the soviet union replacing god with the state
Offline ok, i see this argument on here a lot: "the soviet union (or sometimes communism in general) isn't/wasn't truly atheistic because it set up the state in god's place."
as an avid reader of soviet, chinese, cuban, czechoslovak, and yugoslav revolutionary history, as well as marxist literature, and someone who has expatriated to the former eastern bloc, i don't agree with this argument for several reasons. first and most important is that "communism" is not a uniform thing, nor does the term even denote what most people think it denotes. i won't go into that here, as i posted a short essay on the subject on the unofficial FAQ blog, for anyone who's interested.
second reason, communism and the soviet union ARE atheistic, in the true sense of the word (the greeks didn't lump ideals in general into the term "theos"
. atheism wasn't the cornerstone of the soviet union: marxist economics, filtered through lenin and later stalin, were. if atheists are to apologize for the gulag archipelago, theists are to apologize for japanese internment camps, slavery, and labor exploitation...but i wouldn't want them to because it would be absurd to blame those acts solely on theism, just as it would be absurd to blame the gulag or the great leap forward solely on atheism.
third reason, "state worship" is neither marxist, nor marxist-leninist. in fact, marx, engels, and lenin all wrote about the "withering away" of the state, a topic i also touch on in my essay. it is incorrect, therefore, to say that communism as an ideology replaces god with the state. the goal of communism is for the state to disappear.
fourth reason, it is also incorrect to say this about the soviet union or even china as nations, or rather it is exaggerated. it is true that both stalin and mao cultivated obscene personality cults, but the cult of personality is an idea utterly foreign to marxism. on the other hand, both russia and china are countries where, historically, the cult of personality has almost always existed in some form. i recall reading in "the russian journal" where steinbeck comments on the portraits of stalin everywhere, even in private homes. a peasant shrugs and says, basically, that they had always had an icon: before it was the tsar, now it was stalin. it had always been a part of their culture.
but allow me to address "state worship" again. that's a very vague concept. does it mean exaggerated patriotism or what? it is good to remember that in times of war, even the cold war, patriotism usually becomes exaggerated in any society, so this cannot be said to be a communist innovation. is a true atheist not committed to any cause? and while it's true that in a communist society the people theoretically should be able to rely on "the state," whether it be an autocracy or a collective, to fulfill the needs of production, education, healthcare, and so on, this is hardly an irrational faith. the people of the soviet union, the eastern bloc, china, etc., in general wanted this kind of society and they believed they were working toward it. one of the reasons socialism collapsed in many countries is becaused the people didn't see the material results they expected, not because they had some crisis of faith in "the state."
marxism, as outlined by marx himself and engels, does not make irrational or metaphysical claims. marx based his diagnosis and prognosis of society on hard numbers and economic data, which is why he can be so goddamn dry. while his theories, or rather varying interpretations of them, often became dogmatized later, one can hardly chalk this up to theistic tendencies but rather a strong party in power wanting to hold its positions and making all of marx's, engels', lenin's, and stalin's words seem like irrevocable proclamations. would a true atheist state, whatever one's vision of it, have no power politics? i highly doubt it.
in conclusion, i think it does the atheist world a disservice to try to pass the soviet buck to the theist camp. the excesses of stalinism and maoism have nothing to do with theism or atheism at all, and one should rather call a theist on his ignorance for trying fallaciously to link these excesses directly to atheism. atheism as an ideology has no reason to hide from the soviet union. for one thing, it's not atheism's child...ok, maybe a niece or nephew. for another thing, it's nothing to be ashamed of to begin with. most of the theists who fall back on this argument have no knowledge of the soviet union or china or cambodia at all. terrible things happened in all these places, just like in every other place, but many russians, czechs, slovaks, poles, ukrainians, and yugoslavs i've met are proud of their history and the society they built under unbelievably adverse circumstances. they certainly acknowledge it wasn't perfect, and fucking american chauvinists could learn something from that.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline iwbiek,
I was attempting to poke fun of 2 fictional polar opposite ideologues and to echo your sentiment that extremists are seen in a wide array of ideologies. We all harbor to a certain degree tribal instincts which in certain individuals translates into extremism in political views. What keeps extremists at bay is a representative liberal democracy which protects individual rights along with economic stability. I personally feel that anyone ought to have the freedom to express support of any political system they choose. I feel that even the extremists can have their day in the sun acknowledging that their views will be shot down in a liberal democracy. I think both of us agree on this.
I personally don't dislike Marxism and as an individual who upholds personal and civil liberties, I'd like to have the pleasure of reading about Marxism. My main criticism of Marxism or any social/political movement whose aim is a fair society is identity politics which to me seemed more relevant in the past when a specific group (ie. class, gender, race, etc) was either an oppressor or the oppressed. It is the collective essentialist descriptions of a group in the 21st century that I find irrational. For example, one can say that the working class today is exploited. Yet a worker for Google makes $174,000 (and that's more money than this member of the bourgeosie will ever make) whereas the worker for Starbucks makes a low five figure income. Here's another one. All African Americans are victims of white supremacy. And this would definitely be true before civil rights. Yet if a Hutu from Rwanda whose family committed genocide becomes an American citizen then he and his children are African Americans. Is that individual whose family committed crimes against humanity now suddenly oppressed by white supremacy? Here's another. All women are victims of patricarchy. That statement fall's on deaf ears to the man who pick's up Oprah Winfrey or Martha Stewart's garbage.
I think Marx wanted fairness for the individual at a time when the working class collectively was oppressed. Thus, at that time an individual was rightfully defined by the group he belonged to. A good example is Michel Rudoy's pro-Marxist story, Germinal or some of Orwell's works. Yet today, it is irrational to equate a janitor with a Google employee. In this day and age, each individual has different goals, desires and each has a different definition of what makes him/her happy regardless of which class they belong to. Thus, identity politics makes no sense in a liberal democracy. I am highly doubtful that the Google worker is unhappy.
Any political system's ultimate aim is individual happiness right?
- Login to post comments
Offline iwbiek,
I was attempting to poke fun of 2 fictional polar opposite ideologues and to echo your sentiment that extremists are seen in a wide array of ideologies. We all harbor to a certain degree tribal instincts which in certain individuals translates into extremism in political views. What keeps extremists at bay is a representative liberal democracy which protects individual rights along with economic stability. I personally feel that anyone ought to have the freedom to express support of any political system they choose. I feel that even the extremists can have their day in the sun acknowledging that their views will be shot down in a liberal democracy. I think both of us agree on this.
I personally don't dislike Marxism and as an individual who upholds personal and civil liberties, I'd like to have the pleasure of reading about Marxism. My main criticism of Marxism or any social/political movement whose aim is a fair society is identity politics which to me seemed more relevant in the past when a specific group (ie. class, gender, race, etc) was either an oppressor or the oppressed. It is the collective essentialist descriptions of a group in the 21st century that I find irrational. For example, one can say that the working class today is exploited. Yet a worker for Google makes $174,000 (and that's more money than this member of the bourgeosie will ever make) whereas the worker for Starbucks makes a low five figure income. Here's another one. All African Americans are victims of white supremacy. And this would definitely be true before civil rights. Yet if a Hutu from Rwanda whose family committed genocide becomes an American citizen then he and his children are African Americans. Is that individual whose family committed crimes against humanity now suddenly oppressed by white supremacy? Here's another. All women are victims of patricarchy. That statement fall's on deaf ears to the man who pick's up Oprah Winfrey or Martha Stewart's garbage.
I think Marx wanted fairness for the individual at a time when the working class collectively was oppressed. Thus, at that time an individual was rightfully defined by the group he belonged to. A good example is Michel Rudoy's pro-Marxist story, Germinal or some of Orwell's works. Yet today, it is irrational to equate a janitor with a Google employee. In this day and age, each individual has different goals, desires and each has a different definition of what makes him/her happy regardless of which class they belong to. Thus, identity politics makes no sense in a liberal democracy. I am highly doubtful that the Google worker is unhappy.
Any political system's ultimate aim is individual happiness right?
i agree with a lot of what you say here. the reason i am a marxist is not because i would like to see the october revolution repeat itself (though, as a trotskyist, i definitely do not rule out violent revolution). i agree with the october revolution as a historical event. i do not think the soviet union was a "bad" thing in and of itself; if anything, it was just terribly mismanaged. however, the historical circumstances of russia in 1917 or germany or england in the 19th century are not the circumstances of today. in that you are very correct and any marxist who does not accept that is not worth talking to.
the reason i am a marxist is because marx didn't make judgements based on historical circumstances (though he did cite circumstances as symptoms), but rather on universal economic laws put in place by the capitalist system itself. as i think i stated before, marxism doesn't view capitalism as some evil aberration in mankind's history: indeed, it views it as a necessary stage, and in that sense "good." but marxists believe it has outlived its benefits and is now something like a cancer or a rotten fruit that will only continue to decay.
the information age does present peculiar dilemmas to marxists, it's true. however, i don't think marx would lump a google worker and a starbucks worker together. he definitely wouldn't class a google worker as proletarian, but probably as petty bourgeois. just because you're an employee doesn't mean you're a proletarian.
mao was the first marxist to really take the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to an international level, even going so far as to class entire nations as "bourgeois" or "proletariat." mao wasn't always the most precise ideologist and i wouldn't necessarily paint in such broad strokes as he, but still, i think this development of marxism remains one of the most relevant today. take the average salary of all the world's workers--and let's even be very inclusive and take workers as meaning anybody who isn't an entrepeneur, be they with google, starbucks, or chiquita--and where would it fall on the spectrum? i'm willing to bet far below even a starbucks wage. living in america, it's easy to see worker oppression as a thing of the past. if you think the majority of workers in the third world (which is the overwhelming majority of the world's population, after all) will find subsistance and satisfaction in laissez-faire capitalism, fair enough. or even if you think "tough titty, that's life," fair enough too. but to say the problem doesn't exist is just naive. we no longer live in a world of isolationist nations. with globalism, be it neo-liberal or otherwise, comes global consequences and global responsibility. the USA, as we are seeing so brutally now, can no longer rely on its own high standard of living to maintain itself (i've seen the US dollar go down about 18% against the slovak koruna from its level just four months ago, incidentally).
as for "individual happiness," i can only ask what you mean by that.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline i do not think the soviet union was a "bad" thing in and of itself; if anything, it was just terribly mismanaged.
Large organizations tend to be mismanaged (communistic governments and anti-trust-sized corporations alike).
as i think i stated before, marxism doesn't view capitalism as some evil aberration in mankind's history: indeed, it views it as a necessary stage, and in that sense "good." but marxists believe it has outlived its benefits and is now something like a cancer or a rotten fruit that will only continue to decay.
The only problem with that analogue is the obvious decay inherent in our attempts at communism. Not to say that capitalism solves any and all problems of quality of life, it just seems to be more successful at it. Marxism as an ideology is great, and it looks wonderful on paper (like libertarianism), but it has had many opportunities to succeed. Thus far, only watered-down "socialism" has proven somewhat successful at price stability. Labour equality has never existed, no matter what the Cubans tell you.
the USA, as we are seeing so brutally now, can no longer rely on its own high standard of living to maintain itself (i've seen the US dollar go down about 18% against the slovak koruna from its level just four months ago, incidentally).
Certainly the dollar is losing value, but the United States still has an incredibly high standard of living - a standard of living that has never been attained by a communist state. The US is very much a mixed economy, though, not some bastion of capitalism. A huge portion of the population works for the government through the military and a variety of other bureaucracies, and industry is subsidized to the hilt.
It's likely that the dollar is finally losing its position as a world currency because it's less involved in oil banking than it once was. But even then, the resulting decline in quality of life in the US will be seen in the form of slightly more expensive salads, not bread lines.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline The only problem with that analogue is the obvious decay inherent in our attempts at communism. Not to say that capitalism solves any and all problems of quality of life, it just seems to be more successful at it. Marxism as an ideology is great, and it looks wonderful on paper (like libertarianism), but it has had many opportunities to succeed. Thus far, only watered-down "socialism" has proven somewhat successful at price stability. Labour equality has never existed, no matter what the Cubans tell you.
successful at solving problems where? once again, this is an american perspective. since when has the situation in the third world started easing? this is why i think mao's international take on the class struggle is the most relevant today. the reason why so many european social states are possible, not to mention the quality of life in america, is because of neo-colonialism, usually via the world bank and the WTO. and no, i'm not talking about sweat shops; i actually agree with penn and teller that, while it is sucky work, it's usually honest work. i'm talking about, as i've mentioned before, things like the seizure of arable land traditionally used for food crops and turning it into land for cash crops like rubber: that is nothing more than cynical victimization. this sort of thing has happened most accutely in africa. as for labor equality, a typical cuban worker is treated much better by the cuban socialist government than a plantation worker is treated by chiquita or nestle, or even a typical migrant worker in the US (i grew up on a farm and i've seen a lot of migrants employed illegally, including by my own ex-stepfather). we don't see the need for a proletarian revolution in america because the american proletariat is quickly disappearing; at least, the legal proletariat. now the western capitalist lives off third world labor and resources, and, unbeknownst to him, this actually makes his situation even more precarious.
as for looking good on paper, i've often wondered why capitalists or proponents of capitalism say that. why does it look good on paper? it spells out the end of the primacy of personal interests: that should look abhorrent to a liberal democrat. marxism has had chances to succeed, and still has them. a few years ago, cuba, for example, voted overwhelmingly, by referendum, for a constitutional amendment making socialism in cuba irrevocable. when castro fell into ill health, bush broadcast a personal message from radio marti in florida urging the cuban people to rise up for the cause of "democracy," promising american support. it didn't even get a burp out of the population. let's not forget that the communist party is still the second strongest party in russia, and there are often still communist ministers of parliament here in slovakia (and this year even a presidential candidate, albeit a very unlikely one). let's also not forget that roman republicanism was underground for two millennia before it became reincarnated in the US. anything can happen with any ideology, and one thing is for certain: the world status quo cannot continue much longer.
