User Profile
Search
Blog Viewer
The red corner
Friday, November 30 2007 - 07:20 PM Persevere. Listen to non-commercial listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio (tune to 90.7 FM, KPFK, Los Angeles; 98.7 FM, KPFK in Santa Barbara County)
Prerequisites
Boscoe: “So, North Korea, China, Russia, Vietnam, etc., they got it right, and we got it wrong? It has been proven many times over that even in a socialist country the power elite slimes its way to the top and subjects the poor and less influential to its will…Not one society of ‘the people’ has ever truly been ‘for the people.’” —excerpted from the tenth comment post within the New Blog Socialism vs. liberalism by Redflag
That is because socialist society, let alone communist society, has yet to exist at any time, anywhere on earth. Why? Because, as I have explained on countless occasions, it is impossible to establish socialism within the context of agrarian society or even within the context of semi-agrarian society (e.g., Russia of 1917, North Korea of 1948, China of 1949, Cuba of 1959, et al). To understand Marxian socialism – to actually bother oneself with an independent and in-depth study of original sources of Marxist literature – is to understand that socialist society may come about only within the context of fully industrialized society. This is so because only then would it be possible for workers to organize themselves to the point to where they could democratically administer the means of industrial/economic production and, accordingly, to where they could sustain a socialist commonwealth: a fully developed means of production which must exist in the first place; a means of production which clearly did not exist within the aforementioned societies during their respective and alleged socialist revolutions. This lack of fully developed means of production was the very reason behind Vladimir Lenin’s development of vanguardism – of an open-ended dictatorship of the proletariat [Dr. Marx] in which it becomes necessary for a small group of individuals – the vanguard/Boscoe’s power elite – to make decisions on behalf of workers and/or peasants. But vanguardism is, from its outset, but a prescription for the endless state of bureaucratic state despotism that has long been passed off as “socialism.” It – this power elite subjecting the poor and less influential to its will [Boscoe] – is not socialism nor will it ever be.
Indeed, in light of their lack of economic development, it is not all surprising that these revolutions were wanting of a basic working-class character from their beginnings. For, far from being movements which sprung from the workers’ wish to bring about socialism, they were revolutions led by so-called radical intelligentsias which slime[d] their way to the top [Boscoe] and stayed there simply because there was no other way.
In fairness, however, it must also be said that many of these supposed socialist revolutions did and continue to posses progressive characteristics. If nothing else, they did manage to overthrow brutal dictatorships and to free themselves from imperialist domination, irrespective of their end results. But, at the same time, to recognize the progressive nature of these revolutions is not to acknowledge their respective socialist identifications. After all, in the final analysis, any and all societies proclaiming to be socialist have to be tested against their material foundations as well as the degree to which they function as the democratic representation of the mass of workers. These, then, are the socialist prerequisites absent from our Boscoe’s supposed socialist countries.
Boscoe, whilst mistaking capitalism for democracy, wrote: “Socialism, communism, capitalism: They all suck, but at least this system [the capitalist system] gives us all a chance to run off at the mouth.”
But the fact that, for example, those capitalists who use and profit from the public airwaves seldom if ever use said airways in the public interest – as they are so mandated by congress, as well as such things as, say, “food disparagement laws” (1) are more than enough to prove the sophistry of Boscoe’s argument.
(1) Since the early 1990s, food industry capitalists have been persuading state legislatures to enact libel laws which make it much easier to silence social activists and non-compliant journalists who seek to inform the public with respect to “mad cow disease” and the like.
Guy Robert Marsh
Lancaster, 93536
Member-at-large:
Socialist Labor Party of America (est. 1890)
http://www.slp.org/
Boscoe says...
Red Flag…
This is quoting your blog up above:
“In fairness, however, it must also be said that many of these supposed socialist revolutions did and continue to posses progressive characteristics. If nothing else, they did manage to overthrow brutal dictatorships and to free themselves from imperialist domination, irrespective of their end results”.
Redflag…I wonder how many of Joseph Stalins victims will agree with you, Pol Pots, Chairman Mao, Ho Chi Min (sic), to name a few.
To continually blast that which gives you the right and opportunity to run off at the mouth, and write it into a public forum no less, continually shows that this trully is the best system.
Whether it be capatalism or Socialism, it has to be better than your hero’s…
Nuff said???
You have a great day Comrade.
(
send private message
)
No Spin says...
Boscoe..
I enjoy reading Red Flag.. He is well versed on what he truly believes.. KUDOS to him.
I am, however, absolute in my support of the American System, even with it’s flaws.
