|
time to face it, if the soviet union had put more effort into rooting out capitalist roaders like khrushchev the sino-soviet split wouldnt have happened and we'd all be living under space communism on the red planet (communist joke) (no hoxhaist replies pls)
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
i was flipping through that site and I found this https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm interview between stalin and hg wells in 1934. craaaaazy. stalin: quote:In speaking of the impossibility of realising the principles of planned economy while preserving the economic basis of capitalism, I do not in the least desire to belittle the outstanding personal qualities of Roosevelt, his initiative, courage and determination. Undoubtedly, Roosevelt stands out as one of the strongest figures among all the captains of the contemporary capitalist world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
I'm not like a huge fan of stalin, but he does a really good job explaining the differences between liberalism and socialism in that interview.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
I'm about halfway through Marxism and the National Question. I have some disagreements here and there, mostly stemming from the fact that the world has changed a lot in a century and a lot of poo poo works inherently differently now. But I do also find a lot of common ground so far and while I'm not yet sure how closely I can relate my position with his I think there are a lot of commonalities and nothing yet concretely contradicts what I have in mind. I'll continue reading and then think on it and post about it later on, maybe tonight depending on if I feel like it. I probably will. But it's a good perspective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Obviously, it is not a question of "institutions," but of the general regime prevailing in the country. If there is no democracy in the country there can be no guarantees of "complete freedom for cultural development" of nationalities. One may say with certainty that the more democratic a country is the fewer are the "encroachments" made on the "freedom of nationalities," and the greater are the guarantees against such "encroachments." Russia is a semi-Asiatic country, and therefore in Russia the policy of "encroachments" not infrequently assumes the grossest form, the form of pogroms. It need hardly be said that in Russia "guarantees" have been reduced to the very minimum. Germany is, however, European, and she enjoys a measure of political freedom. It is not surprising that the policy of "encroachments" there never takes the form of pogroms. In France, of course, there are still more "guarantees," for France is more democratic than Germany. There is no need to mention Switzerland, where, thanks to her highly developed, although bourgeois democracy, nationalities live in freedom, whether they are a minority or a majority. Thus the Bund adopts a false position when it asserts that "institutions" by themselves are able to guarantee complete cultural development for nationalities. It may be said that the Bund itself regards the establishment of democracy in Russia as a preliminary condition for the "creation of institutions" and guarantees of freedom. But this is not the case. From the report of the Eighth Conference of the Bund [25] it will be seen that the Bund thinks it can secure "institutions" on the basis of the present system in Russia, by "reforming" the Jewish community. "The community," one of the leaders of the Bund said at this conference, "may become the nucleus of future cultural-national autonomy. Cultural-national autonomy is a form of self-service on the part of nations, a form of satisfying national needs. The community form conceals within itself a similar content. They are links in the same chain, stages in the same evolution." [26] On this basis, the conference decided that it was necessary to strive "for reforming the Jewish community and transforming it by legislative means into a secular institution," democratically organized (our italics – J. St.). It is evident that the Bund considers as the condition and guarantee not the democratization of Russia, but some future "secular institution" of the Jews, obtained by "reforming the Jewish community," so to speak, by "legislative" means, through the Duma: But we have already seen that "institutions" in themselves cannot serve as "guarantees" if the regime in the state generally is not a democratic one. But what, it may be asked, will be - the position under a future democratic system? Will not special "cultural institutions which guarantee," etc., be required even under democracy? What is the position in this respect in democratic Switzerland, for example? Are there special cultural institutions in Switzerland on the pattern of Springer's "National Council"? No, there are not. But do not the cultural interests of, for instance, the Italians, who constitute a minority there, suffer for that reason? One does not seem to hear that they do. And that is quite natural: in Switzerland all special cultural "institutions," which supposedly "guarantee," etc., are rendered superfluous by democracy. And so, impotent in the present and superfluous in the future – such are the institutions of cultural-national autonomy, and such is national autonomy. This is a section I find extraordinarily interesting in that I both agree with it generally but I think it has huge glaring flaws. This so far is my impression of the paper as a whole but I am still considering my final thoughts on it. Pertinent to the above section, I do believe Stalin is making a case the democratic enfrachisement better addresses the need of a minority community than a top-down instituition. This I would dare say I wholeheartedly agree with, and I actually find it funny and shocking that such a thing was written by loving Joseph Stalin of all people. HOWEVER, I think the flaw we can spot here is due to the time in which this paper was written and the limited understanding of how minorities can still be affected in modern highly developed liberal democracies. Democracy is one thing, but what nature does that democracy take? Does it take form in a first past the post parliamentary electoral system? How about multi-ballot? How about a proportional representation system? Can we specify the intricacies of each of these models of electoral democratic systems and how they individually affect the franchise of different communities? I think so. How about a democracy that is more generally inclined to per issue referendums or a democracy completely gripped in the representative method. Can we examine how these differ in the franchise of the different communities? I think so. And how, extremely pertinent to the discussion, does the federalization of a nation vs centralization affect the franchisement of these communities? We can also examined this and all of the above, in great and exact detail because the world has changed drastically and never before have we had access to this level of information and the ability to instantly communicate. This is something I'm going to touch on in a later post because I think it's astronomically important to the discussion. Furthermore, and also because of the advancement of human society, we can better see how democracy isn't in and of itself a protection of minorities when they are institutionally discriminated against in public and not so public ways. We can also better understand how the political complex -- both corporate and governmental and each legitimized by democracy and by neoliberal ideological propaganda respectively -- actively subverts democratic enfranchisement when it suits its needs. Personally, I think Stalin both understresses the importance of democratization vs institutionalism and also misses the nuances of how that democracy takes form. I am going to go in a lot more detail later about how I think this all correlates to the idea which I touched on earlier in the thread, that democratization and complete franchisement within a structured society is a process that necessarily requires a look at the conditions on the ground -- a point that some have critisized my view of lacking but it actually extremely pertinent to my thoughts. Also related, the idea that the "national identity" is intangible and difficult to change is very, very, very untrue in todays world and our society that we live in today is a perfect example of that. The idea that a persons and larger society's ideological character itself cannot be manipulated or used by politicians or the greater political complex, or grounds to change a society is extremely interesting to me because in my experience I have found the complete opposite to be true. This is also by virtue of technology and communication. I think that would be interesting to talk about as well. Just one more thing, shortly after this Stalin goes on to criticise the Bund's Jewish preferences. In this paper he simultaneously says that the Jewish identity is particularly vulnerable to assimilation and then later goes on to say that greater protection of Jewish tradition isn't necessary. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here it seems to be a strange position to take, especially from a Canadian perspective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
we need an updated  crimes
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:HOWEVER, I think the flaw we can spot here is due to the time in which this paper was written and the limited understanding of how minorities can still be affected in modern highly developed liberal democracies. Its important to understand that Stalin is not confining his use of the word democracy to "liberal democracy" (bourgeois democracy) but to the concept of democracy in general. The russian revolutionaries for a long time called themselves Social Democrats (the Russian Social-democratic Labour party was the name of their party up to 1918). The meaning of the phrase social democrat has changed with time to now refer to people and parties that just want a "kinder" capitalism (lol) rather than the establishment of a socialist democracy on the way to building communism and has been generally abandoned by the communist movement. So when Stalin refers to somethign being more democratic he does not see liberal democacy as the most democratic option but infact a very undemocratic system: democracy for the bourgeoisie, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the rest. Naturally he saw proletarian democracy as being far more democatic than liberal democracy. SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:Furthermore, and also because of the advancement of human society, we can better see how democracy isn't in and of itself a protection of minorities when they are institutionally discriminated against in public and not so public ways. We can also better understand how the political complex -- both corporate and governmental and each legitimized by democracy and by neoliberal ideological propaganda respectively -- actively subverts democratic enfranchisement when it suits its needs. Again you conflate democracy with "liberal democracy", of course liberal "democracy isn't in and of itself a protection of minorities", because it is democracy under capitalism, under the rule of the bourgeoisie, but stalin recognised that the more democratic a nation is, generally, the more well protected minorities are, not ending with liberal democracy as the highest form of democracy, but with socialist democracy, being trasformed to into communism
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
G.C. Furr III posted:Its important to understand that Stalin is not confining his use of the word democracy to "liberal democracy" (bourgeois democracy) but to the concept of democracy in general. The russian revolutionaries for a long time called themselves Social Democrats (the Russian Social-democratic Labour party was the name of their party up to 1918). The meaning of the phrase social democrat has changed with time to now refer to people and parties that just want a "kinder" capitalism (lol) rather than the establishment of a socialist democracy on the way to building communism and has been generally abandoned by the communist movement. I do appreciate the difference between liberal democracy and a more socialist leaning democracy and I do not believe that I implied that liberal democracy is anywhere near what I was talking about. Again, refer to my earlier post in this thread to understand where I'm coming from. SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:The dictatorship of the proletariat is not authoritarian in nature. It can be and quite possibly necessarily is a mass organizational, democratic movement. The only reason why it is called a dictatorship is because proletarian ideals will rule supreme. Inclusivity instead of division, common ownership instead of greed. From each according to their ability, and to each according to their need. Disputes settled not through the blood of workers but negotiation and the common understanding that the proletariat stand united rather than apart. I quite clearly make the case that socialist democracy is inherently different from the current liberal democratic tradition. But since you do bring up the point, I think it was clear that Stalin was making the clear distinction between Russian autocracy and liberal democratic systems in the west. He even explicitly points this out when he concedes that yes, Switzerland's democracy is bourgeois, but it is still good for minority communities. Stalin did, in fact, make a round about endorsement for liberal democracy because he (rightly) understands that it is an advanced system of government that is better than more regressive alternatives. This does not, however, cap his thoughts out on liberal democracy, that is certainly true. What I was trying to get at with I can't believe this came out of Stalin's mouth is that I think you'd have to go through some real mental gymnastics to relate what he wrote there to his own governance in practice. This paper appears to me to almost demonstrate a transition in Stalin's thought. From a more democratically minded socialism to protect against things like assimilation to a an extreme institutionalist mindset where assimilation is actively forced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
From what I gather, 1913 Stalin and I could agree that a democratic system under the auspices of the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a perfectly acceptable system that serves the interests of a broad swathe of communties. Of course, this would have to be differently interpreted given the conditions of separate societies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:What I was trying to get at with I can't believe this came out of Stalin's mouth is that I think you'd have to go through some real mental gymnastics to relate what he wrote there to his own governance in practice. This only works if your analysis of Stalin is literally to believe the personality cult, that everything was him. There is more nuance to the structure of the soviet communist party and its institutions than "stalin personally did everything". Stalin was still agitating for democratic structures for a really long time, against the wishes of the Central Committee he wrote the part of the 1936 soviet constitution which guarantees the right of non-party members to run in elections, and for the ballots to always be secret. Before the constitution was adopted, he was interviewed by Roy Howard for the AP and he spoke at length about how contested, secret ballot direct elections were vital as a check against corruption and incompetence. This was just before the great purge started. likewise there was a bunch of times he'd get urgent calls because the NKVD had dragged in someone important to him, and he'd go rescue them. "leave that holy fool alone" etc. at the end of the day there was always multiple centres of power within the party, different agendas and a lot of back and forth. you shouldn't mistake the party for stalin
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:This only works if your analysis of Stalin is literally to believe the personality cult, that everything was him. There is more nuance to the structure of the soviet communist party and its institutions than "stalin personally did everything". this is true for every country on earth, too. even the monarchies that are still around can't mete supreme power out exclusively from the throne. modern governance is just too complicated for anything resembling liberal conceptions of dictatorship
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Hmmm yeah, I probably attributed too much to Stalin personally there. I still think it's a little funny but there's no denying governments are very nuanced so thank you for the information.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Does anyone have any recommendations of academics in the mold of Richard Wolff, Cornel West, Tariq Ali, Chris Hedges (not the plagiarism poo poo), Yanis Varoufakis, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and David Harvey? I need some good reading and podcast material
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:this is true for every country on earth, too. even the monarchies that are still around can't mete supreme power out exclusively from the throne. modern governance is just too complicated for anything resembling liberal conceptions of dictatorship Yeah, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Stalin, 19th party congress, october 1952 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHbzSif78qQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:we need an updated That image is so unforgivable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:What I was trying to get at with I can't believe this came out of Stalin's mouth is that I think you'd have to go through some real mental gymnastics to relate what he wrote there to his own governance in practice. SirJonnyMcDonald: As you were willing to give one of Stalin's major works a read, you have naturally come to realise the eneormous contradiction between what stalin wrote and what we are told he did. I, and im sure many western marxist-leninists including forums posters here were not all born as "Stalinists", many of us discovered things exactly through trying to resolve the contradiction you are trying to. Either Stalin was a schizophrenic who wrote thousands of pages on freedom, socialism, democracy and everyone being nice to each other while happily murdering millions as a dictator just because, or actually stalin was not the tyrant western anti-communist historiography (naturally) tries to paint him as and that the axiomatically accepted statements about the USSR are part of booj propaganda to defend its own system. If you are interested in the democracy question in th USSR u might as well read some grover furr on stalin' attempts to democratise the soviet union, short read, fully referenced, v good: http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html general stuff on lies about the soviet union: http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
 i take 5 hours worth of business meals a week too, but it's eating the rich and it's my hobby
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
business meals otherwise known as "lunch" i think we all know what working alone means...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
yeah, jackin it
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
It's sensible, anyone can understand it. It's easy. You're not an exploiter, so you can grasp it. It's a good thing for you, find out more about it. The stupid call it stupid and the squalid call it squalid. It is against squalor and against stupidity. the exploiters call it a crime But we know: It is the end of crime. It is not madness, but The end of madness. It is not the riddle But the solution. It is the simple thing So hard to achieve. - Brecht
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:yeah but here in the US tech lords are sucking the blood of the young to live forever... soo.... lmao this could be an onion article
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
im excited for our vampire capitalist immortal godkings
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
G.C. Furr III posted:SirJonnyMcDonald: As you were willing to give one of Stalin's major works a read, you have naturally come to realise the eneormous contradiction between what stalin wrote and what we are told he did. I, and im sure many western marxist-leninists including forums posters here were not all born as "Stalinists", many of us discovered things exactly through trying to resolve the contradiction you are trying to. Either Stalin was a schizophrenic who wrote thousands of pages on freedom, socialism, democracy and everyone being nice to each other while happily murdering millions as a dictator just because, or actually stalin was not the tyrant western anti-communist historiography (naturally) tries to paint him as and that the axiomatically accepted statements about the USSR are part of booj propaganda to defend its own system. yeah, the thing is that Stalin was pretty good on the gradual stuff, but uh, getting lumped as a Stalinist would be pretty damning this was my post, please don't eviscerate me too much
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
most of us don't consider ourselves stalinists or even believe "stalinism" to be a discrete ideology. the label gets thrown our way by liberals and assorted anticoms
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
G.C. Furr III posted:If you are interested in the democracy question in th USSR u might as well read some grover furr on stalin' attempts to democratise the soviet union, short read, fully referenced, v good: http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html don't have glasses, it took me a while, but that was really well done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
what i'm getting from this is that CEOs spend 6 hours a week out of 55 doing actual work (24 if you include 'meetings', which I guess are soul-sucking enough to qualify) thx capitalism
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If your biggest category is misc, I think you've hosed up on the survey. not really, SV folks really work this way there's not much to do while you wait for some drat thing to compile on a server far away
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:most of us don't consider ourselves stalinists or even believe "stalinism" to be a discrete ideology. the label gets thrown our way by liberals and assorted anticoms Neoliberals don't consider themselves "neoliberals" either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
lol i didn't even notice exercise was listed as work
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Neoliberals don't consider themselves "neoliberals" either. yeah they call themselves new democrats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
im a neoliberal. free trade rocks. death to islam. break up all the unions
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
communists have small hearts, with cold blood pumping through them slowely
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:little underdeveloped cuba managed to create a lung cancer vaccine so i don't even want to think about what sci-fi futuretopia the most advanced economy in the world would be under socialism Star Trek, obvs
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
well if this serial killer thinks so, i suppose we have no reason to doubt it
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Al! posted:well if this serial killer thinks so, i suppose we have no reason to doubt it I voted PSL and got transported into a bleak parallel reality where everything was decaying, the air was toxic, and innocent people were preyed upon by ravenous monsters. I was really surprised they managed to establish socialism so quickly!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Al! posted:well if this serial killer thinks so, i suppose we have no reason to doubt it i haven't watched a second of stranger things but will mess around with any customizable online thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:i haven't watched a second of stranger things but will mess around with any customizable online thing oh is that what that's from? im a weirdo shutin with very little interest in social media so i assumed it was some sort of SAW thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:28
|
|