:your ignorance is showing again; Bolshevik meant majority.
My lack of interest in the propaganda of bolshevik scum that is...
: 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)
Which means nothing to me when I reflect on the fact that the Leninists dismantled workers socialist initiatives and massacred all opposition at Kronstadt inorder to satisfy their notion that the state had to have a monopoly on socialist initiative.
It doesnt matter if their is one proprietor, finacer, baker, merchant or many it is still capitalism.
: : [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'll tell you what is nonsense, the notion that all you have to do is change the state and institutions of a country and you have arrived at socialism. What feeble type of regime you advocate it could never withstand an entire people in insurrection or even the destruction of the leadership by assasins or invaders.
: : 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?
I didn't say it should prevail, I'd like to think that it didn't, that it was only one of a many definitions present in a free, tolerant and open society. It's not THE definition, just MY definition, why should yours prevail?
After all I'd have thought that having no direct link to the ownership of the means of production or class bound morality it would clearly not concern you.
: : 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.
Why? I wouldnt want to see a lifestyle choice enforced by the police.
: : 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.
That rewritting the political spectrum to suit yourself and your insinuations, you've got that down to a T. Last time I checked the Homosexual lobby in suggesting there is a 'Pink Pound', 'Pink Vote', 'Pink Parade Pride', 'Pink Identity', 'Pink Media' and 'Pink Clubs' which I think means they themselves believe there is a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.
: : 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.
Most technologies are neutral it is there ownership and the interests of the owners that make them 'partisan' or dangerous, for instance I reject nuclear energy as it exists at present but I do not reject the investigation and development of nuclear fusion into a safe technology that has not the same potential for disaster and complete environmental holocaust (either short or long term), I dont think that's possible while the nuclear industry and scientists are all motivated by capitalist ends, that is, wealth and privilege aquirement in the short term and the long term can be sorted out by someone else.
The same goes for eugenics, while it is monopolised by racists, xenophobes, homophobes or the right wing it is compromised and illegitimate but if it where appropriated by socialism and the left into a science for the improvement of society and the individuals health, physical and mental potential then it would be perfectly legitimate.
I thought Marxists didn't analyse the super structure of theories and ideas but the economic base that generates the motives and perspectives of individuals.
: : 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?
I guess I would but what I was suggesting is that I dont need Crick's quote to prove my point, vanguardism = elitism and socialism for not by the people.
: 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?
We would focus on the reasons for advocating either approach and then pursue an strategy that reflects a consensus, a consensus without compromise too, I understand the precedents, such as those set in Yugoslavia where workers control meant self-managed capitalism for a lot of the workers involved, but I put it to you that the question of private or public is becoming increasingly irrelevent because people have foudn that a nationally owned industry is the same dog with a different collar.
Nationalisation is fine in the context of a refomist approach, I would qualify my approach to nationalisation with the view that empowerment of the workers and users of such a service was absolutely requisite, in a revolutionary situation however I would want something different from reform. I mean if that seperates Kautsky and Lenin in matters of ownership and social organisation is the question of election or insurrection, essentially a tactical difference, then nothing seperates them at all.
: 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.
Good Point. There is also the problem of opinated self appointed saviours rising from the ranks, such as, Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Guevara.
: 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 kind of a response is that? Have you exhausted your debating capacity and are now retreating for a mockery? What kind of a response did you think I would give? If you where in a situation where you where the solitary Trot with your views about job rotation etc. and the revolution had been carried out by a society characturised by syndicalist thought, EG they disagree with you, would you still be arguing for ideological unity? When you say unity you mean doctrinare domination.
: : 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.
Hardly. Conflict will always exist, the question is whether it will be class conflict, naitonal conflict etc. or mankind, that is, humanity conflicting with disease, human conditions and the problems of living.
: No wonder you support liberty for capitalists during a 'socialist' revolution! Your position is ridiculous.
You would kill the capitalists who would argue against the murder and persecution of socialists in a liberal socialist or laissez faire capitalist order? How very Machavellian and brutal Barry.
Would it not be better to engage these people in public debates and expose their ideas as fraudlent and ridiculous nonsense, therefore divesting them of any legitimacy or radical mystic?
Afterall if a socialist revolution is going on then they have already lost and the more they can be proven as losers, the more premanent and secure the socialism.
: 1. Lenin, ‘”Left-Wing” Communism---An Infantile Disorder,’ Collected Works volume 31, Progress Publishers 1966, p. 58.
: 2. Ibid., pp. 92-3.