(
send private message
)
Redflag says...
Randy Hall, whilst quoting some sort of Vatican production, typed: “‘He [Karl Marx] showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter.’”
In breaking with my long-standing policy having to do with my never responding to that which is cut-and-pasted, I should like to say yes, neither Karl Marx nor Frederick Engels ever delineated what socialist society was to be beyond a collective ownership of the means of industrial/economic production. It would be wholly disingenuous to suggest, however, that Marxian science or scientific socialism does not present a solid delineation of what socialist society is to be. This delineation, known as Socialist Industrial Unionism or Socialist Industrial Government was developed by none other than the American socialist Daniel De Leon, and one can only smile while contemplating the number of times in which I have discussed socialist industrial unionism – at length and in direct response to the writings of our Mr. Hall.
Specifically, socialist society would be one with an Industrial Union form of government, wherein the political state – representation by region – would be supplanted by industrial administration, with representation by industry. This would be representative of a truly classless democracy – industrial democracy – on the grounds of the common ownership of the industries and the land needed to carry out production. That is how matters would proceed thereafter.
And to note, Daniel De Leon’s contribution to Marxian social science is so significant that Vladimir Lenin once stated that “De Leon is the greatest of modern socialists – the only one who has added anything [the concept of Socialist Industrial Unionism] to socialist thought since Marx himself.” —excerpted from an interview conducted by John Reed of the then New York World, printed on May 4, 1918.
*
I wrote: “In fairness, however, it must be said that many of these supposed socialist revolutions did and continue to possess progressive characteristics. If nothing else, the did manage to overthrow brutal dictatorships and to free themselves from imperialist domination, irrespective of their end results.”
In response, Boscoe wrote: “…I wonder how many of Joseph Stalin’s victim’s would agree with you; Pol Pot’s, Chairman Mao’s, Ho Chi Minh’s to name a few.”
Absolutely none of them would agree. That is precisely the reason for my having written “…irrespective of their end results.” Nonetheless, though not one of them were capable of founding socialism, to deny that the material well-being of these societies social majorities were not improved as a result of their respective revolutions is to traffic in either insincerity or ignorance. Cuba alone where illiteracy and other social ills were virtually eliminated within a few years of its revolution is more than enough to prove that point.
And just to nitpick a bit: for one to assert that Pol Pot and his abominable Khmer Rouge imposed something as relatively “benevolent” as Soviet-style bureaucratic state despotism or state capitalism upon the people of Cambodia is to admit to a high degree of unfamiliarity with Indochinese history, for the Khmer Rouge imposed nothing of the sort. They imposed nothing more than agrarian collectivization within what can only be described as having been an induced Stone Age social context. A Stone Age social context which began when the American political state chose to commit genocide against the people of Cambodia.
(Related reading: Sideshow, Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia, by William Shawcross, Simon and Schuster, 1979.)
While continuing to imply that capitalism and democracy are one and the same, and in the wake of his or her having completely ignored my examples of the ways in which capitalism actually “serves” to stifle the freedom of speech, Boscoe wrote: “To continually blast that which gives you the right and opportunity to run off at the mouth, and write it into a public forum no less, continually shows that this truly is the best system.”
Yes, more than two-hundred-years ago, the time in which the capitalist class was a revolutionary class, struggling against the tyrannical rule of various monarchies, it was indeed in the best interest of the burgeoning capitalist class – as well as the independent craftsmen and farmers who owned their own tools of production – to make demands with respect to the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and for representative government. Therefore, property rights, and thus the freedom of property owners to begin a business and to take part in commercial activities without the remnants of feudal restraints are, in fact, historically connected to the sort of political democracy introduced via bourgeois revolutions, most especially those in the United States and France. But to allow these historical facts to then blind us to the reality that that now deeply entrenched, moribund and thus highly defensive capitalist class has a vested interest in squelching those same freedoms vis-a-vis workers and in the interest of its continued power and privilege, is to do ourselves a great and dangerous injustice.
So, Boscoe, would you care to address electronic media capitalist’s refusal to allow for meaningful broadcasting in the public interest, food disparagement laws and/or media consolidation, media diversity or the lack thereof, etc., etc.?
Boscoe: “Whether it be capitalism or socialism, it has to be better than your hero’s…”
I’m sorry, Boscoe, but I do not understand the meaning of your statement. And I have no hero’s, including Karl Marx.
Persevere.
Guy
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
I’ve addressed faith in Marxism in other blogs of yours. I was taken totally by surprise when the pope was following along in similar thought patterns. I thought you’d see the similarity in my thoughts posted last week and the pope’s latest encyclical.