But even then, the resulting decline in quality of life in the US will be seen in the form of slightly more expensive salads, not bread lines.
we'll see. as long as there are producers who purposefully under-produce, horde, or even destroy the vegetables that go into said salads to drive up prices, nobody can be sure of anything, especially when the banana in the sundae you have for dessert was quite possibly once in sight of a starving person...over the shoulder of an armed guard and behind a barbed wire fence. one need only read "a people's history of the united states," or for that matter "the grapes of wrath," to know how well similar practices were tolerated right on our own soil.
by the way, speaking of bread lines, as a person who has in-laws who grew up under czechoslovak socialism, and having had the opportunity to talk with many people from the former eastern bloc, the former soviet union, and the former yugoslavia, i can tell you that bread lines in the old communist countries were not near as prevalent as american media and public school history courses would like to have us believe. in fact, my sister-in-law told me that while watching coverage of the velvet revolution in czechoslovakia in 1989, one of the first things her mother said, "oh my god, we have no money to buy food now."
we would like to believe in the cheering crowds in the former communist countries welcoming their freedom after years of dark repression, but it usually didn't happen that way, and it often happened more because of external pressure than internal pressure. many, many more people in these countries look back on those days with more nostalgia than you'd think. in slovakia at least, if the last elections and regular opinion polls tell us anything, the majority look back on those days with nostalgia.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline The main effect on Marxism was to force capitalism to reform itself
unions (effectively workers forming their own company and selling their services in effect giving themselves capital)
welfare state:, the poor now get fed and watch bad day time tv instead of shooting the rich (definitely good for the rich !)
employee protection laws (yes even America has some), see the welfare state stops messy revolutions etc
employee ownership of the company they work for (shares etc)
- Login to post comments
Offline The main effect on Marxism was to force capitalism to reform itself
very true. the new deal didn't happen because of FDR's big heart; it happened to prevent the very real threat of a socialist revolution. it also made big money for speculators in state contracts and didn't help the poor near as universally as we tend to think. i think it's funny when neocon pundits like ann coulter say they would like to turn back the clock and not enact the new deal: her worst nightmare would come true.
unions (effectively workers forming their own company and selling their services in effect giving themselves capital)
well, unions existed before marxism. there were trade unions in russia before there were soviets. many marxists grew out of and were heavily involved in the trade union movements, especially rosa luxemburg. leon trotsky spent much of his last years trying to convince the american trade unions that the time was ripe for socialist revolution.
however, labor cannot be capital because labor is a commodity, not the medium through which commodities are exchanged. nobody hires workers in an attempt to multiply workers. companies keep as few workers as possible, except when interfered with by the government. many if not most modern companies will have nothing to do with union labor. only companies requiring skilled labor, such as musicians, or areas where unions are traditionally strong enough to put pressure on companies, such as construction and meatpacking, will deal with unions these days. unions are a way of coping with the capitalist system, but they are not inherently capitalist.
welfare state:, the poor now get fed and watch bad day time tv instead of shooting the rich (definitely good for the rich !)
a welfare state has to exist at someone's expense. in america's case, it's the third world. therein lies the danger. still, i hardly think this vision of redneck paradise is the norm in east st. louis, south philly, or harlem. it's interesting to note that every time he has come to the US, to my knowledge, fidel castro has always made a very well-received visit to harlem. there are more cutthroat barrios in LA than havana.
employee protection laws (yes even America has some), see the welfare state stops messy revolutions etc
the welfare state is the proverbial dutch boy with his finger in the dam.
employee ownership of the company they work for (shares etc)
how many companies do you know of where this actually happens? on top of that, how many sugarcane cutters own shares of dixie? how many small tobacco farmers, or migrants for that matter, own shares of philip morris (having grown up in a tobacco-farming family, i can give you that answer from experience)? how many banana workers own shares of chiquita? or coffee plantation workers shares of folgers? in a globalized world, just half-assedly taking care of the problem at home is not enough anymore.
i would like to take this opportunity to point out that one of the reasons why i contend in my essay on the unofficial FAQ blog that marxism has never really been tried is that marx believed that the socialist revolution must be international in character. stalin's "building socialism in one country" was never part of the plan, though there was nothing else that could be done under the circumstances. these days however, with globalization a fact of life and the information age upon us, things could go very wrong for the world bourgeoisie very quickly.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline Was generally thinking of the UK,
Unions became legal in 1871 (and hence more influental), heavily influenced by Marx and led to the birth of the Labour party and the modern democratic system in the UK
Welfare state is paid for generally out of the taxes of middle income and higher (in theory) incomes. Often abused I'm still glad I live in a society with it , relatively few people starving to death/homeless in the UK and again relatively few poor people wanting to kill me.
Whatever its flaw no serious political party has ever suggested abolishing it as opposed to reforming it in any major economic nation. I've claimed it for a few weeks in my life and paid a lot more back in taxes still I'm glad a safety net is there.
As for America I would probably say a weak welfare state (it still exists) is probably the no 1 reason for the high levels of religiousity there as opposed to other western countries. If people can't rely on the society they live in to protect them if things go bad they go for sky fairies. You even see it in the language where western nation uses the word 'society' Americans tend to replace it with the word 'government' when often they are refering to exactly the same thing
- Login to post comments
Offline Welfare state is paid for generally out of the taxes of middle income and higher (in theory) incomes.
that's also the theory in the US. the UK is to be envied if that actually happens in practice.
Whatever its flaw no serious political party has ever suggested abolishing it as opposed to reforming it in any major economic nation.
the republican party in the US is pretty huge (to state the obvious) and it would like nothing more than to abolish what pitiful excuses we have for social programs. i guess when i heard "welfare state," i immediately thought of the US and its social security joke, awful public schools, etc. this a system i would like to scrap, but for different reasons than the neocons. as a resident of the EU, i have a lot of admiration for the european social state (how i generally refer to welfare state). even slovakia could be a model for america. but there is plenty of room for improvement.
As for America I would probably say a weak welfare state (it still exists) is probably the no 1 reason for the high levels of religiousity there as opposed to other western countries. If people can't rely on the society they live in to protect them if things go bad they go for sky fairies.
no argument here. i think your analysis is dead on. i just don't like it when people try to lump marxism in with the sky fairies, which is the original point of this thread.
btw, i know it's digressing, but i've always wondered: why would a labour prime minister like tony blair (and i am aware of the labour party's admirable leftist history) support so religiously a neofascist, imperialist sack of shit like bush? does this say something about today's labour party, or just blair?
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline I voted for Blair and in that moment of rational clarity I was wrong to do so 
(((
American politics for once actually looks more healthy than the UK does. An active and interested electorate two at least interesting candidates with genuine differences. Really can't see either candidates bombing anyone without clear financial or political benefits (moral reasons would be too much for ask for but its still better than god told me to do it)
I hold voting very dear and for the first time in my life I'm tempted to tear up my ballot paper (I will still turn up at the voting station through)
Its a choice between the
xenophobic geographically challenged (yes the UK is part of Europe not Texas) small minded Daily Mail Conservative party
and the totally weak bankrupt of ideas pawn of America Labour party
and who cares about the Liberal Democrats we are a 2 party system and that isnt going to change in the forseable solution
- Login to post comments
Offline iwbiek,
If you concur that Marxism is an imperfect socialist doctrine (or doctrines) with the aim of trying to create a fair society among masses with a lot of evolutionary derived negative cognitive hardwiring (ie. tribalism, greed, violence, etc...) then I'm sure most will agree that Marxism deserves its chance in a liberal democracy. Marxists just like liberals, socialists, libertarians, conservatives ought to campaign during elections and convince the masses that Marxism will secure their happiness better than the others. Ultimately the people have to decide.
In countries like Canada (where I group up) wherein the Left have greater political representation (unlike the United States), Marxists have never won a provincial or federal election. At best in Ontario, the socialist New Democratic Party (NDP) is most leftwing organization that has won an election. And yet, in this day and age, most Canadians are flocking to provinces (eg. Alberta) with conservative provincial governements.
Marxists are unfortunately tainted by the past. It is extremely difficult to shed images of the crimes of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot from a man who lost his job at say a General Motors plant. You mention the ideals of Marxism to that proletarian and more than likely you will scare him off to elect a conservative politician. Furthermore, Marxists have to acknowledge that some form of laissez-faire economics have to be incorporated into their political design. Marxists need to acknowledge the hardwired selfish aspects of human nature. Even the man who cleans sewers in Bangladesh wants his big screen TV and mansion. These are products of a free market. Even the computer you are typing on is a product of corporate capitalism. Can you convince the consumer hungry proletarian that you will be able to ensure that he will continue to have the pasta dinners at Olive Garden, that his son will have the Sony PlayStation, that his wife will get sexy lingerie from Victoria's Secret.... This may sound silly but this is what people want at the end of the day in democracies wherein personal pleasure comes first. Marxists tend to brush these petty behaviors aside and once again I'll reiterate, Marxists fall into the trap of collectivist essentialist descriptions of the working class. What makes you as a Marxist happy in life may be radically different from the janitor who cleans the office at work.
- Login to post comments
Offline Marxism is flawed because it fundamentally believes that most people are 'good'
They arent, they are self interested and with weaker interests in their immediate family and friends. That isnt to say they are bad just not interested in the bigger picture whatever that they may mean.
I also think its a big flaw in democracy but so far no one has come up with anything better
- Login to post comments
Offline successful at solving problems where? once again, this is an american perspective.
Canadian, but close enough. The difficulty that clouds the analysis of any new political system is that it hasn't really been through enough. In much of the Western world, you have mixed economies based loosely on capitalist and socialist principles. China turned around the instant it started embracing private capitalization (or at least admitted that it was). And a market is still the easiest and best way to establish a price.
since when has the situation in the third world started easing?
Which third world are we talking? If you're talking about most of Africa, of course colonialism is responsible, and of course they're fucked. There's no amount of money that could buy social stability on much of the continent. Is it disgusting? Yes. Is communism a way of solving the problem? No. The problems there aren't even addressed by Marxist thought.
the reason why so many european social states are possible, not to mention the quality of life in america, is because of neo-colonialism, usually via the world bank and the WTO.
The world bank and WTO are both central planning institutions that have failed. Add them to the pile. How many times do we have to fail ourselves and each other through centralized planning before the message sinks in?
as for labor equality, a typical cuban worker is treated much better by the cuban socialist government than a plantation worker is treated by chiquita or nestle, or even a typical migrant worker in the US (i grew up on a farm and i've seen a lot of migrants employed illegally, including by my own ex-stepfather).
If you mean to imply that corporate power has been extended too far, I agree. Corporations, if they are to be treated as individuals by law, should not have the advantages over individuals that they currently have. That's not really "capitalism" vs "Marxism", though. That's corporate reform. The corporations would still be capitalized by investors.
we don't see the need for a proletarian revolution in america because the american proletariat is quickly disappearing; at least, the legal proletariat. now the western capitalist lives off third world labor and resources, and, unbeknownst to him, this actually makes his situation even more precarious.
No, the western capitalist is among a petit bourgeoisie in a plasma tv haze, drooling over the next wave of consumer electronics goods. But then, for me, a capitalist is someone who actually capitalizes (that is, invests in entrepreneurial attempts). You may mean the entire population of the western world. They don't count as capitalists if they're not involved in the process, since every western economy is mixed to one degree or another.
as for looking good on paper, i've often wondered why capitalists or proponents of capitalism say that. why does it look good on paper? it spells out the end of the primacy of personal interests: that should look abhorrent to a liberal democrat.
It's the idea of everyone working together for a fair everything that looks great on paper. It has never happened. Not even close. The Russian mob didn't come out of nowhere: it used to be called the KGB. Communist leaders developed their own feifdoms and military branches, and different people had power, but equality has never been anywhere to be seen in any government that has ever been on the earth. As you said, "democracy" in its modern American form is almost identical to the Republic of Rome.
anything can happen with any ideology, and one thing is for certain: the world status quo cannot continue much longer.
The status quo never does continue. What's the more adaptable form of government in changing times? Let's hope we don't get fascism, eh?
as long as there are producers who purposefully under-produce, horde, or even destroy the vegetables that go into said salads to drive up prices, nobody can be sure of anything, especially when the banana in the sundae you have for dessert was quite possibly once in sight of a starving person...over the shoulder of an armed guard and behind a barbed wire fence. one need only read "a people's history of the united states," or for that matter "the grapes of wrath," to know how well similar practices were tolerated right on our own soil.
Do you honestly believe in the fair treatment of serfs? I'd love to see it, don't get me wrong. I'd love to see equality of the people, and everyone getting what they deserve. But what countries have come close to giving us that ideal? Are there any? Over a 3,000 year period, give or take? Even before that, when the Egyptians were building pyramids, being on the crew was actually a fairly cushy job for the time (no joke - check out the latest archeological evidence that suggests they operated as a modern work crew, only with workers doing maybe three days of work a week). Where do we get this perfectionistic idea that collectivism will do anything but fail?
i can tell you that bread lines in the old communist countries were not near as prevalent as american media and public school history courses would like to have us believe.
But they were around, and not just for marginalized citizens, either. But Slovakia isn't the most prosperous nation regardless of the form the government takes at any one time. That's more a question of resources and trade, though.
we would like to believe in the cheering crowds in the former communist countries welcoming their freedom after years of dark repression, but it usually didn't happen that way, and it often happened more because of external pressure than internal pressure.
Maybe you think I watch CNN or something, because I don't know anyone who buys the idea that the population of any ex-soviet country was comfortable with suddenly changing the way everything worked. Before that, there were many who weren't too happy about the change from the empire.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Canadian, but close enough.
my apologies. let's say "north american" then. i've always felt it very unfair that the USA has monopolized that adjective. the mexican author carlos fuentes has a very interesting passage about that in his novel "the orange tree."
Which third world are we talking? If you're talking about most of Africa, of course colonialism is responsible, and of course they're fucked. There's no amount of money that could buy social stability on much of the continent. Is it disgusting? Yes. Is communism a way of solving the problem? No. The problems there aren't even addressed by Marxist thought.
africa, central and south america, and much of the balkan, which has suffered tremendously since tito's death. the only part of the "third world" that is really starting to collect itself is parts of the pacific rim. and you're wrong in that last sentence. it wasn't addressed in marx, true, but many marxist writers have addressed the problems of the post-colonial world, especially africa. the most famous of them were mao, che guevara, and ho chi minh.
The world bank and WTO are both central planning institutions that have failed.
on paper, yes. in practice they're basically politically sanctioned conglomerates. look how they carved up south africa to the highest bidders, for example. and failed, maybe, but powerful nonetheless.
