-- when they happen (ie: what kinds of societies?)
-- who leads them
-- who benefits
-- how they progress

and so on.

Any detail -- STRIPPED of ideological loading -- concerning any such facts would belong here.

I shall start off with an example.

From this conclusion I have decided that most revolutionary activity should be "harm reduction," by which I mean preventing the worst elements from taking over and doing more damage than is necessary in an awkward and violent situation.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I think the idea to secularize a movement would have to include, a history and lesson developed from my following statements.

It's not just priviledge persons. In science, anomalies pay off, and it is these, that lead to revolutions in the ways we have always done things.

Thomas Kuhn, and I know a few have a revulsion for this term paradigmal change, but this is a nice undestanding of what "revolution" means.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

I think when some people talk about revoltion they forget about the revolt aspect of the process. Revolt by it's nature is uncontrolable. I think to be succesfull this uncontrolable aspect must remain.

quote:

---

-- when they happen (ie: what kinds of societies?)

---

quote:

---

who leads them

---

quote:

---

who benefits

---

quote:

---

how they progress

---

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I just wanted to add: I think human beings are on the road to extinction, with no one to blame but ourselves. We will make a reall mess of earth but somethings will survive and evolve. hopefully no more human beings.

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: clersal ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
[QB]
A truly anarchist society can only come to exist with ...very select ... membership.

---

And the more modern examples certainly lasted longer than 3 weeks. And believe it or not anarchy just happens as argentina showed. Alot of coopertives can be created out of the spur of the moment.

I can certainly understand what clersal is saying. In the event of another macro economic revolt we have to get it right, I mean we really have to. Anyone who's seen Pearl Jam's Evolution video knows that the end result of that video could be immenent this century. One of the things that need to be done almost imediately in my view during this cataclismic event is that the agricultural society(the phenomena that started this hell) needs to be dismantled. We have to move toward a permacultural society and fast. The way we do this determined if we succeed or fail.

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Well anarchy or something like it lasted about 2 million years among humanoid species,nearly 100 million years with us.

---

quote:

---

Well anarchy or something like it lasted about 2 million years among humanoid species,nearly 100 million years with us.

---

Spector I'm not read on M&E, however I was under the impression that they refered to it as primitive communism. If they put it in the negative context that you seem to be implying then that is indeed unfortunate and really displays the vulger part of their positivism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
There probably was a hierarchy of some sort which is why i would say something like it. However the freedom of movement and spontenuity that would have existed(pre-language/symbolic thought)would have been something that can only be imagined. Certainly I would not recomend any heirarchy however some groups of organization will be different. Study on the San and other indigenous groups show how reletively free a society primitive life would have been. Fact the last 40 years of research has obliterated alot of positivist garbage.

---

Um, hunter gathers like the San have as complete mastery over symbolic thought and abstraction as we do, maybe more. They just have far less need for organization and technology and far less ability to support them. Order resided within the family/clan/tribe and their common experience/traditions.

quote:

---

Spector I'm not read on M&E, however I was under the impression that they refered to it as primitive communism. If they put it in the negative context that you seem to be implying then that is indeed unfortunate and really displays the vulger part of their positivism.

---

When they happen? There has to be a comming together of various factors. First, one needs a desperate population, as Nonesuch identified. What alarms me is just how bad things can get for a populace before they are pushed to revolution.

And you need a disenfranchised middle class leadership for the desperate classes. Sad to say. I'd rather the leadership came from the desperate populace, but from the histories I've read, it seems it doesn't. Probably why most revolutions end up screwing the desperate populace in the end.

And, I think you need a new idea/ideal powerful enough for everyone to put aside their petty divisions, at least long enough to overthrow the existing power.

Who benefits? That takes decades to sort out. It's easier to identify the losers in the early going. And, a lot more fun.

How they progress has been discussed by some famous historian, which is used by history teachers to sadistically bore the bejesus out of students who think something like the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution might be interesting. Toynnebean? Or the other guy. I forget. The rule is that there is five distinctive stages, except where there isn't.

I love academics.

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Was the "Industrial Revolution", for instance, not a revolution and if it was which were the 'organised groups' behind it?

Please don't say 'the bourgeoisie' because while true in a certain sense they were certainly not organised. Organisations like the AntiCorn Law League came into existence when the Indistrial Revolution was almost finished.

If this is correct, it would seem to lead to the question 'what causes revolutions'? (There is more than one theory to explain that.)

It's kind of self-evident -and yet needs stating again sometimes, it seems- that revolution is a lot more than a bunch of people overthrowing a particular class/power structure. Hobsbawm's The Age of Revolution is a very interesting read in this regard and btw he is an excellent marxist. He deals a lot with the explosion in the arts etc in this book.

A related question in my mind is when did certain revolutions end? (Or did they? I think so. Marx's The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon is a superb piece relating to this.)

In the case of the Soviet revolution Deutscher's trilogy of Trotsky's life The Prophet Armed The Prophet Unarmed The Porphet Outcast makes for interesting reading, for myself especially about the early part where creativity and freedom just exploded. To be followed by Stalin.

Surely, the Chinese Communist Revolution ended some time in the past, did it not?

I think these points are related to the topic under discussion. If you think otherwise, please tell me.

edited to add:

quote:

---

let's not make any theoretical arguments

---

If I did just that, skadl, I apologise. It wasn't my intention but how can one discuss this in a 'vacuum'?

Further edited to add the following link to the full text of the 18th Brumaire. Check out especially the second paragraph of Chapter One. I think it's one of the most powerful statements I found in any historical writings.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

Kahn rule ended in China when the Mongols thought they were above paying taxes and a peasant rebellion turfed them from China.

Elitist Roman's refused to pay their taxes while Roman soldiers became little more than bribed hirelings. Slaves did the most damage to Rome.

In France, the poor lived in misery while royalty prospered and the rich indulged in orgies of all appetites.

In America, taxation without representation was the source of discontent.

In Russia, Catherine's liberalism wasn't happening fast enough or providing the change required to quell thoughts of revolution. Eventually, throngs of hungry people were shot to death while protesting in front of the czars palace.

-- who benefits
The Chinese people who, at the time, gave birth in rice paddies and died some 30 years later, not far from where they were born.

The Cuban people have benefited greatly since 1959. Their lives are no longer dedicated to the rich from sunup to sundown in the cain fields while their children sold themselves to wealthy tourists and organized crime. Castro will not be bribed by Chiquita(United Fruit Co) as weak leaders have in Honduras, El Salvador etc etc. Cuba shines in comparison with the banana republics.

-- how they progress
China's infant mortality was worse than India's in 1949. By 1976, China's infant mortality was better than India's IM rate is today.

Fidel Castro was awarded the UN Health for All award, and Cuba's education system stands in sharp contrast to the rest of Latin America's. Cuba's social statistics are better than post-glasnost Russia and Eastern Europe.

Viva la revolucion!

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

If the strength of the vision was powerful enough, and the divisions within society recognized, then those who have and have not, would have confronted each other in many different ways. Maybe choosen this issue to deal with each other?

But what was lasting, might have been the lesson that any well reason man could see all these functions, and with a calm heart, decided that the changes to come, did not have to be violent, but ring true, to a greater recogition of truth, fairness, to all human beings?

Medicare, and the right of each to fair and equatible treatment, regardless of race, religion, or status of wealth, each would recieve accordingly, the right and proper dignities of care.