I’m glad you admit the pope is correct, that Marx gave no thought to what would happen after the revolution.
I guess that is where faith comes in.
Now being the progressive that you are, and knowing that we can progress from slings to atomic bombs, why promote progress in economic orders when capitalism is producing such fantastic results for so many workers? Remember Marx saw “feted dens,” not 2500 square-foot hovels.
Progress from wage-earners toy-box owners, to what exactly? Would it be jet-setting sports-car owners with homes in every corner of the globe? How much more progress do you want the working-man to achieve.
I have faith you will have some answer. It is a question you have side-stepped before, and hopefully you will complete Marx’s vision for man, instead of just seeing problems that Marx thought were caused by economic orders. Maybe you don’t get it, but capitalism was just starting out, and it created problems, but those problems were quickly solved by the market-based capitalism, and maybe if Marx lived today, he’d be Mrs. Bill Clinton supported by rich friends attempting to impose her mandates upon us.
I want to move this discussion to what society would be like after the revolution. Can we go there? I’m sick and tired of history lessons, and pointing fingers, it is time we move on to what the “new Jerusalem” would be like. Our next blog should be titled “After the Revolution.”
(
send private message
)
mattkeltner says...
Since capitalism has the potential to be self-destructive and unstable, and Marxian socialism is still untried and questionable (especially “post-Revolution” as Randy mentioned), then what alternative do we have left?
Do we revert to being Keynesian welfare states of old?
Do we attempt to become more “socially conscious” in our choices as consumers?
Is capitalism truly capable, in any capacity, of having a social conscience? (Marsh would likely dispute that)
Many seem to think so and socially-conscience buying/marketing seems to be growing in popularity.
I don’t really know.
Economically, this is the reason why I have always leaned more towards liberal Democrats I suppose. On the whole, I’ve voted more often for liberal Democrats on the very issue of economic stability.
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
Interesting MK, a potential makes you vote to reign in economic advances because you feel certain way.
We already know big government programs bred graft and corruption. We know that most of the money sent to Washington D.C. goes there but doesn’t come back.
So I vote for sending the least amount of money to those that corrupt it and hope those that earn it or exploit it, spend it better than some 9-5 government minion with a chip on his shoulder.
Vote Democratic and you get more uptight or anal-retentive government. At least the theory of Republican control is to take as little as possible and allow those that earn it or exploit be responsible for the outcome instead of some faceless government bureaucrat.
I guess MK that is why Redflag is a socialist he wants his peers to be in control. In the Democratic Party we hear the same rhetoric as Redflag but just the opposite result, which is tax the rich mantra.
You must know that Redflag as a revolutionary isn’t interested in current truths he is only looking for the dissatisfied to fuel his revolution. And we know Redflag’s revolution will lead to…well we’ve asked and so far Redflag has only to say the elimination of capitalism. So far Redflag hasn’t denied blood and death, a sacrifice he deems necessary for the greater good.
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
“[I]ndustrial democracy” So what if one industrial democracy needed to eliminate another to further the greater good?
If those that seek to withhold their demise ran afoul of those that need them eliminated, would the majority vote them, demised?
I do believe these words convey some meaning.
(
send private message
)
Redflag says...
Randy Hall: “…we know what ’Redflag’s’ revolution will lead to … well we’ve asked and so far Redflag has only to say the elimination of capitalism. So far Redflag hasn’t denied blood and death, a sacrifice he deems necessary for the greater good.”
But that is as ridiculous as it was expected. Once again, “…I can only say that violence is not necessary. A sufficient amount of liberty still exists within this nation’s political process for the bringing about of socialist society, and, accordingly, for assimilating the members of the capitalist class into the working class, peacefully.” —excerpted from the New Blog entitled Wage slavery (Part III), by yours truly, 10.28.07 (emphasis in original.) In other words, it is my hope that a socialist revolution would be better described as more a “transition.”
Randy’s continuing effort to manipulate the readership into believing that I am some sort bloodthirsty savage bent on killing members of the capitalist class is as laughable as it is obvious. And I’m growing weary of it.
Randy Hall: “It is a question you have sidestepped before…”
Nonsense! There are many reasons for my desire for a socialist society, and I address at least one of them within nearly each of my socialist perspectives (those having dealt with racism, wage slavery, the prison-industrial complex, etc, etc.). Have you not read them, Randy?
