were able to erase from their own memory and from that of the pulic this failure. They then rediscovered with a virginal ideologic enthusiasm the virtues of the unregulated market.
This time they were supported by an intellectually sophisticated explanation for the dialectic provided by a group of economists at the CHICAGO SCHOOL (q.v.). They were able to dispense with the idea that public institutions could achieve social stability, protect the weak or encourage a wider distribution of wealth. Their new argument would have made Marx proud. It was not that they did not wish to help the weak or promote fairness. It was the natural rules of the market-place - the dialectic - which made the class struggle inevitable.
The only disagreement between the Neo-conservatives and Marx is over who wins the battle in the end. This is a small detail. Far more important is their agreement that society must function as a wide-open struggle.
Some people are suprised that Marxism should have re-emerged on the Right. However, ideas, once launched, become public property. And they often reappear in several disguises before discovering their true form.
My apologies for quoting at such length, but he gets me laughing and I can't stop. Is there some kind of 12-step for this?
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Well Vic,..et al
I guess I asked for it and am now getting it with both barrels. Because of my ignorance of the political philosophies of Lenin, Marx, Trotsky and Engels and the differences thereof I (as well as others here) am being derided as a "mild example of the know-it-all American" amongst other attempts to paint me as a moron.
Well guys,..I'm not the swiftest horse to ever trot around the intellectual race track,...but I'm no moron. I may be unschooled in political theory, but I do know how to tell if something is working or not. Communism/Socialism in all it's permutations and varieties has been found inferior to capitalism everywhere in the world it has been tried.
Vic has done a wonderful job of informing us what communism is not. At least he appears to not be trying to defend it. But I must say Vic,...your tone of condescension when speaking to me and others here who do not share your extensive knowledge of the subject is troubling. If an idiot wanders outside, looks up, and proclaims that the sun is up...that doesn't necessarily mean it's dark out. I think you need to work on your people skills a little man.
-zilla
BTW: Thanks for the info Vic...I will continue to lurk and learn. You've taught me some good stuff Vic...but it's not really helping me to understand the current state of communist/socialist involvement in the worldwide peace movement. I know that's not what I asked for in this thread...but if you've read some threads I've participated in earlier you'd know that that debate is what prompted the creation of this thread. Thanks.
I guess I asked for it and am now getting it with both barrels. Because of my ignorance of the political philosophies of Lenin, Marx, Trotsky and Engels and the differences thereof I (as well as others here) am being derided as a "mild example of the know-it-all American" amongst other attempts to paint me as a moron.
Well guys,..I'm not the swiftest horse to ever trot around the intellectual race track,...but I'm no moron. I may be unschooled in political theory, but I do know how to tell if something is working or not. Communism/Socialism in all it's permutations and varieties has been found inferior to capitalism everywhere in the world it has been tried.
Vic has done a wonderful job of informing us what communism is not. At least he appears to not be trying to defend it. But I must say Vic,...your tone of condescension when speaking to me and others here who do not share your extensive knowledge of the subject is troubling. If an idiot wanders outside, looks up, and proclaims that the sun is up...that doesn't necessarily mean it's dark out. I think you need to work on your people skills a little man.
-zilla
BTW: Thanks for the info Vic...I will continue to lurk and learn. You've taught me some good stuff Vic...but it's not really helping me to understand the current state of communist/socialist involvement in the worldwide peace movement. I know that's not what I asked for in this thread...but if you've read some threads I've participated in earlier you'd know that that debate is what prompted the creation of this thread. Thanks.
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
rikzilla
As I said, what yu said is, in a certain sense, true; but because you know next to nothing abut the subject, you are asking wrong questions and making fundamentally wrong presumptions. Hopefully you know better after this thread.
No, that's not why. it's not your ignorance, it's the fact that you came across as being both ignorant and arrogant -- not only did you have no clue, but you were proud about it and staunchly refusing the said clues when they were offered. You stuck by "I know what I see, and I don't need none of dat dere fancy school learnin'" line, come hell or high water, and this is why you got it with both barrels. The same BTW holds for Kodiak, except that he seems to be far more obstinate than you.
That is true, in a limited sense (socialism is alive and well as a "mix-in" in many modern democracies). However, that's not the point. The point is that you came and made a statement that could be true, in a limited sense (communism is dead) -- but you didn't make it in such a limited sense, because you simply didn't know enough to do so. When you went on to insist that communism is evil, you started getting it twice as hard.
As I said, what yu said is, in a certain sense, true; but because you know next to nothing abut the subject, you are asking wrong questions and making fundamentally wrong presumptions. Hopefully you know better after this thread.
Oh please, spare me the "wounded innocence" act. My tone of condescension was not because you were ignorant (everyone is ignorant of many things, it's not a sin) but because you were ignorant and arrogant about it. That arrogance became much more clear as the thread wore on.
I have a super-genuis IQ, I don't need no steenkin' people skills!
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
Victor Danilchenko said:rikzilla
No, that's not why. it's not your ignorance, it's the fact that you came across as being both ignorant and arrogant -- not only did you have no clue, but you were proud about it and staunchly refusing the said clues when they were offered. You stuck by "I know what I see, and I don't need none of dat dere fancy school learnin'" line, come hell or high water, and this is why you got it with both barrels. The same BTW holds for Kodiak, except that he seems to be far more obstinate than you.
That is true, in a limited sense (socialism is alive and well as a "mix-in" in many modern democracies). However, that's not the point. The point is that you came and made a statement that could be true, in a limited sense (communism is dead) -- but you didn't make it in such a limited sense, because you simply didn't know enough to do so. When you went on to insist that communism is evil, you started getting it twice as hard.
As I said, what yu said is, in a certain sense, true; but because you know next to nothing abut the subject, you are asking wrong questions and making fundamentally wrong presumptions. Hopefully you know better after this thread.
Oh please, spare me the "wounded innocence" act. My tone of condescension was not because you were ignorant (everyone is ignorant of many things, it's not a sin) but because you were ignorant and arrogant about it. That arrogance became much more clear as the thread wore on.
I have a super-genuis IQ, I don't need no steenkin' people skills!
A super-genius who can't spell "genius" and hasn't learned how to avoid double posting...
Guest
Unregistered
G
5-minute irony break.
Victor Danilchenko
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
Kodiak
Can't type when not concentrating. I am slightly dyslexic, I can't keep letter order straight. I thought everyone'd picked it up by now.
the irony is positively overwhelming.and hasn't learned how to avoid double posting...