If you mean to imply that corporate power has been extended too far, I agree. Corporations, if they are to be treated as individuals by law, should not have the advantages over individuals that they currently have. That's not really "capitalism" vs "Marxism", though. That's corporate reform. The corporations would still be capitalized by investors.
perhaps, but there's a good reason why many conservative pundits over the years have called any efforts to curb laissez-faire "creeping socialism." they're not just paranoid.
No, the western capitalist is among a petit bourgeoisie in a plasma tv haze, drooling over the next wave of consumer electronics goods. But then, for me, a capitalist is someone who actually capitalizes (that is, invests in entrepreneurial attempts). You may mean the entire population of the western world. They don't count as capitalists if they're not involved in the process, since every western economy is mixed to one degree or another.
a petty bourgeois is a capitalist to a minor extent: maybe it's in the form of a home business, company shares, or investments in a mutual fund. lazy capitalism is still capitalism. to a degree i am talking about the western world, since developed countries as a whole tend to invest a lot in both resources and labor in developing countries. when the whole country refuses to work more than eight hours a day, yet still wants to live a rich retiree's lifestyle at age 30, coupled with an increasing population, there has to be labor compensation somewhere...
Do you honestly believe in the fair treatment of serfs? I'd love to see it, don't get me wrong. I'd love to see equality of the people, and everyone getting what they deserve. But what countries have come close to giving us that ideal? Are there any?
depends on who you ask; those are very subjective standards. as far as everyone getting fed, getting medical care, getting jobs, and getting an education goes, the countries of the eastern bloc did quite well. yugoslavia did quite well. cuba does quite well, according to some international studies (not just castro speeches). as far as everyone getting overfed, driving hummers, drinking lattes, watching tivo after a six-hour day in a cushy office playing solitaire, and generally being able to say they're fulfilled in every way, no way no how does that nation exist.
But they were around, and not just for marginalized citizens, either. But Slovakia isn't the most prosperous nation regardless of the form the government takes at any one time. That's more a question of resources and trade, though.
whoa whoa whoa, i don't know where you get your information about slovakia, but we have one of the fastest growing economies in the EU right now. we'll be on the euro by january. even in the darkest days of stalinism, there was never any famine here. but you're right, they were around, particularly during WWII. as they were in the UK, france, germany, and even the US at that time.
Maybe you think I watch CNN or something, because I don't know anyone who buys the idea that the population of any ex-soviet country was comfortable with suddenly changing the way everything worked. Before that, there were many who weren't too happy about the change from the empire.
had i not assumed you were american, i probably wouldn't have made that assumption either.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
Offline Marxists are unfortunately tainted by the past. It is extremely difficult to shed images of the crimes of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot from a man who lost his job at say a General Motors plant. You mention the ideals of Marxism to that proletarian and more than likely you will scare him off to elect a conservative politician.
well, let's be fair, most of that impression has to do with generations of anti-communist propaganda rather than any objective grasp of what stalin, mao, or pol pot actually did.
Furthermore, Marxists have to acknowledge that some form of laissez-faire economics have to be incorporated into their political design. Marxists need to acknowledge the hardwired selfish aspects of human nature.
we certainly do. any idea that there was no aspect of consumerism in communist countries is misinformed. there was plenty, especially in the soviet bloc. it just wasn't the drving force of the society.
This may sound silly but this is what people want at the end of the day in democracies wherein personal pleasure comes first.
people want what they have been conditioned to expect. marxists never claim everyone will be subjectively happy in a communist society.
Marxists tend to brush these petty behaviors aside and once again I'll reiterate, Marxists fall into the trap of collectivist essentialist descriptions of the working class. What makes you as a Marxist happy in life may be radically different from the janitor who cleans the office at work.
every system of thought falls into this "trap." you can't know everyone. i can tell you from everything i've read, seen, and heard in my travels that there may have been less room for individual wants--spiritual and physical--in socialist countries, but there was room. it is my conclusion after all my experiences that, while reforms had always taken place and would always take place in the soviet bloc, and there were always a section of people unhappy with socialism, socialism would not have fallen in these countries had it not been for economic and political pressure from expansionist western countries.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
- Login to post comments
You've haven't been here long so let me explain:
1) If it's bad it's Theism's fault. It doesn't matter if it was commited by an atheist. If it was commited by an atheist, it's political motivation, and that political motivation replaces religion.
2) Theists are immune from political motivation. A Theist leader cannot kill/murder for political reasons it MUST be because of their Theism.The only way they are influenced by political motivations is if they did something good.
3) Despite religion causing so much turmoil in the Middle East, we should focus on ending religion in North America and Europe, we won't even bother with religion there where it's killing people.
Hope this helps.
Care to point-out where this has been said before, Cap'n? There are no doubt lots of reasons people do bad things. Religious fundamentalism is one of them.
What's been stated is that nobody's established an enormous, lunacy-driven cult based on the fact that they don't believe in God, or demonstratably gone on a muderous rampage because they lack superstitious beliefs.
But hold that thought for a moment...
Nine times out of ten, they're demonstratably motivated by their superstitions (or use superstition in order to gain popular support for their ideas). Care to cite example of persons you feel were theocrats who were spurred to violence because of their non-belief in God, or strictly due to political motivation (with zero support gained for their ideas through superstition)?
...And now let's go back to that thought we were holding. Cap'n, I gotta ask:
Do you intend to always look like a dishonest and contradictory motherfucker, or is it really accidental?
So on one hand, you're criticizing people for holding fundamentalist theology responsible for so much death and destruction, but on the other, you're also criticizing us for not doing enough about it?
Classic.
Yes, we rag on Christianity a lot, because the fundies on this side of the water are fighting tooth and nail to retard the progression of western culture. But last I checked, there was a huge share of criticism also being lobbed by the RRS membership as Islam.
Maybe I need your selective vision to miss stuff like that.
Believe you me, it helped to clear things up immensely.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Iwbiek makes some good points about this subject. I wouldn't want to be labeled a "fucking american chauvinist", so I'm going to assume that you're only tarring a small number of people on these boards with that brush. It's correct that you can't go from the writings of Marx and Engels directly to a dogmatic form of communism complete with purges of counterrevolutionaries, and it's also true that a cult of personality and a religion are different things and may even have their roots in completely different impulses. That being said, I think the issue came to the tangled state that it currently resides in because of the theist admonition that atheism is the cause of the Terror of the French revolution, the purges of Stalin, Mao and others and the monolithic neo-Stalinism of North Korea. The reflexive response to this argument is to associate the oppressive nature of those states with a replacement for theism, but there is a better way.
In this situation, the theist will usually assert that "since the revolutionaries believed that they would never be accountable to God for their actions, they felt themselves free to do anything"; this is likely wrong in any case, given that the revolutionaries really did believe themselves to be in a precarious situation and needed quick, albeit bloody, solutions to preserve their own hides, but the theist is multiplying conditions unnecessarily with the initial statement. One might more accurately state that "since the revolutionaries had the power to do anything they pleased, they did anything they pleased". Only at this point can you really start turning it around on the theist, and I doubt I need to go into the steps for this.
By way of a digression, our contention stands. When a state, based upon pluralism, secularism and democracy, is governed by a constitution that is the undisputed and highest recognized source of law, and is allowed to develop without internal and external threats to its existence, the end result is not a fallen Napoleonic empire or the Gulag Archipelago; it's Sweden, or Denmark, or Canada, or Norway, or the Netherlands, or Australia. Or for that matter, the United States. We've got a shitty record in some areas, but we managed to create a welfare state in the presence of the most unapologetic and powerful capitalists in the world's history and then went on to kill fascism--we did this in less than two decades, with men of the cloth screaming at us to stop the whole time.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
You're right we have:
MLK, The French Resistance, etc... I'm guessing they weren't motivated by religion right?
How exactly is this hypocritical/condractory?
I'm saying OTHER PEOPLE think fundamentalist theology is responsible for so much death/destruction yet they're doing fuck all about it.
Look at this thread
They're not stepping up to the plate.
Lenin was made into Christ-like a figure. A perfect man without fault who gave his life for the cause. His image an iconic figure placed everywhere. Children indoctrinated with the ideal to follow his lead and give themselves for this idealistic heaven like utopia.
Stalin was like the new unfallable Pope, and the other leaders borrowed their methods from religion on how to control and dominate the great unwashed masses. The Soviet Politburo was run much like the Vatican.
Maybe this isn't what Marx wanted but that's what he got, communism as a state religion. The opiate for the masses.
But actually it's encouraging to see how the whole brainwashing collapesed in just a few years. We can only hope the same thing happens in America with Christianity.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I don't think anyone on this forum would argue that the Soviet Union and Cambodia were the fault of theists. However, I do find Marxism to be similar to messianic religions in structure and function, that's just an observation and this structure is in now way unique to religion. Religion alone is hardly responsible for all the irrational things in the world (that's not to call it rational in any way).
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
actually, i wasn't thinking of anyone specific on these boards. just fucking american chauvinists in general.
this is absolutely wrong. not even lenin or stalin could go completely unchecked and to for a person to assume they could is to show a great deal of ignorance of soviet history.
no communist state has ever been allowed to exist without internal and external threats because capitalism cannot tolerate another system. it eats it.
btw, hop on over to the "why the stalin argument fails" thread to see my comments about how much stalin did to "kill fascism." for america to claim complete credit, or even nearly complete credit, is just plain wrong.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
You may have something there. But it's still communism's fault for getting eaten.
Eh. The Soviet Union is owed some credit, though I'd back up on Stalin. He seemed completely happy with having friendly Fascist neighbors around the time of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
I'm not even going to deal with the main argument, but Pineapple needs to have his reality goggles readjusted:
We've had this discussion over and over, and I'd be happy to google search the site if you need references. None of the core RRS, and none of the mods, to my knowledge, believe that theism is the only problem in the world. None of us believe that eliminating theism would make the world perfect. We acknowledge the bad things done by Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and lots of other atheists who happened to be shit-heads. We have never equated atheism with goodness. We equate it with correctness.
Having said that, we have often pointed out the correlation between theism and lots of bad shit. Pineapple doesn't like when we do this because the correlations are often very direct and convincing. If pressed, we will happily admit that we believe a world without theism would have LESS of the atrocities often committed in the name of religion. We believe that a correct scientific understanding of human nature will allow us to minimize some of the harm we cause to each other.
We do not, and have not ever, asserted that theism is the only evil in the world.
As to the question of atheists with political motivations, this is our contention: We are not aware of a single leader who, simply by referring to the non-existence of god, organized a political party, took over a country, and caused widespread bloodshed. In all cases, whether atheist or theist, a leader needed a political ideology to commit mass murder.
Atheism is not a philosophy, and so cannot be implicated in any political struggle. Theism is a philosophy. Pineapple has never seemed to get his head around this concept. Atheism is the LACK of a philosophy. Whatever philosophy an atheist has, it is NOT ATHEISM. It is Marxism, or Communism, or Socialism, or some other ism. Many atheists have been really, really bad people. We're ok with that. We admit it. Freely. We simply point out that a NON-PHILOSOPHY cannot be a philosophy, and so cannot be blamed for a philosophical error.
Dipshit.
We've never said anything of the sort, and you know it, you bitter asshole. This isn't worth refuting.
I'm sorry. They didn't offer Farsi 101 in my high school, so I thought I'd do something where I'd have a chance of success.
Dipshit.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
By the way, I'm not kidding about this... first dipshit to say that I just said Stalin and Lenin were correct or good, I'm banning you.
Repeat this ten times:
Atheism is the observation that there is no evidence for god, and the resulting disbelief in god.
That's it. It's also correct. Nothing else can be philosophically inferred from atheism. NOTHING.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
When have I accused you or any of the mods/core specifically that Theism is the only problem in the world?
This is what pisses me off.
'Well I don't make that argument!!"
If you don't make the argument then you don't need to respond to the post. If you DO make that argument then defend it. It's that simple.
Holy fucking shit on a stick. I never said Stalin did it because of atheism. I know he did it because he was a communist.
Who the fuck is 'we'? The core/mods? Please point to the part of the post that even remotely directs it towards you or the mods/core.
sorta like george washington. ever been to D.C.? look up inside the capitol dome: washington is enthroned among the angels.
in fact, show me one country where founders and patriots are not idealized. even the enlightened scandinavian countries cannot claim exemption from that. children in the soviet union were taught that by having a hard-working, communist ethic they could build socialism in one country. it depended upon them and how they were willing to contribute to production. it was a very hard-sell method of motivation but not a religion. if you believe marx's or lenin's or even stalin's conception of the communist future was an idealistic utopia, i.e., something that couldn't possibly be attained in the real world, then you obviously haven't read marx, lenin, or stalin. their belief that under socialism everything will work out best in the end is no more absurd than our beliefs about liberal bourgeois democracy, and the latter is definitely more metaphysical in nature. economic circumstances influence a country's fate more than ideology ever could, as any good marxist will tell you anyway.
the "new" pope? as opposed to what old one? considering the majority of russians were orthodox, and the state religion of imperial russia was russian orthodoxy, that makes no sense. the orthodox church doesn't recognize the infallible pope or any other autocratic head. he was much closer to the tsar in nature but there were russian emperors before russian orthodoxy.
it is true that stalin borrowed a lot from religion: embalming lenin was a blatant one. kennedy's eternal flame is, too. the fact is, people are always awed by the same aesthetic motifs: cavernous halls, symmetry, polished marble, flames, portraits. this probably existed before religion and certainly before christianity. just because stalin appealed to people's emotional triggers doesn't mean he was trying to substitute a new religion for an old one. once again, name me one state that doesn't at least attempt to do the same. when was the last time you saw bush in a t-shirt giving a speech in a bean bag chair, opening and closing with "word"? politics are all about fetishism. this is neither a marxist nor a leninist nor a stalinist innovation. besides, contrary to what most people believe, a vast number of people in the soviet union and the eastern bloc remained openly christian, at least in the typical sense.
by the way, who are "the other leaders"? considering lenin never had much of a personality cult in his lifetime, and krushchev, brezhnev, and gorbachev strongly denounced it, i fail to see a long tradition of "state worship." believe it or not, the stalinist era was only one unique part of soviet history. amazing, huh?
examples please? do you even know what the politburo was? because it wasn't even the most important decision-making body, officially or actually, in the soviet union.
and who do you think is one of the fathers of the modern european social state? ronald reagan? helmut kohl (snicker)? the social ideals of the EU and scandinavia all go back to people like karl marx, friedrich engels, karl kautsky, rosa luxemburg, jean jaures, etc.--all marxists, of one persuasion or another. i guess he "got" modern europe too...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
i recommend the book "the dictators" by richard overy. hitler and stalin both openly admitted that the nonaggression pact was basically buying time for both sides to speed up military production. it was always clear to both germany and the soviet union that communism and fascism could never live side-by-side.
and yes, the soviet union deserves "some credit"--about 20 million lives' worth.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Has anyone besides me noticed that I have repeatedly called Pineapple out on this? He takes this "I'm saying this sarcastically because anyone with a brain can tell what I'm saying, and I don't need to spell it out," attitude, and then if anyone happens to call him on it, he says, "OH NOES! I wasn't saying that at all, you silly simpleton."
Bullshit.
Let's just examine this, shall we Pineapple?
Dipshit.
If it is bad, it is theism's fault = All that is bad is theism's fault. Logic 101.
Dipshit.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
i say lenin at least was correct and good. he was a helluva lot of both more than woodrow wilson.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
what the fuck??? pete seeger was a communist. helen keller sure as shit sympathized with them. how many millions of people did they kill? did jackson force the cherokee down the trail of tears because he was a democrat?
stalin did it because he was a power-mad, paranoid fuck.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Yes, let's.
Am I speaking Ukrainian?
I said I never accused YOU OR ANY OF THE MODS OF THIS!!
Get it now??? You said
I never accused you or the mods or the core or the Power Rangers that they make this argument. Got it? That post was for the people that make the argument.
Read this carefully:
MY POST WAS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IF YOU DO NOT MAKE THAT ARGUMENT THEN IT IS NOT FOR YOU!
Read it again:
MY POST WAS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IF YOU DO NOT MAKE THAT ARGUMENT THEN IT IS NOT FOR YOU!
Did you just ignore the first part of my post? How I hate it when people think I accuse them of making an argument?
I think humans are hardwired to become totalitarian. We harbor tribal instincts which manifests in our political systems whenever a group fanatically adheres to a doctrine (with or without supernatural underpinnings). I have read the Communist Manifesto and it is not a list of flexible guidelines. Marx's prose is very similar to an evangelist's religious zeal. Imagine if class warfare, elimination of the bourgeoisie, dictatorship of the proletariat and finally the utopian communist society had supernatural underpinnings. And imagine if all this was filtered through the mindset of Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks. The end result of the Stalinist purges, the Ukraine famine, collectivization, the mass executions, the Doctor's plot, etc.. All of this would still have occurred. I find Marxists or anyone who claim to have a blueprint for Utopia just as annoying as religious fundamentalists.
I want to echo the comments of others on this thread. Only in a secular democratic political system are there checks and balances preventing a single permanent ideology from dominating forever and the rights of the individual are protected. I agree that the United States is not perfect in this regard. However, I don't think Marx really aspired for this in his utopian vision. He and many others like him (both atheist and religious) spewed forth doctrines which allowed the human totalitarian instincts to fully manifest. I often imagine that if Marx had met and agreed with Orwell, would there ever have been a Communist Manifesto. One thing's for sure, Marx would have been a more enlightened atheist.
I looked at my post again and see why Hamby might have confused that I accused the mods/core of doing this, but it's really a stretch. I mean, I had to re-read it ten times to see it.
As of now, I will now send my posts to Naom Chomsky to ensure it is linguistly adequete to avoid confusion.
He indeed was a power-mad paranoid fuck.
I guess if it wasn't Communism it would have been something else.
first of all, classical marxism is based on dialectical materialism. thus, a priori, it would be impossible to give marxism "supernatural undertones."
to argue marxism having only read the communist manifesto is like trying to argue lincoln having only read the brochure at the lincoln birthplace museum. yes, the manifesto uses incendiary language, as does almost ANY political manifesto. if you want religious zeal, the manifesto pales in comparison to the declaration of independence. it was couched in such language to make it readable and suitable for mass consumption, which, surprise surprise, is why it is the most read of anything marx or engels ever wrote. not because it is the best dissertation of communist theory. try reading das kapital. you'll find very little zealous language there and a lot of facts, figures, and equations. yet when trotsky compiled an "essential" marx, he drew selections ONLY from capital. the manifesto is a call to revolution; capital is an explanation of why capitalism must inevitably dig its own grave with the very workers it exploits.
you're right to a certain degree. and exactly how was marx's vision "utopian"? if you call it utopian because you don't agree with it, knock yourself out. if you call it utopian because it's not based on rational data, your grasp of marxism is very cursory indeed.
really? which "doctrines" did marx spew forth, as if they fell from the sky, which must inevitably lead to "totalitarianism"? there are no "doctrines" in marx or engels, only socio-economic observation and prognoses. it was a long road indeed from the petrograd soviet to stalin's unlimited power. even most of stalin's rule couldn't be called "totalitarian," and after stalin, no such leader without a check ever rose again for the remainder of soviet history.
orwell, by the way, was a socialist with a lot of admiration for the russian revolution and a lot of disdain for stalin. he also flirted with trotskyism quite a bit.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Your inability to adequately express yourself is what we call a YP. If you're mad at me for reading what you wrote and responding appropriately, that is also a YP. I would suggest you either clarify your own ideas before putting them in print, or invest in a couple of textbooks from English 101, or maybe both.
By the way, I'm still convinced that you're just embarrassed that your diatribe was so horribly incorrect. I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ, Pineapple. You've read damn near everything I've written. Surely you've noticed that I ascribe pretty much all of the good AND the bad in the world to human evolution, not to religion. Religion, in my opinion, is an anachronistic expression of an erstwhile beneficial adaptation.
And your finger pointing at mysterious denizens who DO think that religion is the cause of all the ills in the world falls flat, too. Outside of a few quackpots who hit and run post from time to time, there isn't a single regular member here who thinks that... or at least has admitted it publicly. You just said shit that wasn't true, and now you've been busted.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
That's the thing: I can't. Every time I try it ends up a mess. Why do you think I don't make long ass posts anymore? You've read my longer posts right?
I always lose marks on essay questions/lab reports because they have no idea what I'm trying to say.
I barely passed High School English. I never had to take it in University.
I don't even read texts. All mine from University are collecting dust. And when I do crack one open, I just read the examples.
Some people do come of as that. For example, the OP in the other Stalin topic (Which I accused of the NTS..) has yet to clarify as to what he/she meant.
Here's dialectical materialism in a nutshell:
One--Every thing (every object and every process) is made of opposing forces/opposing sides.
Two--Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one opposite overcomes the other.
Three--Change moves in spirals, not circles.
And I quite agree that there is nothing supernatural about this and is consistent with elements of modern physics. My point was that if communism had a supernatural basis (and not dialectical materialism) the negative sequelae would have still occurred.
Furthermore, I see nothing inherently "marxist" about these tenets. Even an atheist, libertarian capitalist would likely have no qualms with dialectical materialism.
Here are the basic elements of Marxism:
Now distilling all of this down as simple as possible it is an ideological framework towards the ideal of a fair and equal society wherein the exploited working class expropriate the wealth/property accumulated as profits from their ruling bourgeousie bosses. Correct? If there is something extra to Marxism, please let me know. I concede that I have not read all the works of Marx or Engels and if I left something out, please fill me in. I would also add that there are lightyears of separation between the valid elements of dialectical materialism and the stated tenets of marxism. Dialectial materialism may have been a scientific starting point for Marxism but could easily IMO be applied to capitalism.
Furthermore, I don't see how Marxism is in any way superior to other forms of socialism (eg. libertarian socialism) or an ideological framework that allows for a mixed economy (ie. an admixture of capitalism and socialism) as seen most prominently in countries such as Canada and most European nations.
Now that said, I concur that the majority of Marxists are moderates are decent folks(just like most Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, etc..). Yet it is the fundamentalist wing of Marxism that have rigid dogmatic views who take statements out of context and end up with Stalinist or Maoist interpretations. There are Marxists worldwide today who still have a romantic view of Stalin, Mao and even Pol Pot (eg. Marxists who reside in Kerala, India). And it is the moderates that give elbow room to the fanatics.
A Marxist and a Capitalist walk into a Starbucks cafe and they both order a vanilla Frappucino:
Capitalist: As a Marxist don't you have any qualms ordering an item which is a product of working class exploitation which only serve to advance the profits of the bourgeous CEOs of the Starbucks corporation?
Marxist: I have no choice. In fact, all items I purchase including the clothes I wear are products of an oppressive corporate globalist enterprise which put millions of dollars in the hands of a few white imperialist bastards while the millions of workers such as the one who served us our beverage languish in perpetual servitude to their masters.
Server: Uhh, but I like my job.
Marxist: Oh be quiet! You are not conscious of your exploitation. That is why you folks need us to think for you. One day you will all be liberated.
Capitalist: Yeah, shut up and do your fucking job! That's what we pay you for you miserable peasant! (pause) Anyways, if you truly upheld your ideals wouldn't you rather die than continue contributing to such an oppressive system? Aren't you being a hypocrite otherwise?
Marxist: Indeed I would shoot myself if I did not envision a time when we are all truly liberated. Everyone will then drink Frappucinos with a clear conscience. Until that time, I live off of the products of exploitation. Now if I was a Stalinist, I would shoot you, the server for being un-Marxist and all capitalist opposition until liberation is achieved and still enjoy my Frappucino.
Capitalist: Ahh! But I would see your motives beforehand and through mass psychology, the entire public would be informed of your violent schemes. We would eliminate you and shift all of societies ills on our server being of a certain ethnic descent. We would eliminate his kind and weed out all undesirables who hold society back. And with a happy union between the corporate apparatus and the state everyone will reap the rewards. We will all be equal. Then and only then would we would be truly liberated to drink Frappucinos.
And this pathologic diatribe continues.....
-end
There are only 2 classes of people in this world. Those who are assholes and those who aren't.
right on all counts. i'm not sure why you felt i needed a review of dialectical materialism, or marxism, but i never said dialectical materialism is inherently marxist. i did, however, say that marxism is inherently materialist, and classical marxism (of which i am not a proponent, btw) is inherently dialectical materialist. you cannot get marxism with metaphysics.
true to a point. capitalism is based on the exchange of labor as a commodity to convert money into, well, more money. capitalism in its decaying (and inevitable) extreme is based on exploitation. capitalism is not "evil" in and of itself: it just cannot continue to exist. it self-destructs due in part to the constant "hoarding" of money as additional profits (surplus-value, the goal of marx's "rational miser"
instead of remaining as the means of circulation of commodities with use-value, and the disatisfaction of exploitated labor having to deal not only with being the capitalist means of attaining surplus-value at his expense, but also the constant inflation that is the result of rampant speculation. like it or not, if marx's predictions weren't true there wouldn't be anti-trust laws today.
well, it depends on what people you mean. the dominant ideology (i'm assuming you mean in a society) is usually whatever the petty bourgeoisie ("middle class," in a sense) chooses to espouse. in most bourgeois societies, the petty bourgeoisie want nothing more than to be big bourgeoisie, and so they form reactionary values. these values, whether they be religious, patriotic, or whatever, always viciously defend the means by which capitalism can function: the "inalienable" rights of private property (by that i don't mean owning your own home, but rather the inability of the government to break up a monopoly because all that labor "belongs" to someone) and free trade. the majority proletariat, usually pitted by the reactionary bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie against each other, more leftist sections of the bourgeoisie, or some foreign enemy, real or imagined, in turn accepts these reactionary values. so while the "dominant ideology" does encourage or retard class-consciousness, it is rarely informed by real material conditions, but rather by the aims of the big bourgeoisie. this, incidentally, usually leads to fascism in some form.
ok to all.
all true. except for the "ideals," and this is where many casual readers of marxism go wrong. what we have in marx is not a call to uphold metaphysical "ideals" of fairness or equality or whatever. what we have in marx are prognoses based on observations of the uncertain modern economy, which in its current state is unable to support a world population of 6.8 billion and growing: not because of insufficient resources, but of squandering and even deliberate destruction of those resources in pursuit of "profit" which, as marx demonstrates, is an abstract thing to begin with. no marxist can predict one day this situation will explode because it's already exploding. rising oil prices in a world that runs on oil, climate change, the increasingly turbulent third world: how will even the richest survive if this situation continues to escalate? marx didn't postulate that the solution to capitalist exploitation is socialist revolution: he postulated it is the inevitable outcome. a marxist revolutionary only wants to speed up the process. observe, for example, the surprising amounts of leftist governments that are coming to power in latin america.
once again, let me emphasize that i only mentioned dialectical materialism as the starting point of classical marxism to argue that marxism cannot have supernatural or metaphysical idealistic elements. of course it can be "applied" to capitalism: it's precisely the ideology marx used to analyse the capitalist system.
i never said it was superior. what i did say, somewhere, is that the social states in europe and canada csn be traced straight back to marx, engels, rosa luxemburg, karl kautsky, etc. i brought up that point to show that marxism didn't just result in the soviet union or the prc. in fact, an "admixture of capitalism and socialism" is basically what you got with lenin's new economic policy, which stalin put the brakes on after lenin's death.
there are extremists in any ideology: peta, vegans, monarchists, socialists. that doesn't mean any of them will or should stop existing. my big point though about the ideologies you compare it to (muslims, christians, hindus, etc.) is that those ideologies claim to be perfect, divine, and revalatory. in other words, people pulled them out of their asses to explain things they couldn't understand. marxism claims to be none of these things; marx formulated his tenets to explain things he understood perfectly well. marxism is based on economic and historical-critical analysis; religion is based on subjectivity. just because marxism makes predictions about the future doesn't make it irrational or some sort pseudo-religion; every science tries to use available data to predict future results, economics is no different.
besides, some people are just extremist in nature. a marxist can be a stalinist or a maoist, and even those in all shades of the spectrum, but not by necessity. yes, there are dogmatic marxists, but marxism is not dogmatic. it takes nothing as a given except what is empirically self-evident, and on this it makes predictions. most people who are anti-marxist label marxism as irrational or dogmatic because they do not believe with marx's prognoses, the nature of which they have been misinformed about most of the time anyhow.
well that's interesting, but neither objective nor constructive nor realistic. nor based on anything other than your subjective viewpoint on a system of socio-economics you admittedly have only a broad grasp on.
well, since unlike marx's analysis of the class conflict this is based on no empirical principles at all, i can hardly refute it.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson