How Relevant is Marx Today?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

Russian revolution is a great example, until the murderous Bolsheviks hijacked it and declared a one party state, workers had taken over factories, people were electing representatives and running their own workplace, [/quote]

Brutal murders, rapes and robberies committed by completely demoralized masses. Cool example.

Some questions.

A. People who oppose the transition to anarchism. What would happen to them? What about members of “working class”, who would support the government?

B. Do you really think all people would be happy to turn anarchists? What about people who support someone who states:
“The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal”

“Today we can establish Sharia law because our nation will acquire well-being only with Islam and Sharia. The Muslim Brothers and the Freedom and Justice Party will be the conductors of these goals”

Quotes by a candidate in presidential elections in Egypt.

Would his supporters follow “the good of working class” or would they rather follow Koran?
If they chose Koran, wouldn’t they declare jihad on “perverted atheists from the West”?

What would happen if some regions turned anarchist while the other ones opposed it?

C. Let’s say the entire Earth turned anarchist. Cool. However people would soon start organizing again. New divisions would form. New classes would be created. There would be black market with some kinds of currency. What would you do about it? There are 2 possibilities. You could either accept it, and soon there would be no anarchism at all, or you could try to control it. If you decided to control, you could succeed at doing so. Or fail.
Success would require means leading to Soviet Union v. 2.0. Or something even worse.

D. Can murders be justified at all? If so, when and why? Murders, not killing someone in self-defense or executions of most brutal criminals.
Can rapes be justified?
Can robbery be justified?

E. Why should masses rule?
Individual can be brave or a coward. He can be intelligent or stupid. He may be aware of conspiracies going on or very naive. Masses can’t. They can be manipulated easily. They’re easy to control. They will run when individuals they’re consisting of would stand up. They behave much more stupid than those individuals.

[quote] SexMachine wrote
McCarthy has been vindicated by history. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet archives confirmed that there were Soviet agents and provocateurs at the highest levels of government, throughout academia and within the leadership of many of the trade unions. Furthermore, CPUSA was always an instrument of Soviet subversion as were the plethora of umbrella groups associated with the new left.
[/quote]
This.

122

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…McCarthy has been vindicated by history…”

I’m curious, SM; how are you defining “vindicated”?

Mufasa[/quote]

Well, he may have been right in principle.

He was still an idiot when it came to the means he used but his diagnosis has been somewhat vindicated.

123

“CPUSA was always an instrument of Soviet subversion”

Oh, the horror! Who would have guessed?

124

[quote]C. Let’s say the entire Earth turned anarchist. Cool. However people would soon start organizing again. New divisions would form. New classes would be created. There would be black market with some kinds of currency. What would you do about it? There are 2 possibilities. You could either accept it, and soon there would be no anarchism at all, or you could try to control it. If you decided to control, you could succeed at doing so. Or fail.
Success would require means leading to Soviet Union v. 2.0. Or something even worse. [/quote]

You forgot “Or something even better.” Or not. Or maybe.

But seriously, I don’t know what the relevance of your post was. You made 4 points, but I didn’t see what any of them had to do with anything. And point “C” was surprisingly noncommittal.

There’s aspects of anarchist thought that I like, however I don’t see it jiving well with reality. So far it’s not proved to be sustainable when exposed to all the external factors of the real world.

125

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

like when people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization, or like when people dropped their fuedal society for capitalist society, no that never happens, next lol.[/quote]

Uh, no - those are not empirical examples of people adopting communism - those are empirical examples of people changing how they order societies, but not changing into communism.

You said you only drew conclusions off of evidence - well, there is no evidence that Humans have ever adopted communism…so why would you conclude that they would without evidence of it?

126

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

like when people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization, or like when people dropped their fuedal society for capitalist society, no that never happens, next lol.[/quote]

When “people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization” they abandoned a stateless and classless society for a hierarchical one.

So, by your logic, one could argue that anarchism has already been “dropped”… millenia ago.

127

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

like when people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization, or like when people dropped their fuedal society for capitalist society, no that never happens, next lol.[/quote]

When “people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization” they abandoned a stateless and classless society for a hierarchical one.

So, by your logic, one could argue that anarchism has already been “dropped”… millenia ago.
[/quote]

Ah, but that assumes a static human nature that has abandoned something.

What you do not realize is that some time in his re-education camp would make you a new man, so to speak and then you would embrace “real” communism with open arms.

Or be shot.

Potatoes, pothatoes…

128

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

like when people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization, or like when people dropped their fuedal society for capitalist society, no that never happens, next lol.[/quote]

When “people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization” they abandoned a stateless and classless society for a hierarchical one.

So, by your logic, one could argue that anarchism has already been “dropped”… millenia ago.
[/quote]

Ah, but that assumes a static human nature that has abandoned something.

What you do not realize is that some time in his re-education camp would make you a new man, so to speak and then you would embrace “real” communism with open arms.

Or be shot.

Potatoes, pothatoes…[/quote]

You mean stoned, right?

It’s not like there’d be anyone around to make guns or ammo.

129

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

like when people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization, or like when people dropped their fuedal society for capitalist society, no that never happens, next lol.[/quote]

When “people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization” they abandoned a stateless and classless society for a hierarchical one.

So, by your logic, one could argue that anarchism has already been “dropped”… millenia ago.
[/quote]

Ah, but that assumes a static human nature that has abandoned something.

