St(r)oller: You say, fuck all parties (collective action), the revolution is made by the individual. How is that attitude different from the view the revolution is made by a minority?---something you inaccurately attribute to Trotsky and myself.
: Well if that was not the attitude of Trotsky it certainly was the attitude of Lenin, Bolshevik meaning minority...
No, your ignorance is showing again; Bolshevik meant majority.
As far as Lenin supporting a minority revolution:
[Communist parties] must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only its communist vanguard), and all the working people (not only their advanced elements).(1)
Victory cannot be won with a vanguard alone. To throw only the vanguard into the decisive battle, before the entire class, the broad masses, have taken up a position either of direct support for the vanguard, or at least sympathetic neutrality towards it and precluded support for the enemy, would be not merely foolish but criminal.(2)
: [W]hen I suggest the revolution is made by the individual I am suggesting that every individual has a duty to active inclusion and participation in social change and construction.
And what, pray tell, does THAT mean? How does 'inclusion' occur if 'the revolution is made by the individual'? 'Inclusion' in what? 'Social change' without social goals agreed upon first? Your position is nonsense.
: I dont think that benefits should be designed or granted to any social groups or association that would give them a special status, I do however have different opinions about marriage from those who would reduce it to a mere association between sexually engaged individuals.
And why, pray tell, should YOUR definition of what constitutes marriage prevail?
: Quesitoning in anyway? I feel the Stalinist in you is showing through, I resent the insinuation of empathy with the right wing movement too, my views about homosexuality are a product of a left wing litmus test which considers matters, such as, sociability and functionalism, I fail to see why other left-wingers think likewise but I dont suggest they are not complying with the correct patterns of thought like some thought policeman.
If certain benefits of legalized marriage (that most people enjoy) are DENIED to a certain minority group (homosexuals), you WILL end up needing a police 'man' to enforce such exclusions.
: I am a crass homophobe? I find that hard to believe homophobia implies hatred or fear, I feel neither for homosexuals, my problems with homo-culture are the product of resisting anti- or a-social behaviour and aggressive amoral hedonism.
No, a person needn't hate or fear homosexuals to be a homophobe; all a person need do is to consider homosexuals SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT---as you do.
: As for eugenics, what are you a luddite? Science knows no race, colour or creed so why do you reject it?
Science knows no race, colour or creed, yet I reject nuclear energy. If 'neutral science' and 'all technology is good' is your argument for eugenics, then your position is ridiculous.
: I dodging what quote? It doesnt matter wether the quote was taken out of context or not...
Yes, it does. Whether or not Crick was right, in the case we're debating, he 'proved' his point with fraudulent data. Would you care to have me present my points with a similar disregard for material facts?
St(r)oller: How can a party represent its aims honestly if it accepts members who consistently misrepresent the party's aims?
: 'Socialism by the people', which will entail conflicts of opinions, views and proposed strategies.
And what, pray tell, does that mean? What if some 'socialists' wanted to nationalize all industry and land and other 'socialists' wanted to privatize all industry and land after the revolution? (Believe me, this question has its historical precedents.) How would your 'socialism by the people' RESOLVE the issue?
St(r)oller: For example, if party X believes in violent confrontation with the capitalist class to achieve communist aims, wouldn't it be DISHONEST to have members recruited by members who said otherwise?
: Would the people who believe otherwise not simply avoid joining the party?
Well, at a time of class crisis, all sorts of spies and opportunists would want to join the party---to screw it up, to get certain advantages simply because it's better to be on the winning side, etc. etc.
St(r)oller: Honesty and continuity are necessary, in my opinion, to represent the party. Unity of ideological principles is equally necessary, in my opinion, for a party to accomplish anything. I can respect your disagreement with this perspective but, tell me, why would I want to join a party that has members who fundamentally disagree with my politics? Wouldn't such a party of ideological disunity be little more than a debating club?
: This is very significant, it demonstrates that you have no understanding of debate or the nature of conflict and disagreement at all.
Was that an answer to my question? Was that really the best you could do?
: What you propose to do with your proud pronouncements about 'unity' is resolve conflict, conflict resolution is impossible, conflict is as inherent as the aging process, the only situation in which there is no conflict is one in which there is only one individual.
If conflict resolution is impossible, as you say, then revolution, too, is impossible.
No wonder you support liberty for capitalists during a 'socialist' revolution! Your position is ridiculous.
1. Lenin, ‘”Left-Wing” Communism---An Infantile Disorder,’ Collected Works volume 31, Progress Publishers 1966, p. 58.
2. Ibid., pp. 92-3.