To expand upon that theme, however, I would say that, although the defenders and beneficiaries of the economic dictatorship known as capitalism will never stop proclaiming it “the best of all systems,” today, following decades of “new” deals, civil rights legislation, government regulations, wars on poverty, deregulations and a whole host of other so-called reforms, capitalist America still paints a ghastly social picture. Millions of workers who desire jobs are still unemployed regardless of official proclamations that unemployment is now at historically “low” levels. Millions of other workers are underemployed, working but part-time, temporary or “seasonal” jobs although they want and need full-time jobs. And the average American worker has not enjoyed an increase in “real wages” – those adjusted for inflation – since 1973, all the while corporate profits keep soaring ever higher.
This society’s public education system is in shambles and growing worse. Its healthcare system, despite years of debate, still does not meet the needs of tens of millions. Its infrastructure – its roads, bridges, waterways, etc. – continues to deteriorate. Crime – both in the streets and in the suites – is pervasive. Slums are plentiful. And literally millions of homeless men, women and children roam America’s streets in spite of the fact that is completely unnecessary.
Well there you have it, Randy Hall. Now carry on with your justifications.
Randy Hall: “…maybe if Marx lived today, he’d be Mrs. Bill Clinton supported by rich friends attempting to impose her mandate upon us.”
This is the problem encountered by those who arrogantly assert an understanding of Marxism without first having bothered to actually study original sources of Marxist literature: This is the problem encountered by those who have derived their “understanding” of Marxism by way of listening to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Dr. Walter Williams, Gordan Liddy, Michael Reagan and the seemingly endless cavalcade of other capitalist-class errand boys; they’re being intellectually bankrupt leads them to have to scribble such inanity as “…maybe if Marx lived today, he’d be Mrs. Bill Clinton…”
But I am the real clown here … for wasting precious time on such babble.
*
Boscoe: “I wrote several responses then deleted them all.”
The very path that Randy would be wise in so choosing. But alas, he is not easily embarrassed.
Persevere.
Guy
I’m out.
( send private message )
Redflag says...
Addendum:
Yes, Boscoe, with notable exceptions, we “can bitch about it all day without being dragged off somewhere,” but, despite popular conditioning, such freedom has absolutely nothing to do with this economic dictatorship and everything to do with democracy which has long been trampled upon by capitalist rule. Were you to take the time required to examine media capitalist’s treatment of the aforementioned public interest broadcasting, media consolidation, the clear lack of media diversity, and food disparagement laws, as but a very few examples, you would soon come to the understanding that you have been sold a bill of goods.
Remember, Boscoe, I too was once a conservative Republican whose thinking was not unlike yours.
You know the day destroys the night
Night divides the day
Tried to run
Tried to hide
Break on through to the other side…
Persevere.
Guy
I’m out.
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
“I am some sort [of] bloodthirsty savage bent on killing members of the capitalist class…” I would never intimate PETA aside you were blood thirsty. I’d say you are possibly unaware that Marx, left you dangling after the revolution and a convenient dodge Marxist’s can then employ is Mao’s bloody revolution wasn’t Marxism! It simply isn’t Marxism till I say it’s so.
Convenient indeed. Anything not according to Hoyal is not Marxism; it isn’t Marxist till you read “original sources!”
“And the average American worker has not enjoyed an increase in “real wages” – those adjusted for inflation – since 1973, all the while corporate profits keep soaring ever higher.”
A blatant lie. I’ve posted the link to discredit this spin as recently as a few weeks ago. I simply can’t help my Marxist cuz is blinded by his ideology when he can’t see truth even after it snaps his butt like a linebacker wielding a wet towel in an NFL locker-room.
Embarrassed, I’m not the one clinging to a 150 year-old ideology rooted in a rich-man’s guilt. But I do admire your faith, in your long dead man-god. Think 2000 years from now your guru will have followers?
“With his own instinct for the good, man is strong enough to be ashamed of his belief in the God who alone is good. Even before The Will to Power Nietzsche makes his man with the instinct for the good, his Zarathustra, say that to his eyes and ears God goes against his taste. It is in the power of this instinct and with this taste that Nietzsche says in full awareness: the God of metaphysics, the God of the Moralists, the God, too, of a Christian philosophy — they are dead.”
So is Karl, I’m sure Nietzsche would agree.
(
send private message
)
Redflag says...
I wrote: “Randy’s continuing effort to manipulate the readership into believing that I am some sort of bloodthirsty savage bent on killing members of the capitalist class is as laughable as it is obvious. And I’m growing weary of it.”
In “quoting” my writings, Randy typed: “‘I am some sort of bloodthirsty savage bent on killing members of the capitalist class…’” —quoted from the post listed immediately above.
Doubtlessly weary indeed.
As readers can plainly see, Randy Hall went to say – to babble “I would never intimate PETA aside you were bloodthirsty.”
Incredible.
Randy: “I’d say that you are possibly unaware that Marx left you dangling after the revolution…”
(Oh yes, Randy, I am “unaware.” You are intellectually superior to me with respect to Marxian social science.)
And to think that he scribbled that drivel in the wake of my rather lengthy response to his and “the Pope’s” point that Karl Marx nor Frederick Engels “…did not say how matters would proceed thereafter.” —see this thread’s first and fifth comment posts
(That is indeed a part of our Mr. Hall’s modus operandi: To pose a question, or to make a comment, and to then completely ignore one’s response; to then pretend that his query or comment went unanswered so that he may then proceed to distort reality for his own purposes. It is very odd. In fact, throughout the course of the more than thirteen years in which I have been engaged in Internet debate, I’ve not seen anything else so very odd.)
“…I’d say you are possibly unaware that Marx left you dangling after the revolution and a convenient dodge Marxist’s can then employ is Mao’s bloody revolution wasn’t Marxism! It simply isn’t Marxism ‘til I say it’s so. Convenient indeed. Anything not according to Hoyal [Hoyle?] is not Marxism. It isn’t Marxism ‘til you read ’original sources’ [of Marxist literature].”
Actually and again, “it” – revolutions haven’t a Marxist foundation unless the societies in which they occur have been fully industrialized. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that it is impossible for those living within agrarian settings (peasantries) to organize themselves to the point to where they could then administer their society’s means of industrial/economic production? After all, there are no means of production to speak of within the framework of agrarian or semi-agrarian societies. And, yes, the fact of the matter is that a socialist commonwealth would be predicated upon a fully industrialized means of production or it would be nothing at all! This is the very essence of my oft-mentioned, in one form or another, “Socialist society will be the next and most logical step in human social evolution”: the transition from capitalism to socialism, not from agrarianism to socialism!
In response to my “And the average American worker has not enjoyed an increase in ‘real wages’ – those adjusted for inflation – since 1973, all the while corporate profits keep soaring ever higher,” Randy wrote: “A blatant lie. I’ve posted the link to discredit this spin as recently as a few weeks ago.”
(I missed that, Randy. Would you please repost it? Thank you.)
In the interim, I should like for readers to “google” the following set of words – “US workers no increase real wages 1973.”
Finally. To buttress my response to Randy’s question as to why it is that I wish to see the establishment of socialist society (indexed five 5 posts above), I would like for readers to consider the article listed below.
Why Socialism?
Persevere.
Guy
( send private message )
Randy Hall says...
Here is the link I was talking about: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010855
So if I understand this correctly you can only have Marxism if you read original source material, except when Marxism takes over then you need to understand DeLeon, who is praised by Lenin?
Then in an industrial democracy the workers ban together in some sort of labor union to make all pay equal, end human suffering, and eliminate any racial bias, or sexual bias the workers may have.
This of course made me ask, what if one industrial democracy wanted to take over another. Could they just ban together and vote their fellow worker to industrialize another something? It also forces to ask how human nature will be modified. Such as nature’s way of natural selection, how is man supposed to suppress his very basic instincts? Religion attempts to do this but, does DeLeon imply some sort of faith-based though system after the revolution?
A very big problem with real wage argument is in 73 you could not buy the state of the art things we have today, except if you were very rich, like say a government buying a UNIVAC.
Today we take for granted those items that make our life so comfortable like Air Conditioning in our homes, anit-lock brakes that only the most expensive vehicles had, like airplanes. In 73 it cost to fly coast to coast $1,200, today less than $500.
If your argument is dollar wise our wages are stagnate, you simply forget we get so much more bang for our buck at say WalMart, than in 73, at Gemco.
(
send private message
)
Randy Hall says...
Why Socialism?
By Albert Einstein
“Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends.” It has but capitalists have made is affordable.
“If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible.” Just tell them they are happy.
“Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all.” Not true at all.
“A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.” Never has worked and never will.
Science of Socialism is nothing more than a faith that there must be something better. Sounds like a Christian’s view of the afterlife.
(
send private message
)
Would you like to comment on this blog post? Login to talk back!
Randy Hall says...
A little more on the Faithful Marxist:
From Pope’s latest Encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html
“21. Together with the victory of the revolution, though, Marx’s fundamental error also became evident. He showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out. Then everything would be able to proceed by itself along the right path, because everything would belong to everyone and all would desire the best for one another.”
( send private message )