What you do not realize is that some time in his re-education camp would make you a new man, so to speak and then you would embrace “real” communism with open arms.

Or be shot.

Potatoes, pothatoes…[/quote]

Nope.
He is not a communist. But an anarchist. Probably an anarcho-communist.
These guys see anarchism as a long term goal that can only be achieved in a post-scarcity context.
In the meantime, they only advocates things like syndicalism or communalism (ala Murray Bookchin), when they do not align themselves with liberals.
So, no “re-education camp” in their program. Only wishful thinking.

Actually, they are usually the firsts to die in the re-education camps, and, for some reason, they are quite proud of this fact.

130

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…McCarthy has been vindicated by history…”

I’m curious, SM; how are you defining “vindicated”?

Mufasa[/quote]

Vindicated in the sense that his claims of Communist infilitration were true. McCarthy was and is portrayed by his detractors as delusional. Whereas Soviet archives reveal that journalists, academics, trade unionists and government officials were under direct orders from Moscow. And his so called ‘black list’ of Hollywood was in actuality private individuals choosing not to employ people after their Communist ties/sympathies had been revealed.

131

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

like when people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization, or like when people dropped their fuedal society for capitalist society, no that never happens, next lol.[/quote]

Uh, no - those are not empirical examples of people adopting communism - those are empirical examples of people changing how they order societies, but not changing into communism.

You said you only drew conclusions off of evidence - well, there is no evidence that Humans have ever adopted communism…so why would you conclude that they would without evidence of it?[/quote]

I never said they were reread his post and my reply, I was saying people do drop their way of living for a new system, as we saw when people adopted civilization, when they dropped feudal society and social relations for capitalist ones.

132

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

like when people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization, or like when people dropped their fuedal society for capitalist society, no that never happens, next lol.[/quote]

When “people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization” they abandoned a stateless and classless society for a hierarchical one.

So, by your logic, one could argue that anarchism has already been “dropped”… millenia ago.
[/quote]

THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS

133

Help me out a little here, guys…

It SEEMS that the disagreements about Anarchy appear to be the Theoretical vs. the Actual/Practical?

In other words; all social contructs look “good on paper”; but the everyday, practical application can run head-on with the way people act in reality, not theory. (e.g. quest for control, power, dominion; selfishness; disregard for the “group”, etc.).

Am I off here? (I’m just trying to understand the arguments).

Mufasa

134

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

I never said they were reread his post and my reply, I was saying people do drop their way of living for a new system, as we saw when people adopted civilization, when they dropped feudal society and social relations for capitalist ones.[/quote]

You said you only base conclusions on evidence. You’ve concluded that Humans are going to wind up in an anarcho-communistic lovefest. But you have no evidence to base that on; Humans have never chosen that kind of society before.

So, quote obviously, you are basing this conclusion on something other than evidence. So, what are you basing it on?

135

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]BonnotGang wrote:

like when people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization, or like when people dropped their fuedal society for capitalist society, no that never happens, next lol.[/quote]

When “people abandoned nomadic lives for civilization” they abandoned a stateless and classless society for a hierarchical one.

So, by your logic, one could argue that anarchism has already been “dropped”… millenia ago.
[/quote]THESIS/ANTITHESIS/SYNTHESIS[/quote]Hegel would have owned neither this formulation of his thought (though I myself erroneously attributed it to him for years) nor your formulation of an anarchist society.

136

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Help me out a little here, guys…

It SEEMS that the disagreements about Anarchy appear to be the Theoretical vs. the Actual/Practical?

In other words; all social contructs look “good on paper”; but the everyday, practical application can run head-on with the way people act in reality, not theory. (e.g. quest for control, power, dominion; selfishness; disregard for the “group”, etc.).

Am I off here? (I’m just trying to understand the arguments).

Mufasa[/quote]

That’s how I understand it. But I could be wrong too.

137

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Help me out a little here, guys…

It SEEMS that the disagreements about Anarchy appear to be the Theoretical vs. the Actual/Practical?

In other words; all social contructs look “good on paper”; but the everyday, practical application can run head-on with the way people act in reality, not theory. (e.g. quest for control, power, dominion; selfishness; disregard for the “group”, etc.).[/quote]

There’s certainly part of that, but I think it goes further in the sense that not all social constructs even look “good on paper” - and Anarchy is one of them. In that sense, it’s bad on theory and bad in practice.

But, your main point is right, generally - where there is a disconnect between what theory provides and what actually happens in the real world, even if the theory looks good, it’s a bit a wasted effort to consider it.

Of course, theory may lead us to better ideas about how to accomplish things in the real world, so it’s not like theory is useless or bad - but theories based on unfounded (and wholly incorrect) assumptions about how humans behave/will behave aren’t going to do that.

138

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There’s certainly part of that, but I think it goes further in the sense that not all social constructs even look “good on paper” - and Anarchy is one of them. In that sense, it’s bad on theory and bad in practice.[/quote]

Why do you say it’s bad in theory?

139

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Why do you say it’s bad in theory?[/quote]

A stateless society would be a terrible place to live.

140

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Why do you say it’s bad in theory?[/quote]

A stateless society would be a terrible place to live.[/quote]

In theory, or reality? And why? I mean, besides the raping, plundering and murdering.