For Zergling
Ablack_ratE
Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 4759Members
Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 4759Members
put marxism on the american political spectrum. its pretty narrow so marxism does fall on the fringes. now ill tell you what i know about anarchism and marxism first through personal encounters. my junior year english teacher was a member of the progessive labor party and pretty cool guy but he was anal and uptight about everything. anyway the imf/world bank were meeting in d.c. and my teach was willing to give me and another friend a ride. it was a pretty boring day with alot boring speeches, boring socialists hockin their boring party papers, and boring marches blocks away from the meeting. and then i saw em. the black bloc. busting through a barricade. tough as ****. i fell in love <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> later we ended up goin to a discussion group at a party members house. what happened next is something ill never forget. me and my friend were laughed at for having never read marx and trotsky. i was freaking 16! well me and my friend agreed that this was a waste of time and we left feeling a bit angry. ive never read marx and i dont think i will anytime soon. i can do without the "holy class struggle acording to st karl." at the same time i was gettin into punk and i stumbled upon anarchism. while i never considered myself an anarchist(i still dont but it does influence my own personal idealogy more than anything else) i did enjoy the company of anarchists more. nobody made fun of me for never reading bakunin. all the anarchists i know hang out with each other regardless of idealogy while youll have socialists and communists sticking to their little sects. now as far as idealogogy goes heres what i know. im more into anarchos-syndicalism myself. i can go but its almost 7 am and i just played axis and allies the board game for almost 7 hours ealrier tonight and my brain is fried. i guess were both red zergling but the one thing i really hate about marxists is they cant take a freaking
joke <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> !
edit: man thats long and full of crap
joke <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> !
edit: man thats long and full of crap
Comments
I'm sorry to hear that your introduction to communism came through a PL'er. They are a notoriously backwards organization which often resorted to violence against their political opponents back in the 70's. They are Stalinists (of some variety), meaning they gave political support to the bureaucratically degenerated workers state that was the USSR. Sometime after Stalin they began to call it state capitalist, and have a similar line on North Korea today (no longer defending it of course). They call Trotsky a counter-revolutionary, (!) and consider all Trotskyites pacifists, citing the SWP's reformist slogans from the Vietnam anti-war movement.
I don't think it’s worth the time to say anything else about the PLP, except that these things should mean more to you when you continue (or begin) your studies.
Your concerns about fossil fuels are quite common amongst the anarch-oid and anti-globalization milieu. This is a concern that I share, but I don’t draw the same conclusions about bringing civilization back to the dark ages because we are too knuckleheaded to industrialize safely. To counter this position, I can only say that science under capitalism is fundamentally motivated by profit. This means no hydrogen powered automobiles (not even very many hybrids L), no research in renewable energy, no cure for the AIDS virus, no unbiased research into global climate problems, etc. The possibility for development under socialism, however, cannot be underestimated. This is because the profit motive is eliminated, and social production is planned according to the greatest needs of the people.
Proudhon, the founder of anarchism, and Marx lived during the same time, and were both members of the International Workingman’s Association (1st International). Marx’s major work focused against Proudhon was <a href='http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/index.htm' target='_blank'>The Poverty of Philosophy</a>. It is rather difficult and lengthy and I wouldn’t recommend it to you quite yet, but it is there J. A more realistic reading is Lenin’s outline on the subject <a href='http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>.
As for the failures and problems of Marxism.... Many mistakes have been made, and there is much to learn from them but I don’t think that I have the authority or the expertise to speak on the subject. As for Marxism in the 21st century, again, I’m not really one to speak on this topic either. One thing I will say is that the major disorienting factor in today’s labor movement is the experiences in the USSR. The fact is that there was a real proletarian revolution in 1917, proving the worth of Marx’s scientific socialism. How the revolution came into being, and the historical course of the worker’s state is of the utmost importance to anyone who wants to make a revolution today. The “Russian question” is traditionally the question of whether to defend the workers state or not, and has been distorted by all kinds of opportunists, reformists, centrists, and of course the class enemies as well. Trotsky’s position was that is must be unconditionally defended militarily, while calling for political revolution to oust the parasitic bureaucratic apparatus that was slowly corroding the state from the inside.
I have to go somewhere in about 15 minutes, so I can’t really write any more right now, but I am quite unsatisfied with this post. If you were a die-hard anarchist is would have been a lot easier to write, but you have expressed this to not be true. Rudolf Rocker wrote a book on anarcho-syndicalism that is quite good and can give you an overview on what you think you believe in. As a last word, the situation in the current and coming period is defined well by Trotsky in, The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International. It is also known as the <a href='http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938-tp/transprogram.pdf' target='_blank'>Transitional Program</a>, and is qualitatively similar to the communist manifesto. I am looking forward to hearing your comments.
As for Longtooth's post:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Humans can't accept perfect communism, it isn't in our nature. We are a greedy, violent, blood thirsty group of animals. Machines or maybe genetically engineered humans could pull of[f] communism, but not normal humans. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Humans have differentiated themselves from animals in one fundamental way. While animals are under the sway of their natural environment, man has the capability to modify his environment in pursuit of his needs. This is the foundation of sociology. The consciousness of man is directly related to his relationship to his surroundings; being determines consciousness. This means that there is no such thing as “human nature”, it is constantly changing and will continue to change. The only thing that is definite is man’s longing to fulfill his needs. Plekhanov writes in The Materialist Conception of History,
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The methods by which social man satisfies his needs, and to a large extent these needs themselves, are determined by the nature of the implements with which he subjugates nature in one degree or another; in other words, they are determined by the state of his productive forces. Every considerable change in the state of these forces is reflected in man’s social relations, and, therefore, in his economic relations, as part of these social relations. The idealists of all species and varieties held that economic relations were functions of human nature; the dialectical materialists hold that these relations are functions of the social productive forces.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here is a passage from the same work that talks about the development of the state in class society:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, man makes history in striving to satisfy his needs. These needs, of course, are originally imposed by nature; but they are later considerably modified quantitatively and qualitatively by the character of the artificial environment. The productive forces at man’s disposal determine all his social relations. First of all, the state of the productive forces determines the relations in which men stand towards each other in the social process of production, that is, their economic relations. These relations naturally give rise to definite interests, which are expressed in Law. ”Every system of law protects a definite interest,” Labriola says. The development of productive forces divides society into classes, whose interests are not only different, but in many — and, moreover, essential — aspects are diametrically antagonistic. This antagonism of interests gives rise to conflicts, to a struggle among the social classes. The struggle results in the replacement of the tribal organisation by the state organisation, the purpose of which is to protect the dominant interests. Lastly, social relations, determined by the given state of productive forces, give rise to common morality, the morality, that is, that guides people in their common, everyday life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think youre absolutely right, and I am ashamed of it.
on another note, my sister is watching a drag queen competition on ricky lake.
The swimsuit part is on now.
yikes.
Sometimes I am ashamed of my culture. (American)
Only one point, Zergling, you wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your concerns about fossil fuels are quite common amongst the anarch-oid and anti-globalization milieu. This is a concern that I share, but I don’t draw the same conclusions about bringing civilization back to the dark ages because we are too knuckleheaded to industrialize safely.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being an anarchistic influenced democrat with strong sympathies towards globalization-critizising organizations, I kinda feel insulted by this.
The 'Back to Nature' - slogan was abandonded a fair three decades ago, because honestly, a) there was never a time when humanity (or any other kind of animal) did not harm the rest of nature after its best abilities, we've just gotten extremely good at it, and b) the biggest part of mankinds history consits of the desparate attempt of getting <i>away</i> from nature, and that for a reason.
Nobody in his right mind questions that industrialization is an irreversible process.
Big parts of 'my' movements call - just like you - for scientific solutions to envorinmental problems, and thus make the same accusations to corporate research (I'm conciously not using the term 'capitalistic') you have.
Okay, but by not calling corporations the private property of the bourgeiosie, that is 'capital', then you are obscuring the issue. It is not the class interests of the bourgeiosie to stop polluting, stop imperialist policies in the 3rd world, fund research for the good of mankind, etc. These demands can never be met within the socio-economic framework of the world we live in. It contradicts everything that has been discovered about capitalism. That is why we need a worldwide socialist revolution to sweep the exploiting scum off the planet. Anarchism (and it's variants) cannot provide this, its program and methods are counterposed to the needs of the international proletariat.
BTW: I plan to major in environmental science. It is a very important issue <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Good luck <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay, but by not calling corporations the private property of the bourgeiosie, that is 'capital', then you are obscuring the issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I feel you'll give up on me in a few words, but whoever said I acknowledged the existence of a class that fits the marxistic definition of the bourgeiosie? The main argument I have against Marx' theory is that the polarisation of society into proletarians and bourgeioses never took place - the vast 'middle class' which doesn't fit either description, is a direct prove against it.
Because of this, I can't equal the bourgeiosie with 'the capital'.
If we have a class of omnipotent owners today, it's not a demographic group, it's not even a body of people in the classical sense - instead, it's a group of soley juristical persons; the 'megacorps', the General Electrics, Daimler-Chryslers, and Microsofts.
I agree with you in so far that these 'persons' can and will only use science for their own benefit and rather plunge us back into the Dark Ages than harm those, but I do not believe that the old thesis of profit as the only aim of capitalism (or even only of its most advanced spawns, the mentioned elite of corps) can sufficiently describe the situation.
If you have read Naomi Kleins 'No Logo', you'll know what I'm talking about - branding.
Nowadays, corps will not only hinder any kind of development that could endanger their sales, they will also fight any kind of research that could harm their 'abstract aims', the most important one being costumer trust, which is tried to be achieved by giving your enterprise a sympathetic and attracting 'image' by coating it in a certain brand.
This may once have served the purpose of increasing profits by getting more costumers, today, it aims directely on the same thing increased profits aimed on in the first place: Power by direct or indirect influence on society.
I do not believe that profit is necessarily the direct aim of capitalism - I don't even believe that a controlled capitalism has to hinder the development of its society; a good example for this is the 'social enterprise' that was introduced in the Germany of the 50's as counter-model to the 'free enterprise' of the US.
An unhindered capitalism that allows its elite to take direct and omnipresent influence, however, <i>will</i> harm its society, and right now, we see just such a kind of capitalism forming on a global scale.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This polarization has in fact taken place, and your assertion about the middle classes does not disprove this in any sense; a class is defined by its relationship to the means of production. So where the bourgeiosie owns the means of production, the proletariat owns only its ability to work. The existence of the middle classes has never been denied or distorted in any sense by Marxism. The petty-bourgeiosie (middle classes) is a heterogeneous class, intermediate between the bougeiosie and the proletariat. Some examples: small shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants, small farmers, merchants, college students. The existence of the middle classes has been threatened by the monopolization of capital. The fact that they still exist, is what you believe to be evidence that Marxism is incorrect.
If you accept that globalization is not a new phenomenon, and that we have had a global economy for a long time, you will notice that the bourgeiosie is heavily concentrated in certain areas of the globe. (United States, Europe, Japan) Through the export of capital, they have industrialized the world, and expanded their own influence. The middle classes are highly concentrated in the imperialist nations of the world, and have all but disappeared in the neo-colonial nations.
A few other points:
The bourgeiosie have long since been any use to society. With the creation of joint-stock companies, they no longer even administer their own buisnesses, they hire executives to do this for them. The corporation did not take the place of the bourgeiosie, which i believe you were hinting at.
Profit is the decisive factor in capitalist production. Profits are the surplus values that are extracted from wage-labor. If capitalists don't make a profit, they shut down production, its that simple <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> .
The way we react to it. These people want to be different. OK. I'm cool with that. We shouldn't stand in amazement at it, though.
Also, they were being paraded as a freakshow. What a lame way to get ratings, Ricky Lake. I have no respect fo talk shows.