The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think you are wrong here. Not sure but pretty sure. In Das Kapital I think Marx pointed out that an intellectual elite would have to represent the workers interest. How else woud a dictatorship of the proletariate work?

I think this is a fair summary of my understanding of Marx:

• Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat"
  
  Before 1875, Marx said little about what in practice would characterize a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” believing that planning in advance the details of a future socialist system constituted the fallacy of "utopian socialism." Thus, Marx used the term very infrequently.
  
  When he did use it, the term "dictatorship" describes control by an entire class, rather than a single sovereign individual (dictator rei gerendae causa), over another class. In this way, according to Marx, the bourgeois state, being a system of class rule, amounts to a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.' In the same sense, when the workers take state power into their hands, they become the new ruling classes. The workers, in other words, rule in their own interest, using the apparatuses of the courts, schools, prisons, and police in a manner required to prevent the bourgeoisie from regrouping and mounting a counterrevolution. Marx expected the victorious workers to be democratic and open in dealings with one another. Theirs is to be a dictatorship of and by, not over, the proletariat.
  
  According to Marx, after the proletariat would take state power, it will aim to eliminate the old social relations of production, and replace these relations by placing the means of production and state apparatus under proletariat control, thus paving the way for the abolition of class distinctions and a classless communist society. He viewed the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as only an intermediate stage, believing that the need for the use of state power of the working class over its enemies would disappear once the classless society had emerged.
  
  Although Marx did not plan out the details of how such a dictatorship would be implemented, earlier in The Civil War in France (1871), his analysis based upon the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871, Marx pointed to the Commune as a model of transition to communism.
  
  Later, Frederick Engels, in his 1891 postscript to the Civil War in France stressed the dismantling of the state apparatus, the decentralization of power and popular democratic control over and management of civil society. The pamphlet praised the democratic features of the Paris Commune, arguing that the working class, once in power, had to "do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself," and that it must "safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictato...he_proletariat

Yes true communism was never achived, because true communism mean not government. But where I think we might disagree is I am pretty sure every communist believed that you need to move through a dicatorship of the proletariate (and had to discard liberal democracy) to get there.

No, I'd agree with that. I think before the October Revolution, many intellectuals believed in a Marxist, populist "dictatorship of the proletariate." I think in the 20s and 30s a few still believed, but many more believed that Lenin was correct, that as an intermediate step centralized power in the form of a true dictatorship was necessary to shepard in the true will of the people, although this was to be a temporary measure (but might last a generation or two).

I had heard the corruption refrain about other precommunist government but never Karensky's government.

The Karensky's government was not in power long enough to be corrupt. It might have been a great thing for Russia, had it survived.

The only thing Lenin improved was he got out of the war (of course giving up the entire Ukraine to do it) but besides that everything got worse for the Russians after the Bolshevik takeover. Massive famines, outbreak of disease, massive executions, labour camps etc.

I'm not sure this is true. Lenin and Stalin did a lot of bad things. Horrible, terrible things. They also dragged a giant backwards agrarian/serf based economy into the 20th Century. When the Bolshevieks took over, they overthrew (more or less) an essentially feudal society. Less than a generation later they beat the United States into space. Twice.

Also, it is pretty clear that it took a while for news of the horrors of Stalin took a while to filter out of the USSR (which, after all, controlled internal communications and was very good at propaganda), and when they did, people started distancing themselves from communism.

I like that: Temporal Chavinism. But these people were promoting the idea of ending democracy. Throwing away the Bill of Rights. Destroying the American system of government. I don't care when it occurred, it was wrong and dangerous. I don't give Washington and Jefferson a walk on Slavery and I don't give these people a walk because there were plenty of people who did not fall for this B.S. If you flirt with throwing away the US constitution and ending civil liberties, don't expect society to welcom you with open arms.

Many people believed that communism represented a new, better way. An opportunity for utopia in contrast to what appeared at the time to many to be a failed experiment in classical democracy. America was (and is) a flawed, unfair society dominated by the rich. A few might have to die, but for many, at least as a hypothetical, that was acceptable.

(Note: These people were wrong. I am sympathetic to some of their thoughts, because at one point I shared at least some of their idealism. But I have seen first hand the effect of communism, or at least Sovietism. I believe the "transitory" period between capitalism and communism is an impermiable barrier against communism. I believe communism, true communism, is impossible, because the workers are no more likely to live and work in harmony than anybody else. America has its flaws, but it is, in my opinion, the greatest nation in the world. It is simply stunning how incredible our country is. The idea of it's violent overthrow (or for that matter, peaceful) is repugnant to me. But Marx spun a good yarn.)

[Nut Case, Sensitive]

Originally posted by bilmore
You wouldn't be so quick to be hateful if you knew that, IRL, I go by "Binky", would you?

Binky!

Better than Nuts!?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
That would be kind of fascinating in its own right, but I would think that being the traitor within the Bush admin isn't the best way to fund your long-term retirement.

The traitors who leaked Plame will probably end up ok. So will the traitors who misled our country into an unnecessary war.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Robert Kennedy would have been 80 years old yesterday.

How old would Mary Jo have been?



Penske-style post!TM

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I think this is a fair summary of my understanding of Marx:

• Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat"
  
  Before 1875, Marx said little about what in practice would characterize a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” believing that planning in advance the details of a future socialist system constituted the fallacy of "utopian socialism." Thus, Marx used the term very infrequently.
  
  When he did use it, the term "dictatorship" describes control by an entire class, rather than a single sovereign individual (dictator rei gerendae causa), over another class. In this way, according to Marx, the bourgeois state, being a system of class rule, amounts to a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.' In the same sense, when the workers take state power into their hands, they become the new ruling classes. The workers, in other words, rule in their own interest, using the apparatuses of the courts, schools, prisons, and police in a manner required to prevent the bourgeoisie from regrouping and mounting a counterrevolution. Marx expected the victorious workers to be democratic and open in dealings with one another. Theirs is to be a dictatorship of and by, not over, the proletariat.
  
  According to Marx, after the proletariat would take state power, it will aim to eliminate the old social relations of production, and replace these relations by placing the means of production and state apparatus under proletariat control, thus paving the way for the abolition of class distinctions and a classless communist society. He viewed the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as only an intermediate stage, believing that the need for the use of state power of the working class over its enemies would disappear once the classless society had emerged.
  
  Although Marx did not plan out the details of how such a dictatorship would be implemented, earlier in The Civil War in France (1871), his analysis based upon the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871, Marx pointed to the Commune as a model of transition to communism.
  
  Later, Frederick Engels, in his 1891 postscript to the Civil War in France stressed the dismantling of the state apparatus, the decentralization of power and popular democratic control over and management of civil society. The pamphlet praised the democratic features of the Paris Commune, arguing that the working class, once in power, had to "do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself," and that it must "safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictato...he_proletariat


No, I'd agree with that. I think before the October Revolution, many intellectuals believed in a Marxist, populist "dictatorship of the proletariate." I think in the 20s and 30s a few still believed, but many more believed that Lenin was correct, that as an intermediate step centralized power in the form of a true dictatorship was necessary to shepard in the true will of the people, although this was to be a temporary measure (but might last a generation or two).



The Karensky's government was not in power long enough to be corrupt. It might have been a great thing for Russia, had it survived.

I'm not sure this is true. Lenin and Stalin did a lot of bad things. Horrible, terrible things. They also dragged a giant backwards agrarian/serf based economy into the 20th Century. When the Bolshevieks took over, they overthrew (more or less) an essentially feudal society. Less than a generation later they beat the United States into space. Twice.

Also, it is pretty clear that it took a while for news of the horrors of Stalin took a while to filter out of the USSR (which, after all, controlled internal communications and was very good at propaganda), and when they did, people started distancing themselves from communism.


Many people believed that communism represented a new, better way. An opportunity for utopia in contrast to what appeared at the time to many to be a failed experiment in classical democracy. America was (and is) a flawed, unfair society dominated by the rich. A few might have to die, but for many, at least as a hypothetical, that was acceptable.

(Note: These people were wrong. I am sympathetic to some of their thoughts, because at one point I shared at least some of their idealism. But I have seen first hand the effect of communism, or at least Sovietism. I believe the "transitory" period between capitalism and communism is an impermiable barrier against communism. I believe communism, true communism, is impossible, because the workers are no more likely to live and work in harmony than anybody else. America has its flaws, but it is, in my opinion, the greatest nation in the world. It is simply stunning how incredible our country is. The idea of it's violent overthrow (or for that matter, peaceful) is repugnant to me. But Marx spun a good yarn.)

Thanks for clearing that up. Don't let anyone ever say you can't learn something from this board. What strikes me about this is how just a little oversight on Marx's part caused such a huge disaster. If Marx had just laid out in more detail what the state should be like during the proletariate phase we may have avoided over a hundred million deaths.

This is like the butterfly flapping its wings causing a hurricane on the other side of the world. Marx was probably thinking about detailing how the dictatorship of the proletariate would be structured but then his wife probably told him to empty the trash and he forgot all about it. He probably thought that dictatorship of the proletariate was self explanatory and blew it off.

Laziness lead to mass executions.

I realize it is possible that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot could have all happened anyway, but I believe if Marx laid out a specific structure of how the government would work during this intemediary phase then it would have been very difficult to ignore it.

[Spanky]

Can we get a little more detail on that Vonnegut thing?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Can we get a little more detail on that Vonnegut thing?

He is ancient and borderline senile (but I have him in DP so he ain't dying), and hates Bush and the war. He said what he said and he meant it.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
He is ancient and borderline senile (but I have him in DP so he ain't dying), and hates Bush and the war. He said what he said and he meant it.

I am a huge Vonnegut fan, but his last book was a fucking rip-off. Not only was it extremely bitter, but unbelieveably repetitive of his previous writings. Almost every cute anecdote in it had been written (by him) previously in one of his works of fiction. I was very disappointed. He's one of my literary heroes. Unfortunately, he may now be senile.

ETA: Do you see how this is done, Republicans? This is how you criticize someone you have supported, even though it pains you to do so. I could have toed the Vonnegut line, but I would not have been truthful with myself had I done so. People with a blind allegiance are crazier than even old man Vonnegut. DOWN WITH THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
ETA: Do you see how this is done, Republicans? This is how you criticize someone you have supported, even though it pains you to do so. I could have toed the Vonnegut line, but I would not have been truthful with myself had I done so. People with a blind allegiance are crazier than even old man Vonnegut. DOWN WITH THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!

Funny, this is the exact same method I use. Your problem is, you keep waiting for R's to make this same mea culpa with regard to the "Bush lied" BS, and it's not gonna happen, because it's the "Bush lied" that's the lie.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
Funny, this is the exact same method I use. Your problem is, you keep waiting for R's to make this same mea culpa with regard to the "Bush lied" BS, and it's not gonna happen, because it's the "Bush lied" that's the lie.

I really wasn't looking for a substantive response.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Funny, this is the exact same method I use. Your problem is, you keep waiting for R's to make this same mea culpa with regard to the "Bush lied" BS, and it's not gonna happen, because it's the "Bush lied" that's the lie.

Oh, I must have missed something in the news lately? When did we find the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, the reconstituted nuclear arms program, the aerial drones, the mobile weapons labs, and the connections to OBL?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Funny, this is the exact same method I use. Your problem is, you keep waiting for R's to make this same mea culpa with regard to the "Bush lied" BS, and it's not gonna happen, because it's the "Bush lied" that's the lie.

Tell it to the turkey. He looks a little nervous about "the pardon."

Bush lied! Marshmallow is fried!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Oh, I must have missed something in the news lately? When did we find the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, the reconstituted nuclear arms program, the aerial drones, the mobile weapons labs, and the connections to OBL?

We didn't. Surprised everyone, eh? Madeline, Billy, Al, Jacques, Francois, Vlad - pretty much the whole crew. What part of "lie" do you need explained?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Tell it to the turkey. He looks a little nervous about "the pardon."

Bush lied! Marshmallow is fried!

MY kind of President would look down, say "screw this, I love turkey", and whack off its head.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Oh, I must have missed something in the news lately? When did we find the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, the reconstituted nuclear arms program, the aerial drones, the mobile weapons labs, and the connections to OBL?

Dude, according to Cheney, your party negligently believed the lies told by Bush and voted for the war. Thus you are being dishonest by questioning it now.