So I recognize this "balancing act" between captialist urge to accumalate and build, while it may have overlooked the consumer status of the worker, and the consumer. Such balance, the avenue to create new possibilties could only come from such equilibrium?

How do you bring back the vision of what started the revolution? What machination of understanding, de-sensitize people to such fairness to all, might have been blinded, by some rouse of a captitalistic standard? A baancing act gone array t the dark forces of evil?

This might be the telling tale of a new revolution. No where yet, has this definition explained well enough, the clear distinction, could be transferred, to the society we engage in?

Tones injected into spaces, to create greater oscillating future, and probable outcomes for selection? Civilizations coming to a end, from what energy was injected at it's verybeginning? History is full of this as histroy itself is about change.

I used science as a example, and read further on the explanative features Steven Weinberg had about Thomas Kuhn. There is much to see on how such changes could effec,t that very same society, when dialogue embues the virtues of expanded thought about the way we have done things, could "become."

It can be done in quiet and suttle ways, when philosophies borrowed and applciations are presented in new ways to society.

Bargaining strategies that are much different then what we are accustom too, presented in resonantial thought constructs, to the way, "debate" can fostered new perspective?

Derail trains of momentum, that have the greater portion of the caucus, changed with good reasoning? A democracy, at it's finest?

The idea here then, is a equative one. When you think of why The "Beautiful mind" might have fought the delusions, while in the midst of this battle, a mind seeks to harmonize and strategize such bargaining processes to simple talk in bar room realization? A Nobel Prize it was.

So how easy we dismiss the very dialogues we have, to realize the greater strategies underlie that very dialogue, with principals that are new , yet old, philosphies that talk about change, with new equative reasoning?

While to then, the idea of "first principles" would recognize the ability of each of us to sort out the great wealth and probable outcomes to solidified examples, of those same measure validations as predictive outcome? We do this naturally already through such dialogue? Through our conclusions.

This would recogize the inherent right each of has to expression, regardless of race religion, and wealth of status. That every thought measured, is equal to that expression that a new state or country could exist? Here such changes as Benjamin Franklin did to Jefferson's words, where "care and validation" would supercede religious values, above the right of expression?

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

It is more pleasant and useful to go through the "experience of the revolution" than to write about it.

---

I'm happy to summarize some basic orthodox Marxist views to provide other people with a target. Later. Right now the "revolutions" of planet Earth means that I'm facing the summer sun and I should damn well enjoy it.

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

How do you know these revolutions are not counter revolutionary? Doesn't Mother Earth spin from left to right?

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

VanLuke: How do you know these revolutions are not counter revolutionary? Doesn't Mother Earth spin from left to right?

---

Ha ha. I wonder if your words aren't wiser than even you yourself think.

In response to your second question, I would simply ask: which direction are you facing? If you are looking at the Earth upwards towards the North Pole then, sure, the Earth rotates from left to right. But why presume this orientation? Why not presume that you're looking downwards towards the equator from the far north of Canada? Then the rotation would seem to be from right to left as the Earth spins and the Sun seems to rise in the east.

Your comment, however, provides a vivid metaphor of the uselessness of referring to "the left" or "the right" when it is so abundantly clear, as in this case, that it all depends on which way you're facing.

Time for more sunshine.

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

I think only blind reactionaries would not see that great accomplishments were achieved by the Cuban and Chinese revolutions.

I would add the Soviet Union though not the eastern Europen states to which "the revolution was exported at the tip of the bayonet" (with the possible exception of Jugoslavia where maybe it wasn't exported/imported.)

But you can surely see what happened in the ex-Soviet states since reaction has triumphed or -especially- the satellites during Soviet rule.

Come on, even you must have heard of the STASI and their tactics. I hope you condemn people getting killed because they want to leave for another place. I'm talking about the Wall and the Iron Curtain more generally. Because if you don't, I would certainly not call you a revolutionary. Not even an armchair revolutionary.

So that gets us back to the question I posed above:

What is the meaning of the word revolution?

Specifically, what does it mean to you Fidel?

(It may, or may not, surprise you that I have read many of your posts, maybe all I notice even if I do not respond. You're kind of predictable .... )

Do you really mean to say that Caesar appointing himself as dictator, kicking the Emperor out because the rich were sick of paying taxes, is a revolution? If so why? I just see it as a power grab by one clique from another. (In fairness, you did not specify Caesar, you just offered some generalities.)

Btw the 'reason' history is not to be deduced from some theory was why Marx wrote to some people in France who had written to him and had called themselves "Marxistes": Tous ce que je sais, c'est que je ne suis pas Marxiste"

The preceding is connected to the subject under discussion because we're not discussing some theories to begin with. (See skadl's opening post) But in any case -and certainly for anybody I would consider a marxist- history is absolutely necessary to discuss it at all.

Please comment also on the other question I raised above about the 'end of a revolution'. Or do you seriously maintain that China is socialist? Russia? Other ex-Soviet states? If so, I would not consider you a socialist either.

I know there were outside efforts from the beginning of the revolution until the collapse. So don't tell me about Star Wars etc please.

This is meant in a constructive sense in spite of the 'spice' contained in my message.

This was so predictable and I did laugh out loud (in a nice sense) about the direction you're looking from determining whether it spins from left to right. (If you're looking from down under -sorry Suzette, I just couldn't resist- you're looking the wrong way to begin with )

But seriously there is more than you might realise in that too. I'm talking about the word 'revolution'.

What does it mean to you? And were some of the actions I mentioned in the post addressed to Fidel (of the ex-Soviet states, e.g. shooting Polish shipyard workers) 'revolutionary'?

I also read all your posts I catch, usually with great interest even if I don't agree with you all the time. So I know the answer to the preceding question. However, I did not ask it to provoke you either but to pose the same second question to you I asked Fidel about 'the end of a revolution'.

Enjoy the sun. I can wait. But in the northern hemisphere it does spin from left to right, i.e. East to West, so be careful! The counter revolution ....

edited to add:

quote:

---

Your comment, however, provides a vivid metaphor of the uselessness of referring to "the left" or "the right" when it is so abundantly clear, as in this case, that it all depends on which way you're facing.

---

So true and it has been a long time that I try to avoid left and right to describe political leanings. The neo cons share some positions with anarchists. They even stole the word by which we used to refer to ourselves when I was in England (I think the Germans used it too), 'libertarians'. The word 'socialism' has lost most of its meaning to me a long time ago. A couple of decades ago I would not have called Norway 'socialist'. Now I don't know anymore. (Reaction has been triumphing for so long; so maybe I'm just willing to settle for less. Or maybe getting older meant that I learned to distinguish between some unachievable ideals -utopia- and politically feasible goals. Others might just call it 'selling out'. )

So I usually say "I'm somewhere on the left"

Enjoy the sun.

But N. Beltov DO consider what you're doing to babble, will ya?

See what google blends in as ad?

[ 06 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

The war criminals (especially the big ones) were given sanctuary by the Allies.

Don't take my word for it; check out Christopher Simpson The Splendid Blond Beast and Blowback by the same author.

As I said, you are very predictable.

Why don't you answer the quetsions?

You always take the position of revolutionary, don't you?

So killing people climbing over the wall -without knowing if they were war criminals, or for that matter for any reason- was OK?

As for revolution I think that it can no longer be looked at in an objective before and after context. The list of molar and molecular opressions that the posrmodernists uncovered shows that revolution truly is an everyday thing and can happen on many levels from social to individual insurrection.

As far as macro change goes I like to use the trial and error analogy in a lab. If you look at Russia for example, revolts in that country really started in the 1880s, revolts in which the nihilists and anarchists played a part in. While for nearly 40 years nothing came of it, it finaly happened. Revolution in the violent sense is all about trial and error. I dream of being in the moment of revolt, however I do not expect to play any historical role. I could however be in that revolt that makes those key interjections. That's how revolutions in that sense is made, mass movements need not apply.

quote:

---

nonesuch:rarely a peasant, simply because peasants tend to conservatism and live far from the center of power... and begin to starve a little later than the urban poor.

---

The curent happenings in China would prove you incorrect.

quote:

---

If you look at Russia for example, revolts in that country really started in the 1880s, revolts in which the nihilists and anarchists played a part in. While for nearly 40 years nothing came of it

---

I believe it was 1905 that Trotsky was elected by the workers in St Petersburg -- after having walked a few thousand KM from Siberia.

quote:

---

The curent happenings in China would prove you incorrect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
[QB]Fidel

The war criminals (especially the big ones) were given sanctuary by the Allies.

Don't take my word for it; check out Christopher Simpson The Splendid Blond Beast and Blowback by the same author.
QB]

---

Not all of them, VanLuke. After the war, many Nazis hid in displaced persons camps, often among Jews and those they had committed crimes against. They were desperate to leave East Germany. They would have been hanged or shot at dawn if eventually caught.

quote:

---

Very likely. I don't follow the news.
Is there a revolution in China right now, led by an agrarian?

---

Well it's an everyday life revolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
So leftists should fight fascist fire with fascist fire I take it?

Like I said, don't make the face go blue. He did the same selective cut/paste with me too.

---

You still haven't mentioned when you and Morpheus will be sight seeing in Belmopan or San Salvador?. Who is presidentè of El Salvador, Vigilante ?. And why are there so many living in abject poverty in that shithole of a nation so close to the USian backdoor when they are as free as they are ?. Not holding my breath either.

quote:

---

Well it's an everyday life revolution.

---

Seriously. What is a revolution?
Not a coup, where one clique of ruling elite displaces another. Not a change of political direction in a democratic state. Not a cultural shift from one belief-system to another. Not an economic transition. Not the imposition of a puppet government, or even a semi-autonomic government of collaborators and/or expatriates, by the successful foreign invader.
I think it has to be an uprising of the general populace aginst an established ruler; a complete change of system. If it succeeds, even if only for a few days, it's a revolution; if it fails, it's an insurrection. Either way, heads roll.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forum observer:
This would recogize the inherent right each of has to expression, regardless of race religion, and wealth of status. That every thought measured, is equal to that expression that a new state or country could exist? Here such changes as Benjamin Franklin did to Jefferson's words, where "care and validation" would supercede religious values, above the right of expression?

---

Nation Builders And Constitutions

ISAACSON: The virtue of tolerance, which I think is the most important virtue we need in the 21st century. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration, he had a great line, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable." And Franklin crossed out "sacred and undeniable" and put, "We hold these truths to be self evident." [Franklin] said we need to be a very tolerant nation in which our rights are based on reason, not based on religion, and I think in this century, we have to be tolerant of all religions and all tribes, and that was the thing that Benjamin Franklin taught us.

While previous conditions existed, entering into new nation of states, one would had to agree on how this nation would proceed?

So democracies and constitutions, are important elements of revolutions?

Just as our own Fathers of Confederation brought a new country into existance?

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

1. Revolution, Bourgeois. [R.B.]
2. Revolution, National-Liberation. [R.N.L.]
3. Revolution, Popular-Democratic. [R.P.D.]
4. Revolution, Socialist. [R.S.]

The U.S. War of Independence isn't mentioned as an example of any of these. Of course, they might be biased...

Considering the almost religious veneration applied to the Office of the President in the U.S. [to this day, I might add], nonesuch's view makes even more sense. They replaced a King with....an elected "king". Burger King. The King of Rock and Roll. Hmmmmmmmmmm....... Is this some essential USian attribute?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[QB]

Not all of them, VanLuke. After the war, many Nazis hid in displaced persons camps, often among Jews and those they had committed crimes against.

---

True but disingenous to claim (as you seem to do) that people trying to leave -say in the 1980s- were among them.

Was the STASI sleeping all these decades?

quote:

---

Topic: Revolution: what do we know about it?

---

To remember and discusss the murderous injustices in many parts of the world is important but tourism in El Salvador and Pinochet's travel are far from the topic.

Btw you still have not answered my 2 questions.

So here they are again:

What does the word 'revolution' mean to you?

The quote at the beginning was a classification, not a definition.

quote:

---

There's got to be some kind of permanent change in the balance of forces between the social classes in society to use the term "revolution".

---

I think that is a good but (maybe ?) only partial definition. It would even include the Industrial Revolution. (Since I posed the question above)

I guess words like 'technological revolution', e.g. to describe what the widespread use of computers or the adotpion of electricity menat, is just another meaning of the word.

edited to add this unrelated tidbit:

Man the ads google blends in! In this particular case clicking on it included (it changes what they display) a T-shirt with a Russian (Soviet?) Big Mac among old Soviet paraphernalia.

That's the url of the site advertised:
http://www.redavantgarde.com/

I had a professor who compared capitalism to a chamelion. In those days (early 70s) Che Guevara was used as a widespread symbol of opposition to the machine. His comment was based on the fact that many businesses were making money with Che berets, T-shirts etc.

Anything for a buck, eh?

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
Fidel, To remember and discusss the murderous injustices in many parts of the world is important but tourism in El Salvador and Pinochet's travel are far from the topic.

---

That's right, so why you went off on a wild tangent with mention of the STASI one can only guess. I might add that the west has pulled out all the stops in prosecuting former East German's as well as finding politically expedient to ignore Croat atrocities to focus on Serb ones in former Yugoslavia.

After los Chicago Skool economy failed and the killings and torture stopped? in Chile, General Pinochet was allowed a seat in parliament and sat across the way from socialist opposition whose family members and friends were murdered by his regime. He was free to travel around Chile and the rest of the western world.

quote:

---

Btw you still have not answered my 2 questions.

So here they are again:

What does the word 'revolution' mean to you?

Do revolutions come to and end and if so how or do revolutionary regimes continue to be revolutionary forever? (I don't think so. But what do you say?)[/QB]

---

Revolution usually brings much needed change. Change was long overdue in all of the countries where it occurred. What the people do with that change is up to them. The option for revolution should always be there for the people and not curtailed by large armies and public spending on gulag state instead of social democracy as is the current situation in the States.

Revolution ? It should be administered at least once ever imperialist or rogue regime. Apply liberally and repeat if necessary.

And as for the Che T-shirts; Cuban icons, slogans and music are somewhat popular in Colombia today.

Viva la revolucion!

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

So it never was a revolutionary regime as I have long suspected but something you don't seem to see judging by your posts.

quote:

---

needed change

---

How marxist!

Of the 'vulgar' kind.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

VanLuke: The quote at the beginning was a classification, not a definition.

---

Yea, I know. I was avoiding the effort of filling in the blanks. However, a classification can go a long way towards developing an understanding of something, e.g., the study of biology or the morphology of art [Applied Art, Circus, Architecture, Decorative Art, Painting and Drawing, Sculpture, Literature, Theatre, Music, Choreography, Photography, Cinema, Television, ...] to give just 2 examples.

R.B. relates to the transition from feudalism to capitalism, R.S. relates to the transition from capitalism to a communist social formation, R.N.L. relates to revolutionary change in "developing" countries, colonies and semi-colonies, etc., and finally R.P.D. is the term used to describe the anti-fascist transition in Eastern Europe and some Asian countries after WW2. [Re: R.P.D. - Most babblers probably don't consider those events to be revolutions at all - N.Beltov]

quote:

---

I think that is a good but (maybe ?) only partial definition. It would even include the Industrial Revolution.

I guess words like 'technological revolution', e.g. to describe what the widespread use of computers or the adotpion of electricity menat, is just another meaning of the word.

---

I was meaning social or political revolution only. Hell, doesn't an auto company tell us to "Join the Chrysler revolution"? Seems that "revolution" is a popular marketing term. Give me the budget of advertising and marketing of so-called "revolutionary" cars or shampoo or styling gel and we'll have a real social revolution in no time.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
The STASI a tangent eh?

So it never was a revolutionary regime as I have long suspected but something you don't seem to see judging by your posts.

How marxist!

Of the 'vulgar' kind.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

---

They were German's shooting German's, and they were good at it. Not long before that, they were trying to annihilate an idea in Russia. Was the bombing of Saigon and Phnom Penh advocated by Smith or Ricardo ?.

Political conservatives tend to find 'change' unappetizing as well.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

What examples would you look for. Theoretical approaches that enhance the way in which you can now deal with the world?

Some might gather again to bring better understanding to what underlies the "interactive feature of dialogue." To break the walls which limit our visions of greater things?

Revolution, would have been better understood in what "becoming" means when we have infomration come in, and ideas going out in a literary, and scientifuc sense.

Society can change as well, as a result of these endeavors. The Aether might have been the undoing in Einstein' sense, but still continuity still exists in perceptions garnered around the physics of life, and approaches in mathematics?

Sorry this is only a layman perspective, that could be directed to new ideas around nation building, as Beltov seems to want to do?

Coordinate measure, would have been greater then "right or left" had one understood the "greater potential of consequence and action of individuals" from another perspective.

Thus the "gravity of things" not just pretty girls, brings perspective much closer to our home?

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

They were German's shooting German's, and they were good at it. Not long before that, they were trying to annihilate an idea in Russia.

---

Hungary
Poland
Romania

Were they Germans too?
Btw your post sounds pretty racist to me.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Fidel: They were German's shooting German's, and they were good at it. Not long before that, they were trying to annihilate an idea in Russia. Was the bombing of Saigon and Phnom Penh advocated by Smith or Ricardo ?.

---

Presumably, Fidel's point is that the Stasi shooting people is no more inherent to socialism as the U.S. bombing of South East Asia is inherent to the current stage of capitalism.

Just "plain divsions" within the country itself.

Some learnt to appeal to the disenfranchised and made a name and movement for themself.

The luster lost it's apeal when it took human life and annihilated it, because religious context made those with less , feel like more, in a psychological sense.

Crystalnacht,and a beginning revolution of the worst kind. Imagine a medallion, to commemorate the misfortune, the rise of Hitlerism, and a economy in ruins, by which the very "basic metal" caused such a revolution?

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Presumably, Fidel's point is that the Stasi shooting people is no more inherent to socialism as the U.S. bombing of South East Asia is inherent to the current stage of capitalism.

It may be a good time to mention the point that no revolution, of whatever kind, is worth very much at all if it can't defend itself. A gigantic effort was made to "strangle Bolshevism in the cradle" to use {Churchill's?} a well known phrase and such efforts continue to this day against Cuba and other countries. Canada was one of over a dozen countries that invaded Russia in an effort to overturn their revolution. Ask a progressive Chilean about this question and they will tell you that it can happen here as well.

---

I'm aware of all of this (and specifically stated it above) but I'm still left with the question then whether the Soviet satellites were 'socialist'.

Shooting workers in Berlin or Budapest is not what I would find compatible with socialism. Furthermore, if the masses don't want the system then it's not liberation.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

Furthermore, can a revolution be imposed by a conquering army?

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

VanLuke: I'm aware of all of this (and specifically stated it above) but I'm still left with the question then whether the Soviet satellites were 'socialist'.

---

Lots of people cleverer than you or I have argued about this one. Here's one answer...

Look, Hitler's regime was still capitalist. In fact, corporations in countries other than Germany were making profits in Germany at the time of the Nazi regime. That's what I would call a bad capitalism and I would expect that you would agree with that description.

Do you object, in principle, to the very idea of a bad socialism? Does socialism have to be better, in all ways and at all times, than the most advanced capitalist country? What does "better" mean here, anyway? Is your right to own a Hummer in an urban environment more important that cheap public transportation for masses of people?

Let's go back to the the last major transition. Wasn't the pastoral peacefulness of some feudal backwater better than the bourgeois blood-letting of the height of the terror of the French Revolution? Most of us, except the most diehard monarchist fanatic, would prefer a bad capitalism to a good feudalism. Wage slavery is still better than serfdom or outright slavery.

I don't see what's so difficult here. Socialism is about ownership/control of the main means of social production [among other things, of course]. So, there's the possibility of transitional forms. We would actually expect that living in an age of transition from capitalism to socialism, wouldn't we?

quote:

---

VanLuke: Furthermore, can a revolution be imposed by a conquering army?

---

Neither is the one to feudalism, although being a wage slave is indeed infinitely better than being a serf. However, feudalism wasn't ovverthrown by the bourgeoisie. There was a long period of transition and some economic historian(s?) -can't remember which one(s), it's been too long since university- maintain(s) that the first industrial revolution was IIRC in the 15th century. In any case, the growth of cities, European colonialism, "Enlightenment" among others had "corroded" feudalism a long time before the bourgoisie triumphed.

Let me ask you another question: In the last years of the Soviet Union when party cadres had their own (hard currency) shops the workers couldn't use was that still socialism?

If not, when did it end?
If yes, does it follow that substantial inequalities in income are compatible with socialism?
Is China socialist ('good' or 'bad')?

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

VanLuke:Let me ask you another question: In the last years of the Soviet Union when party cadres had their own (hard currency) shops the workers couldn't use was that still socialism?

---

The Baryoshkas were available to pretty well anyone who had foreign currency. They were closed, in Moscow for example, in the fall of 1987 or the spring of 1988. I hardly think the opening (or the closing, for that matter) of these stores makes a country socialist or not. I hope you don't think I'm being obtuse.

quote:

---

If yes, does it follow that substantial inequalities in income are compatible with socialism?

---

The experience of the Paris Commune of 1871 set a very high bar in regard to this question. I don't have an abstract answer here except to note that income shouldn't be considered in isolation from other matters. Is everyone's basic needs being met? Are the use of incentives in income helpful in developing certain parts of the economy (small business in Russia was unnecessarily crushed for many years when its existence may well have been very helpful for the development of consumer industries, etc.)

quote:

---

Is China socialist ('good' or 'bad')?

---

I think you're rationalising about the Baryoshkas. I submit few among the masses had dollars and while opening or closing (not long before the end I note) does not make a country socialist but in my universe substantial differences in privilege do matter. IOW Reisa buying some expensive western stuff in Moscow stores while the masses line up for almost anything to buy and often couldn't find the basics.

I accept the arguments you make about economic choices to be made and basic needs being met but remind you of what Karl said about the 'teachers needing to be educated'.

I trust you know that I'm not sniping from the "right".

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

For that matter, I suspect I'd prefer to live in the hunter-gatherer societies of pre-European North America to either (I'm biased because I'm from one of the prairie first nations, but for all the hardships and dangers there was much that was good and has been lost, and I don't think its all just nostalgic fantasies of the elders. Note that I'm an electrical engineer, so I'm not speaking from an anti-technology bias).

quote:

---

I don't believe in Marx's linear progression through types of government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
Pretty pointless but here I go anyway:
Hungary
Poland
Romania

Were they Germans too?
Btw your post sounds pretty racist to me.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

---

But did the Soviets drop bombs on:

Nagasaki
Hiroshima
China 1945-46, 1950-53:
Korea 1950-53:
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69:
Indonesia 1958:
Cuba 1959-61:
Congo 1964:
Peru 1965:
Laos 1964-73:
Vietnam 1961-73:
Cambodia 1969-70:
Lebanon 1983-84:
Grenada 1983:
Libya 1986:
El Salvador 1980s:
Nicaragua 1980s:
Panama 1989:
Bosnia 1985:
Sudan 1998:
Former Yugoslavia 1999:
Iraq 1991-2003:
Afghanistan 1998, 2001-03

Why did they drop those bombs, VanLuke?. If the right wing thought that there could be absolutley nothing about Marxism that might appeal to Latin American's and more living in abject poverty then and now, then why did chickenhawks feel they needed to fund the bombing of schools and hospitals built by Marxists throughout Latin America ?. Why the dirty tricks and terrorist wars on Latin America if it's all about free choice ?. Riddle me that.

They [Chilean's] can't be trusted with democracy.- Henry Kissinger.

Revolution 101

There are varying types of revolution, and none seem to play out exactly like the one before it. Revolutions in France, USA, Russia, China and Cuba were bloody and violent. There was much at stake. And Russian revolutionaries realized then what historians know today; that no matter how imperialist, despotic and corrupted the ruling regime is, so many aristocrats, bureaucrats and hangers on will remain loyal to the presiding regime and will go down fighting tooth and nail. Some scholars actually cite numbers of, "those who refuse to go without force." The numbers might shock you. Remember now, we're dicussing revolution and not Walt Disney-style what-if's as another juvenile poster lurking somewhere here usually prefers. And calling me a racist was absolutely hilarious. Charade you are.

[ 10 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

The fact that there is evidence of villages linking up in support of each other is significant. I would concur with the situationists and the pomos that revolution or power in general should not be localized.

And Fidel there are varying revlolutions, just not what you think. You like other endangered vanguardists overate those who "hang on". What you can't get through your thick semi-stalinist scull is that once the social order is destroyed so are those aristocrats and bureacrats. This has been proven time and time again from Ukrain to Chiapas. The problem with Ukrain and Kronstadt was not the fleeting whites(who the Ukrainians beat off in anarchist fasion along with 2 other industrial armies) but the reds who ended up imposing themselves and there permanant organization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
And your boys are just as bloodthirsty when it comes to keeping their ideology alive.

---

Oh? But anywhere from six to thirteen million children alone have been starving to death around the free trading third world each and every year as an estimated 80 percent of those shithole nations export cash crops to "the market." 40 thousand poor kids will die today, tomorrow and the next day of the free market fucking economic long run. Capitalism's a giant conveyor belt of death and misery around the fucking world.

Add those numbers-to-date to the estimated 50-80 million missing at the end of WWII when western industrialists and banking elite propped-up a madman in Berlin. Then factor in the cold war blood baths and USian bombings of 21 nations since Nagasaki and Hiroshima. No, not all attributable to one man, but blame to be placed squarely on sucessive right-rightist regimes that served Uncle Sam's state-corporatist ideology and about 36 friendly dictators abroad.

True capitalism, as an economic system, failed in 1929 around the world. It failed in 1970's-80's Argentina, and in Chile where Libertarian economists experimented with laissez-faire free market ideology, an economic experiment conducted in a human rights vacuum. And free market ideology vis a vis Locke, Smith and modern day neo-con version continues to be rejected around the world today because no free human society has ever been driven by a single human behaviour, namely self-interest and its warped manifestation - greed.

Capitalism is a monumental failure but kept on life support by free market fundamentalists after flat-lining repeatedly in the world's laboratories. Capitalism is a dead end in human history. No comments for the Right-Wing Repression thread , "mr anarchist." ? Or is it a merit badgesystem in the junior anarchists club ?.

[ 10 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

nonesuch you shouldn't nessarily downplay what's going on in China, you can argue that this was the same thing happening in Russia in the late 19th C.

---

As far as your 1st paragraph goes,I'm well aware of the horrors, I however go much farther then you in what needs to be done to end this. You following orthodoxical marxist religion feel the productive forces can be taken and controled by those who are not capitalists. This is of course a fatal understanding of what capital is and one of Marx's biggest intellectual blunders. It cannot be controlled, it will just mirror the production of the previous boys as Baudrillard rightfully pointed out. If you get your way I guarentee you the death and suffering will continue, the way you want it done it would be even worse.

And for the bodycount you threw I can return the one of over 100 million dead from that garbage that you subscribe to. And for dog's sake capitalism is more then laissez-faire. Started by people who helped give the left life to begin with. Yes captialism is a dead end, that includes your capitalism, and civilization in general.

i'd certainly like to get in on this anarchist/marxist battle!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Fidel
And for the bodycount you threw I can return the one of over 100 million dead from that garbage that you subscribe to. And for dog's sake capitalism is more then laissez-faire. Started by people who helped give the left life to begin with. Yes captialism is a dead end, that includes your capitalism, and civilization in general.

---

So if we only count from 1847 on, when six million Irish starved as pork, corn and other cash crops were exported to "the market" from over a dozen Irish ports, and use, say, the lower number average of around 6 million children dying from the free market economic long run each year after that, then what are we looking at, over 900 million children alone ?. My god, it's an indictment of free trading capitalists and industrialists the world over. Capitalism is the kiss of death for millions then and now. But how many human lives did Maoists save by pulling China from fourth world shitholiness in 1949 to realizing an improvement over infant mortality rates in India today, by 1976! And adult longevity also improved during Mao's time from a cradle-to-grave lives of rice paddyism and ripe old age of 34 to about double that age by Mao's death in 1976. How many more lives is that on the plus side compared to Prescott Bush's and Standard Oil's pal in Nazi Germany after only a half a dozen years on a Euro-Asian tear?.

And you're neglecting to call it laissez-faire capitalism, which is what Adam Smith referred to by "laissez faire." You're just not very Adam Smithery is all, Vigilante. Laissez-faire was ditched in 1929 around the western world for a lack of results and general social unrest. In fact, New Deal socialism began to pull the west from an economic brink as army recruiting both sides of the border said they had never seen so many emaciated young men unfit for combat in 1939. Historian's shudder at the what-if scenario whereby Hoover era laissez-faire had been allowed to continue. Sieg heil ?. In fact, the right wasn't satisfied that laissez-faire was simply wrong as an economic model, they proved it again after a 16 year-long experiment in a Chilean human rights vacuum and orchestrated by noneother than Libertarian Milton Friedman and a gang of Chicago School of Economics graduates. No economy was ever as deregulated/privatised since and lived to tell about it.

A wide array of socialist thought were products of the French Revolution, and so was political conservatism ... and fascism. In fact, fascism's only purpose was to oppose socialism. Observe me leading you in circles, rebel boy.

quote:

---

And I don't think I called you the R word, if you think facsism is synonomous with racism you are mistaken.

---

Oh but racism is synonymous with fascism as well as right-wing fanatacism, totalitarianism, corporatism, sabotaging social democracy by way of deficit spending on Keynesian-militarism/socialism for the rich, nationalistic fervor, eugenicism, anti-communism, anti-freedom ...Fascism isn't what YOU think it is, Vigilante

[ 11 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

But did the Soviets drop bombs on:

...

Afghanistan 1998, 2001-03

---

quote:

---

i'd certainly like to get in on this anarchist/marxist battle!

---

quote:

---

Fidel:
So if we only count from 1847 on, when six million Irish starved as pork, corn and other cash crops were exported to "the market" from over a dozen Irish ports, and use, say, the lower number average of around 6 million children dying from the free market economic long run each year after that, then what are we looking at, over 900 million children alone ?. My god, it's an indictment of free trading capitalists and industrialists the world over. Capitalism is the kiss of death for millions then and now. But how many human lives did Maoists save by pulling China from fourth world shitholiness in 1949 to realizing an improvement over infant mortality rates in India today, by 1976! And adult longevity also improved during Mao's time from a cradle-to-grave lives of rice paddyism and ripe old age of 34 to about double that age by Mao's death in 1976. How many more lives is that on the plus side compared to Prescott Bush's and Standard Oil's pal in Nazi Germany after only a half a dozen years on a Euro-Asian tear?.

---

Fidel I will tell you again, there are inherent concepts in capitalism that are responsible for that suffering that you feel can be repackaged with what you call socialism. Unfortunately believing that you can reform the productive forces has meant a genocide of life in practace(particularly when practiced by your guys.
You of course neglect to mention that little "incident" between 49-76 in China. And you should ask the peasants how they feel about the current situation.

quote:

---

And you're neglecting to call it laissez-faire capitalism, which is what Adam Smith referred to by "laissez faire." You're just not very Adam Smithery is all, Vigilante. Laissez-faire was ditched in 1929 around the western world for a lack of results and general social unrest. In fact, New Deal socialism began to pull the west from an economic brink as army recruiting both sides of the border said they had never seen so many emaciated young men unfit for combat in 1939. Historian's shudder at the what-if scenario whereby Hoover era laissez-faire had been allowed to continue. Sieg heil ?. In fact, the right wasn't satisfied that laissez-faire was simply wrong as an economic model, they proved it again after a 16 year-long experiment in a Chilean human rights vacuum and orchestrated by noneother than Libertarian Milton Friedman and a gang of Chicago School of Economics graduates. No economy was ever as deregulated/privatised since and lived to tell about it.

---

The only way you can reconcile your hideous views is to construct an extremely narrow definition of capitalism. Saying that laissez-faire is the only form of capitalism is like saying the classical liberals are the only version of the left. And as for those reforms in the US that you like so much, all they did was to end an oppurtunity at a genuin revolution in that country. Trajectory wise the US and the world is heading for another 29 at some point. The bankrupsy of reformism should be clear by now.

quote:

---

In fact, fascism's only purpose was to oppose socialism.

---

Actually socialists(mostly marxists like Mussalini were key in forming political facsist discourse. In Italy a number of marxists and anarchists(of the syndicalist stripe) hoped over to the Italian fascist party(with a belief in "the mystique of organization" it is not suprising) In Germany until Hitler got rid of them, the socialists played a part along with the capitalists in giving that thing life. Mussoline actually formally did what alot of Vanguardists ended up doing, he admited to himself that there would never be communism and that there will always be an elite set of rullers controling things. Is it not blindingly obvious now that the vanguardists have done the same thing? Do ya think those idiots in China are interested in the state withering away? Or have they come to the same decision as Mussolini? Peasents be damned.

quote:

---

Oh but racism is synonymous with fascism as well as right-wing fanatacism, totalitarianism, corporatism, sabotaging social democracy by way of deficit spending on Keynesian-militarism/socialism for the rich, nationalistic fervor, eugenicism, anti-communism, anti-freedom ...Fascism isn't what YOU think it is, Vigilante

---

Racism goes back a long while my friend. It goes back to ritualistic white constructed Xian based govermentality and then it is articulated in the name of scientific based rationality ie positivism. When positivism was in it's heyday everyone was racist to a degree be they left or right. It was just a matter of degree in which those who came out of germany were the hottest.

Serious discussion about revolution is a kind of dividing line between, well, revolutionaries and those others who view revolution as fortuitous or accidental or harmful. The latter group, naturally enough, don't consider the subject worthy of serious study because they don't expect to find any regularities, laws, whatever ... other than that revolution is a nasty, perhaps unnatural, thing which doesn't make any more sense than a tsunami or flood.

I think also that the latter view goes together with a philosophical approach that might be described as "anti-dialectical" in that radical change is severed from "evolutionary" change and treated as some sort of strange beast. But qualitative change happens in everything, from sub-atomic particles to rotating galaxies to ... societies, just as quantitative change also takes place.

However, for those of us who view it as a natural or even necessary result of conflict in class societies, revolutions are very much worthy of study. And those who consciously oppose revolutions make it their business to study them as well - for very different reasons.

Perhaps the most compelling argument for revolution and its social usefulness is the simple observation that, in a genuine revolution and not a counter-revolution, huge numbers of people formerly not involved in social and political life become involved in social and political life. Revolutions accelerate social development. For that reason alone more progressive people might usefully make a study of social and political revolutions.

[ 11 August 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Vigilante: marxists like Mussalini were key in forming political facsist discourse.

---

Mussolini outlawed the Communist party and imprisoned their leader, Antonio Gramsci, from 1926 to 1937. Some Marxist.

quote:

---

On November 8, 1926 the fascist police arrested Gramsci, despite his parliamentary immunity, and brought him to Regina Coeli, the famous Roman prison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Fidel I will tell you again, there are inherent concepts in capitalism that are responsible for that suffering that you feel can be repackaged with what you call socialism. Unfortunately believing that you can reform the productive forces has meant a genocide of life in practace(particularly when practiced by your guys.
You of course neglect to mention that little "incident" between 49-76 in China. And you should ask the peasants how they feel about the current situation.

---

I have asked Canadian-Chinese about the Great Leap. Yes, they said it was a disaster, a tragedy of monumental proportions that out-distanced Stalin's mass starvation of several million Ukrainian's of which I also struggle with and am at odds with the historic father Stalin. The Chinese couple I know tend to lay blame on ignorance leftover from centuries of imperialism and over-zealous collective managers who tried to pad their own performance by stealing rice and grain from their respective farming regions. The Maoists couldn't hold every illiterate collective manager by the hand and force them to become something they were not overnight. How many millions starved to death during centuries of imperialism in China, Vigilante?.

Canadian conservative, Gordon Sinclair once described how hundreds of children perished outside his hotel room in Hong Kong in a vacant lot. They died of exposure and malnutrition. Imperialism had no respect for human life in either Russia or China. Mr. Sinclair struggled with that relatively minor incident of everyday Chinese life back then. Mr. Sinclair was the Don Cherry of politics in Canada in his day.

I think Cueball and N. Beltov would have something to say about that era, and the fact that Russia was a nation under the duress of foreign invasions to put down the revolution. Blame imperialism and the western powers for their resistance to change. It could have happened a lot more smoothly than it did. Imperialism, hopefully, is no more.

quote:

---

Someone like Vladimir Putin just has to nationalize everthing and you are happy, fascist tendency be damned.

---

Putin and company have realized that Harvard's best economists fed them a line about free market theology. They've realized that laissez-faire capitalism hasn't worked anywhere in world history. It certainly didn't work in 1929, and the IMF's record in third world capitalist nations isn't very appealing either. China, with its relative lack of natural resources, is outperforming Russia, Africa and Latin American economies. Putin has said that the destruction of the Soviet Union was the single largest tragedy of the last century.

[ 11 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Imperialism, hopefully, is no more.

---

Beltov obviously the Mussolini was a former Maxist at this time, however the orthadoxical maxism that he believed in definately had an influence on the trajectory of his thought. Really there are Vanguardist leaders today who have put his thought into practace, and they havn't renounced Marxism(though Marx would puke if he saw what his work turned into)

quote:

---

Fidel:
I have asked Canadian-Chinese about the Great Leap. Yes, they said it was a disaster, a tragedy of monumental proportions that out-distanced Stalin's mass starvation of several million Ukrainian's of which I also struggle with and am at odds with the historic father Stalin. The Chinese couple I know tend to lay blame on ignorance leftover from centuries of imperialism and over-zealous collective managers who tried to pad their own performance by stealing rice and grain from their respective farming regions. The Maoists couldn't hold every illiterate collective manager by the hand and force them to become something they were not overnight. How many millions starved to death during centuries of imperialism in China, Vigilante?.

---

Wll gee Fidel maybe there should not have been any managers to begin with. And the masses in these situations are a bit better then you give them credit for.

quote:

---

I think Cueball and N. Beltov would have something to say about that era, and the fact that Russia was a nation under the duress of foreign invasions to put down the revolution. Blame imperialism and the western powers for their resistance to change. It could have happened a lot more smoothly than it did. Imperialism, hopefully, is no more.

---

Yes yes yes I'm aware of the 14 nations and it is not even close to being an excuse. You don't shoot yourself in the head by becoming what those nations would force you to become anyway. Think of this analogy, toward the end of Ramboo 3 when John and his buddy are about to be taken on by thousands, they don't comit suicide, Rambo says "fuck em" and they actually end up winning. Obviously the hollywood analogy may seem funny but it's about going down in completely non-compramising fasion. Heck the Ukranians knocked off three big armies, the Austro-Hungarian Army, the German Army and the White Army. All in anarchist largley insurrectionist fasion. Those who called themselves communists ended up doing them in.

quote:

---

Vigilante: Beltov obviously the Mussolini was a former Maxist at this time, however the orthadoxical maxism that he believed in definately had an influence on the trajectory of his thought.

---

"For sale by owner" and "the property guys".

Using a system that charges you a certain amount of money to sell your home.

Well I produced a website that would have allowed you to show your home, and give information much like these guys. I started it because I saw thousands of dollars being hijack from decent people for services that can be rendered in a much better form then what real estate had done now and previous. I let it lapse becuase the revolution had taken hold.

That is a revolution.

Another one is of course here in how we effect the market place.

If you cannot as a political system and as a society keep some kind of control on the energy sector, retain the properties of these commodity producers in Canada, then you will be at the mercy of those who will buys shares in these companies to produce a profit.

Would you not rather secure a lower standard of pricing and benefit instantly, then spend your dollars with companies that will drive the prices up for consumers, for you to retain this profit standard?

For instance using art in a public way to send your message deep into the society with which you live? Your logo. Your mission statement, written or image induced?

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
A more defining definition of fascism would be Mussolini's ethos of "everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"

---

More defining than whose definition?. Again, you're playing tag with the truth so as not to disturb your juvenile undertanding of real history, Vigilante. What is it you want us to believe fascism was and continues to be, Vigilante ?.

quote:

---

"Several of the greatest American corporate leaders were in league with Nazi corporations before and after Pearl Harbor, including I.G. Farben, the colossal Nazi industrial trust that created Auschwitz. "
Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy, 1983

---

In 1927, Winston Churchil said that "If I had been an Italian, I'm sure I would have been entirely with you" and "don the fascist black shirt." As late as 1940, Churchill was still describing Mussolini as "a great man." Not Winston, the same fat old bastard who suggested that the army be called in to put down a coal miners strike in N. England a la Franco ?.

quote:

---

Yes yes yes I'm aware of the 14 nations and it is not even close to being an excuse. You don't shoot yourself in the head by becoming what those nations would force you to become anyway. ...

---

Oh joy, another hodge-podge of thoughts on 20th century history from our resident junior-anarchist. Yes, I can see clearly now that the Russian's should have laid down, capitulated to the fascist, 14 nation invasion of their homeland. Why on earth would the revolutoinaries suspect that another assault on the revolution would happen again?. Who would mastermind a dastardly war of annihilation on communism in Russia and throw two-thirds of his corporate-sponsored military machine inside Russian borders to murder over 27 million Russian's in under three years?. Did Russian's not get enough of death and destruction, chronic hunger and homelessness in minus 40 degree weather as mercenaries from as far away as the United States ventured into the heart of Russia. Russia should have ignored Hitler's anti-semitic, anti-Bolshevik rants as western moneycrats catapulted the madman and his fascist regime to power.

Pitchforks were all that Russian peasants could be trusted with throughout centuries of imperialism. Peasants armed with little more than pitchforks struck terror in the minds of czars and European blue bloods alike. Pitchforks didn't help the Poles or the Czechs or Guernica defend themselves from the Nazis. Russia needed to prepare for war - the Nazi annihilation of an idea in Russia, the enemy at the gates.

quote:

---

Think of this analogy, toward the end of Ramboo 3 when John and his buddy are about to be taken on by thousands, they don't comit suicide, Rambo says "fuck em" and ...

---

I think you need to stop living the life of a giant leech in your parents basement and get out there. Get a gf. Go see how prosperous Uncle Sam's neighbors are on his immediate southern doorstep - observe first-hand the state of free trading partners with the richest nation on earth. Install some reflective decals on that A&P scooter before crossing the Rio Grande for travel after dark. The world is your oyster, kid.

quote:

---

"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order." -
Adolf Hitler

---

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Fidel:
More defining than whose definition?. Again, you're playing tag with the truth so as not to disturb your juvenile undertanding of real history, Vigilante. What is it you want us to believe fascism was and continues to be, Vigilante ?.

---

Fidel I hate to break it to ya but everything is ultimately subejective, including his-story. It makes no sense to localize facsism to a particular epoch or people. Fascism is something that should be first and formost as something that stems from mircolevel events(you and me). As for the political dimentions, I suppose someone enslaved to the left will have problems seeing fascism on that side.

quote:

---

Oh joy, another hodge-podge of thoughts on 20th century history from our resident junior-anarchist. Yes, I can see clearly now that the Russian's should have laid down, capitulated to the fascist, 14 nation invasion of their homeland. Why on earth would the revolutoinaries suspect that another assault on the revolution would happen again?. Who would mastermind a dastardly war of annihilation on communism in Russia and throw two-thirds of his corporate-sponsored military machine inside Russian borders to murder over 27 million Russian's in under three years?. Did Russian's not get enough of death and destruction, chronic hunger and homelessness in minus 40 degree weather as mercenaries from as far away as the United States ventured into the heart of Russia. Russia should have ignored Hitler's anti-semitic, anti-Bolshevik rants as western moneycrats catapulted the madman and his fascist regime to power.

---

Fidel, most revolutionaries were being screwed by the red fascists not the 14 nation army. They were the ones who were brining on the death and destruction. Read Emma Goldman and her dilusionment in Russia. Also as far as industrial arimies goes, go bloody well look at Ukrain buddy. They never set up a state. And what's become blindingly clear in this day and is that the best way to take on an industrial armie is through decentralzed netwar. The USians are realizing that right now and are actually trying to adjust their war machine as we speak.

quote:

---

I think you need to stop living the life of a giant leech in your parents basement and get out there. Get a gf. Go see how prosperous Uncle Sam's neighbors are on his immediate southern doorstep - observe first-hand the state of free trading partners with the richest nation on earth. Install some reflective decals on that A&P scooter before crossing the Rio Grande for travel after dark. The world is your oyster, kid.

---

quote:

---

Vigilante: ...I hate to break it to ya but everything is ultimately subejective, including his-story. It makes no sense to localize facsism to a particular epoch or people

---

Post-modern mumbo-jumbo at its finest. A generalization that...no generalization is useful.

Fascism is, of course, specific to capitalism. It came about after the October Revolution in Russia and is a reaction to economic and political crises associated with capitalism. Fascism is a blood-thirsty terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic and aggressive factions of the exploiting classes and differs from other forms of reactionary dictatorships by its extensive connections with a wide variety of social strata and its ability to mobilize large segements of the population for reactionary purposes.

Emma Goldman's intentions were noble during her visit with Lenin, Vigilante. Lenin listened to her intently about freedom of speech and ideas for a good society. I'm sure Lenin would have preferred the revolution be brought to a swift conclusion.

And "those unmentionable places" on Uncle Sam's back stoop are where you get your bananas, grapes and melons from. The workers there are paid a pittance before value is added to their labour by well-heeled gringos. Yes, El Salvador and Nicaragua and Honduras do trade freely with "the market." Washington describes Haiti as the freest trading nation in the Carribe. But don't take my word for it. Go see for yourself. That's a double dare.

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Anarcho-Ecosocialist Principles and Praxis:

Equality; social justice, rational tolerance, free association, voluntary cooperation, egalitarian relationships, mutual respect and solidarity amongst men and women of all ethnicities, origins, hereditary roots and sexual orientations.

Liberty; freedom from all forms of domination, hierarchy, economic classes, social exploitation, oppression and tyranny, by means of free education, self-organization, direct action, civil disobedience and creative resistance, building dual power structures and alternative institutions committed to universal social justice and ecological harmony involved in local community struggles using tactical coordination for synchronized action; primarily, general strike (worker, student and rental) followed by occupations of workplaces, institutions, needed land and unused residential buildings.

Direct democracy; organised collective self-determination, cooperation and shared responsibility through participation in workplace councils/committees and local residential or land-sharing cooperative collectives, with each person having inclusive, proportionate influence in horizontal policy-making and equal say in all decision-making affecting them. Local collectives could buy (for the time being) as directly as possible from producers, exchange services or barter with other collectives or cooperatives, sharing and consuming things together. They could also function as work councils if all members share a workplace. These collectives would probably consist of 3 to 20 people, small enough to facilitate friendly discussion, debate, and consensus, while avoiding the formation of competing elites that tend to dominate larger groups. They could split up (peacefully) if the group gets too big, remaining more or less open to newcomers. Local collectives could organize neighbourhood or village assemblies that would need to function horizontally and meet regularly for all types of community matters. Until political/economic power can be based at this level, people can form various social solidarity networks that could include the unemployed, as well as residential and worker cooperatives.

Communality; coordinated networks of local collectives and neighbourhood assemblies, workplace councils and syndical trade-union committees establishing autonomous municipal/township communes with collective (directly democratic) control of land, resources and means of production. This may necessitate (strictly voluntary) coordinated self-defence of the social revolution during a period of political upheaval, to bring about ‘communalism’ (as defined through 'social ecology'). Neighbourhood assemblies would then include every adult citizen in proposing policies and voting in decisions that affect them. Citizens would elect a congress of delegates (subject to recall) who would form various administration councils (with regular rotation of posts and complete transparency), responsible for making (tentative) decisions in matters that effect large numbers of people; municipal legislation (to be decided by three-quarter majority votes through referenda perhaps), establishing fair and ecological standards of local production, consumption and justice in general, outlined in a communal constitution, revisable when and if necessary, as well as adjudication and administration of restorative (non-punitive) justice, through rational non-authoritative enforcement of legislation and processes for truth and reconciliation. All bureaucratic aspects of communal government would be reduced to the barest minimum, eventually dissolving completely. Municipal or township communes would gradually become loosely connected, ecologically integrated village networks, in regionally shared wild spaces and parkland commons. Economic decentralization and self-sufficiency at the subsistence level would be achieved by developing a communal economy through collective provisioning, localised service exchange, barter and honor systems.

Universal mutual aid; regional to global confederation of free communes with open borders, subject only to environmental constraints. Fully transparent and inclusive democratic social institutions with recallable delegates, elected from the base, with limited mandates for administration in matters requiring regional to global levels of organisation, such as a health and disaster relief, monitoring and protection of ‘Universal Human Rights’ or an 'Earth Charter' (revised to abolish private property and state, encompass direct democracy and demand universal access to clean water, uncontaminated soil, adequate food, shelter, clothing, sanitation, medicine, health care, education, tools and machines, solar and wind generated electricity, clean fuel technology, communications networks, public transportation, means of mass production and means of recycling ultimately eliminating all hazardous wastes and most undesirable labour. The confederal economy would use directly democratic organizational structures for autogestion (workers’ self-management) and participatory planning at the horizontal level. Workplace councils and trade union syndical production committees would stipulate with consumer collectives through neighbourhood, municipal and regional administrative committees, establishing socially and ecologically indicative values for exchange while insuring universal access to all basic needs. Every worker would have balanced job complexes with equitable remuneration and all industries would have to abide by local regulations for social justice and ecological protection. This type of large-scale solidarity economy beyond borders could function dynamically in perpetual social revolution, adapting itself to differences amongst communes and regions without creating political tensions. The 'participatory economy' model does not ignore, oversimplify or underestimate the destructive resilience and complexities of global capitalism (corporate fascism). It is ideal for building a dual power economy while capitalism remains dominant. By promoting equality, diversity, solidarity and efficient autogestion, 'participatory economics' could help bring about a rational and ethical society, with life based on affirming, nurturing and preserving humanity, diversity, and community.