- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Would you tolerate a state that fundamentally disagreed with your politics? Should I?

Posted by: Lark on March 01, 19100 at 22:18:10:

In Reply to: Finally! (correct link) posted by Stoller on March 01, 19100 at 13:16:13:

: Stoller: [W]hy would I want to join a party that has members who fundamentally disagree with my politics?

I dont think you would? Would you tolerate a state that fundamentally disagreed with your politics? Should I?

: : I dont think you would and in a democracy where party membership and compliance with the party will is a free choice that is fine but in an order where disagreement with the party equals a death sentence I'd find it unacceptable.

: Death sentence?

: Where have I EVER said such a thing? If you'll look at this post, you'll see that the harshest thing I've ever suggested is that those who don't work won't receive food and shelter---not exactly a real radical notion.

A death sentence none the less.

:Of course, as you've gone on the record saying your '100% principle' was to 'be gainfully unemployed / unemployable,' I can see why my suggestion may seem like a bit of a botheration to you...

I guess you fundamentally cant get your head around the concept of alienation, specifically Marxist or just plain socialist or even sociological, why work? If you had the option why should you? Unless it was a task you wished to fufil why would you?

: If you think that a proletarian revolution will please EVERYONE (you've sympathesized with the capitalists before), then you have a funny idea of revolution.

No I dont think it'll please everyone but I see no reason to errect guillotines for anyone and everyone who disagrees the prevailing opinion or executive authority, that's why I'm not some day dreaming Trot.

:Revolutions occur when one class challenges another. Coercion is inevitable.

And that's a load of shit, what about the Islamic Revolutions? What class interests featured there?

: Nonetheless, I believe that inter-party and inter-(proletarian) class differences of opinion and strategy are ENTIRELY HEALTHY and should be resolved by a simple majority vote (as I've said IN THIS POST).

Simple majoritarian tyranny you mean, I recognise the need for democracy too but what if the majority voted to execute the minority is it a great idea to carry out the sentence?

Mob rule isnt socialism.

: : [W]hat does the the great socialist messiah bring his wisdom to the poor ignorant workers?

: If you think the workers---ALL the workers---are PRESENTLY hip to what happening, Lark, then I'd advise you to check in with Frenchy sometime.

You really think your going to persuade Frenchy of anything?

: Anyone who cares to suggest that the revolution can only start when EVERY LAST WORKER is on board and a full member of the party assessing the tasks of the revolution (are you listening, RD?) has their work sorely cut out for them considering that Frenchy is not alone in his skepticism!

The emancipation of the proletariat must be carried out by the proletariat themselves.

: Remember this well, utopians: revolutions bring political experience to the people by placing them in physical opposition to the ruling class. When the revolution(ary situation) begins, some workers will hang back and watch; when they see the cops beating up their co-workers and friends, they will choose sides...etc., etc. Hidalgo (Mexico) provides a small but salient illustration of this principle...

Mexico, that hot bed of anarchism, I love it....

: : ...the homosexual community suffers a lack of sexual ethics, to an even greater extent than the heterosexual one.

: This conversation is at an end, Lark. You're fuckin' hopeless.

You think you have the power to end anything? Ignore if you will, try and coerce if you want, you'd better or strong and trained.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup