Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread
- Thread starter Araysar
- Start date
- Status
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
I don't think that's exactly the endgame of communism.
An Anarchist FAQ - B.3 Why are anarchists against private property? | Infoshop.org
Agraza
Registered Hutt
- 6,890
- 521
They aren't Marxist. They're Leninist. They were ushered in by the vanguard party, a concept that Lenin made reality. They then decided to be gigantic douchebags to a lot of "the people" that made up their state. Lenin's efforts were roundly criticized by the german marxists that got the ball rolling. There hasn't been a Marxist state.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
I don't see how violent revolution is in direct opposition to the spirit of Marxism when Dumar has readily admitted, and in fact if you read the Manifesto, Marx called for, violent revolution.
The very last line of the Manifesto is an open call for violent revolt by Marx and Engels.
Violence in the name of Revolution, and thereby violence in the name of preserving the Revolution once it has overthrown the status quo, are, in fact, demonstrably in line with Marx's world views.
The very last line of the Manifesto is an open call for violent revolt by Marx and Engels.
Dumar has flat out admitted as much as well.
Violence in the name of Revolution, and thereby violence in the name of preserving the Revolution once it has overthrown the status quo, are, in fact, demonstrably in line with Marx's world views.
Agraza
Registered Hutt
- 6,890
- 521
The difference isn't the suggestion of violence, but that a tiny group should force the communist state on the masses. Marx wanted a general uprising from the working poor. Lenin didn't think that could ever actually happen and advocated for the vanguard party. After the revolution Lenin then used the vanguard party to rule as a new class far above the workers.
So trollface, riddle me this. I've had the thought before that I could never be embarrassed by an asian person. Like if an asian person caught me doing something silly I just wouldn't give a shit. Is that because I don't see them as people? I think it might be. What's your opinion?
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
as the world become more microscopic in scale (i.e. international trade, centralization of production and consumer goods for maximum efficiency), you might see workers with immense leverage.
You might.
You might.
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 9,138
- 32,063
Honestly, I really don't give that much of a shit either way. It was an amusing distraction for a few days, but my brain is better left thinking about meta populations, reduction in biodiversity, and ecological impacts caused by human perturbations.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Agraza
Registered Hutt
- 6,890
- 521
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
Right, so as long as all the poor are tearing the rich limb from limb, its moral. But when only a small group of the poor are doing it, in the hopes of getting all the rest to go along, its immoral.
Its a silly argument. Either violence is wrong, or its not. If its not, then why are Dumar and Mikhail refusing to accept that every revolution's devolution into an orgy of blood shed is an implicit outcome of the equation of Revolution?
I've demonstrably shown through quotes from people like Trotsky that Lenin spent much of his time reading Marx. The exact quote was "No one was a better student of Marx's teachings" or something to that effect. I've demonstrably shown that the violence in China began as a result of Mao attempting land reforms, which are an implicity and necessary step in the revolution, even Dumar has admitted as such that land will have to be taken from those who ostensibly own it now in order for the revolution to be successful. I've shown that Marx claimed that violence is an implicit result of the Revolution.
Yet the argument being made is that once a revolution has been successful, and everything starts falling apart, and people like Mao and Lenin and Stalin start using violence to repress counter revolution, that that isn't also EXPLICITLY allowed by Marxist theory? Marx wants a successful revolution, right? So if the Revolution happens, but then 5 years in the nation is in shambles and the peasants are revolting, Marx wouldn't repress them?
Here's what I propose: Had Marx ever actually had any power, had he led a revolution and been in the same position Mao, Lenin, etc. were, his reactions would have been exactly the same when the wheels on the Revolution bus started going flat.
Anyone have ANY evidence that Marx wouldn't? The guy openly stated violence was acceptable as part of the revolution.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
That's nice but Marxists.org actually directly cites reams of Lenin and Mao speeches and quotes as "Marxist theory".
Marxists have spent enormous amounts of energy finding logical loopholes, as you can see reading this thread, to justify that Lenin wasn't really following Marx's teaching or Mao wasn't really following Marx's teachings, most of it boils down to them claiming that the absence of perfectly adapting Marxist theory 100% to every situation that they encountered, then they can't actually be Marxists.
First of all, it is impossible to enact ANY philosophy literally 100% perfectly. Buddhist monks accidentally step on bugs when they walk down the street, for instance, despite their desire to respect life. The fact that a Buddhist stepped on an ant and crushed it does not mean he isn't a Buddhist.
A Christian can't live up to Christ's teachings 100% all the time, yet they're still Christians.
A capitalist can't be 100% profit motivated all the time, by this argument if a capitalist gives a poor person a penny, then he must not be a capitalist any more either.
No. If you look like a duck, quack like a duck, then you're a duck. You may be a magpie duck instead of a pekin duck, but you're still a duck.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,673
- 18,384
I'm prone to agree but it seems like Agraza is just making the same argument that Dumar and Mikhail did and that's frustrating and irritating because it has been pretty well totally and completely refuted from every angle possible. I mean I showed slaughter under Mao started because of land reforms which are a necessity to the uprising, because as Dumar said, ownership must be abolished, and you can't abolish land ownership without land reform. So that pretty well demonstrates unconditionally through basic logic patterns like A -> B B-> C therefore A->C that Mao was in fact acting under the premises of Marxist theory when he was committing his mass slaughters.
We've shown and Dumar has admitted that violence is implicit in the revolution and was in fact called for by Marx who was, in Dumar's words "A man of action not words" (hilarious because Marx literally sat on his ass writing opinion editorials for Communist rags while Mikhail Bakunin, the real Mikhail Bakunin, was far more of the "Man in the streets, man of action" type).
I mean really we've shown that Dumar's assertions that Khalid's father's farm will be stripped from him, and the decision whether his walnut trees will get to stay will be given over to a community decision, stripping all rights away from the land owner and allowing others to farm and till his soil sure sounds like land redistribution to me, but Dumar insists it isn't.
Too much rhetoric. Too much silly semantics games. Really that's what their arguments boil down to. Playing with definitions and trying to employ etymylogical fallacies to assert that Marxism can ONLY be a perfect 100% interpretation of Marx's theories or its not "Really Communism" is disingenuous and dishonest baloneyism and I just almost can't help myself from replying.
- Status