'I've no idea why you've taken it upon yourself to defend that murdering statist Lenin.'
Why do I defend that 'murdering statist Lenin'? Well, I'll tell you.
Lenin (and Trotsky), unlike most heroes of socialism---Oscar Wilde I believe is one of Lark's 'great socialists'---actually led the proletariat (the very proletariat Lark claims doesn't exist) to power over capitalism. That was a historic first.
Unlike literary quacks such as William Morris (whose reactionary utopia was set in a feudal fantasy land), Lenin and Trotsky oversaw the construction of an ACTUAL worker's state.
Unlike the happy endings in utopian tracts, the actual worker's state of 1917 required much bloodshed in order to overcome the resistance of capitalism (much of it in the form of foreign occupation). Unlike the happy endings in utopian tracts, the socialistic appropriation of the means of production (in a nation devastated by World War One) was difficult and slow---which led to great privations. Unlike the happy endings in utopian tracts, the socialists who led the proletariat to power were confronted by 'socialists' of many persuasions---almost all of them acting in the interests of capital. And finally, unlike the happy endings in utopian tracts, the proletariat who was led to power faced an overwhelming national majority of illiterate peasants who were incapable to running their new state apparatus without the centralized leadership of the few who were literate.
These vast obstacles were nonetheless brushed aside by an overwhelming percentage of the population who supported the Bolsheviks.
The Bolsheviks stopped the war. The Bolsheviks gave women the vote. The Bolsheviks embarked on a literacy campaign that educated everyone in the country within ten years. The Bolsheviks initiated such far-reaching social programs as four-month paid maternity leaves, free medical care, and pensions to ALL CITIZENS.
Could Oscar Wilde claim as much?
Furthermore, the Bolsheviks attempted to superintend a social order in which all workers participated equally in running their own government. The Bolsheviks attempted to superintend a social order in which private property of the means of production was placed squarely in the hands of average men and women. The Bolsheviks attempted to superintend the gradual dissolution of the state itself as successive generations---growing up uncorrupted by the competitive 'profit motive' that 'frees' all people from responsibility towards one another---became accustomed to socialist culture.
Did Oscar Wilde ever give it a shot?
Now---on to some more of Lark's heroes.
When SDF commented (here) that Plato represented ruthless authoritarianism, Lark said:
Plato was writing following the death of Socrates for defiance of dictates and I was largely taking the position, not unlike some Marxists, that a trustworthy dictatorship or highminded intellectuals could resolve all problems and prevent situations like the death of Socrates happening again, that's one way of seeing it I suppose.
Did I hear that right?
[A] trustworthy dictatorship or highminded intellectuals could resolve all problems.
Then, there's Max Stiner, another one of Lark's 'great socialists'---who, as bill pointed out (here), said some pretty authoritarian stuff. To which Lark replied:
I only sighted the guy because I sought to give a reference for would be further readers, a la Stroller, he might have been fascistic in his ultra individualism but if he was ultra individualistic and then recognized the rights of others to behave similarly without harassment etc. or interference then he's more of a liberal already...
Let's see if I got this straight.
Stiner---by Lark's admission---'might have been fascistic in his ultra individualism' BUT 'if he was ultra individualistic and then recognized the rights of others to behave similarly without harassment etc. or interference then he's more of a liberal already.'
What is this shit?
Stiner 'might' have been fascistic but he's 'more of a liberal'? Fascism and liberalism are hardly compatible!
Now, as I understand it, Lark said:
Liberal is a label I could where [sic] with pride.
But WHAT is liberal when it 'might' be fascistic?
And what sort of 'liberal' would 'probably be fighting alongside the likes of Dr. Cruel, etc.' against a 'Strollerist regime'---which, in actually, would be, the TERMINATION of hierarchy through selective education and job placement?
At least I can defend Lenin and Trotsky with some discernible consistency---and probity...