- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Damnit, I must have dropped that one, clean the dirt of and it'll be fine.

Posted by: Lark on December 16, 1999 at 14:09:37:

In Reply to: Tastes like shit posted by Chuck on December 16, 1999 at 10:54:07:

: No, the shameful thing was when Barry proved that Crick took the quote out of context AND YOU SAID IT DIDN'T MATTER.

What do you mean? The quote isnt important the point I was trying to make with it was, that Trotsky and lenin in the name of some abstract proletariat dismantled sydicates, soviets, co-ops and murdered workers and peasants and the Kronstadt sailors.

: You didn't exactly sell me on the book.

Oh well, I dont really want to sell you on the book, I dont like the idea of being a sales man but I'd recommend the book all the same.

: A syndicalist putsch? Can you say OXYMORON?

Must we engage in wordplay? I mean by your own admittance there are shake and bake and fun things to do like that.

: Individuals make revolutions? Naaah. Revolutions (and social relations) are independent of individual wills.

No I dont think so, your signing your ability to do anything away, what prevented the WTO talks? Individuals who didnt subscribe to the determinist notion that the whole affair couldnt be effected by them.

: : Right, I wasnt sure of that, I mean do you mean liberty? Positive or negative liberty? Etc. I do believe in freedom in general because I wouldn't be so blaise to underestimate the amount of annoyance things like freedom of speech and expression are to the likes of McDonalds and every capitalist individual about.

: It might annoy them BUT THEY CAN AFFORD IT.

It doesnt just annoy them, it could stop them.

: Please explain how "the interests of the richest capitalists may actually correlate with the poorest citizen", and explain how the poorest citizen can be a capitalist. I'll try not to laugh.

Laugh if you will, laughter is good. In Britain there are a lot of council tennant housing workers who believe that if they share certain trates with the rich, like mobile phones, satellite dishes etc., the same commodities, then their is no class division.

As to the correlation of interests they both dont want to be taxed.

: You think isolated acts of terror against the bourgeoisie will scare them away for good? Dream on.

Some say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one, some day I hope you'll join us and the world will be as one. Hear they're re-releasing that for the millenium, got your copy yet?

I dont think terrorism works or is good, unless the victim is notorious or sadistic or hated. General terrorism just makes good causes into the enamy of the people. However they, acts of revolution, can be catalysts to insurrections and enough insurrections happening simultaneously and you've got a revolution.

:And the anarchist revolution in Spain prevented an efficient solution to the problem of a centralized revolutionary government; this seriously harmed the republican front.

It wasnt the anarchists fault they where betrayed by the communists and the poum wasnt trotskyist if your going to pull that one it was an advocate of workers control and their leader broke with Trotsky because he thought the guy was to authoritarian, so they where united in death with the anarchists.

: A general strike without political organization and struggle will not overturn capitalist control and the power of the state (e.g. France 1968). Neither will mass protests; nor will the Zapatistas.

They are all catalysts and a general strike is a political organisation and struggle, what is your fixation with political parties? Politicians arent workers.

: Because you did.


: You will have to show me where Trotsky advocated a Blanquist coup.

Him and Lenin lead one in Russia in October 1916.

: : Guess there are jsut some sorts of people who will set and die of thirst waiting on a taxi to take them to an oasis that is within walking distance.

: The oasis is still much farther away than walking distance; this makes you a utopian.

Call me names if you want, I'll drink you can eat dust.

: Who's throwing their hands up here? I'm a vanguardist; that hardly makes me an 'economist'.

Vanguardism is throwing your hands up trusting to leaders to sort things out, where is your leader when you the boss gives you shit? They're about as usful as the police sitting in the station while your mugged.

I was also going against your economic determinism.

: On a final note, Gramsci identified 'economism' with syndicalism AND his modern 'prince' was none other than the revolutionary party. How 'bout them apples?

What? What's that mean? Gramsci was a council communist, which is much the same as syndicalism, the whole prince thing was meant to be a contrast with Machavelli's 'the prince'.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup