getfiscal posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

getfiscal posted:

rosa, would you consider yourself largely self-taught, or were you once in a formal program dealing with philosophy or related stuff?

You can read more about me here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2001.htm

thanks, that's a good read (i read the introduction). one of my professors was taught by gerry cohen and she influenced me a lot. analytic philosophy seems cool.

Some of it is, much of it isn't, I am sorry to say!

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

gyrofry posted:

disgusting

What is?

analytic philosophy is a deliberately impoverished philosophical newspeak in which the language of revolutionary change is gutted by eliminating dangerously effective concepts through destruction of vocabulary and imposition of specific hegemony-approved thought patterns

gyrofry posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

gyrofry posted:

disgusting

What is?

analytic philosophy is a deliberately impoverished philosophical newspeak in which the language of revolutionary change is gutted by eliminating dangerously effective concepts through destruction of vocabulary and imposition of specific hegemony-approved thought patterns

This is partly true, but it is even more true of the gobbledygook Hegel inflicted on the workers' movement, courtesy of Engels & Co.

Even so, it isn't true of the currents in Analytic Philosophy that have inspired and influenced me.

AmericanNazbro posted:

rosa, in light of your claim that "top down socialism" is a guaranteed failure - what would you suggest as an alternative? what methods could achieve communism within the most advanced nations, in close chronological succession?

while i agree that the theory behind praxis is most crucial, it seems like we have gotten ahead of ourselves here and jumped from A - C and skipped B, the means of transition from capitalism to socialism. right now, despite the greatest level of productive capacity in history, we are probably the furthest away from achieving socialism that we have been since the writings of marx. i think this area deserves much more attention because theorizing about socialism is entirely meaningless if we never actually break free of capitalism and transition to socialism.

The solution is, of course, socialism from below, based on the self-activity of workers -- a bit like we see in Europe right now, only much more so:

http://libcom.org/news/europe-strike-against-austerity-live-updates-13112012

You are right, we seem a long way from this, but things can change very fast. Look how quickly things moved in N Africa and the Middle East last year. And, who could have predicted the German Revolution of 1919-1923 in, say, 1910? Nobody.

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein (Nov. 16, 2012 04:54:57)

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

AmericanNazbro posted:

rosa, in light of your claim that "top down socialism" is a guaranteed failure - what would you suggest as an alternative? what methods could achieve communism within the most advanced nations, in close chronological succession?

while i agree that the theory behind praxis is most crucial, it seems like we have gotten ahead of ourselves here and jumped from A - C and skipped B, the means of transition from capitalism to socialism. right now, despite the greatest level of productive capacity in history, we are probably the furthest away from achieving socialism that we have been since the writings of marx. i think this area deserves much more attention because theorizing about socialism is entirely meaningless if we never actually break free of capitalism and transition to socialism.

step b is Will

That seems like (Maoist) Idealism to me, unless, that is, sufficient productive forces are in place, and workers are well enough organised.

ilmdge posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

AmericanNazbro posted:

rosa, in light of your claim that "top down socialism" is a guaranteed failure - what would you suggest as an alternative? what methods could achieve communism within the most advanced nations, in close chronological succession?

while i agree that the theory behind praxis is most crucial, it seems like we have gotten ahead of ourselves here and jumped from A - C and skipped B, the means of transition from capitalism to socialism. right now, despite the greatest level of productive capacity in history, we are probably the furthest away from achieving socialism that we have been since the writings of marx. i think this area deserves much more attention because theorizing about socialism is entirely meaningless if we never actually break free of capitalism and transition to socialism.

The solution is, of course, socialism from below, based on the self-activity of workers -- a bit like we see in Europe right now, only much more so:

http://libcom.org/news/europe-strike-against-austerity-live-updates-13112012

You are right, we seem a long way from this, but things can change very fast. Look how quickly things moved in N Africa and the Middle East last year. And, who could have predicted the German Revolution of 1919-1923 in, say, 1910? Nobody.

So if a radical faction of those striking workers violently rose up and took control of Greece, would that be "bottom-up" socialism? If so, what disqualifies historically existing socialist states from having bottom-up origins? If not, how would a society ideally move from striking workers to workers' state?

Well, it would certainly be a huge step in the right direction, but, as I pointed out earlier, unless it spread internationally, it would be isolated, and would more than likely go backwards.

If so, what disqualifies historically existing socialist states from having bottom-up origins?

The Russian revolution certainly was an example of socialism from below, but it failed becasue the vast majority of workers were killed in WW1 and in the civil war that followed in Russia soon after.

The other states you mention were all top down versions of 'socialism', imposed by red army tanks, or peasant guerillas.

If not, how would a society ideally move from striking workers to workers' state?

As I pointed out earlier -- Lenin argued that a revolution (as opposed to mass strikes and the like) happens when the ruling class can no longer carry on ruling in the same old way, and workers will no longer let them. If, on the other hand, workers are prepared to pay the price of each crisis, then it won't happen. But you can only push them so far -- as we saw in Russia in 1917, and Germany in 1919.

We almost saw one in the UK in 1919, too!

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28393

Not many people realise that!

We are not there yet, but things are hotting up rather nicely.

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

AmericanNazbro posted:

rosa, in light of your claim that "top down socialism" is a guaranteed failure - what would you suggest as an alternative? what methods could achieve communism within the most advanced nations, in close chronological succession?

while i agree that the theory behind praxis is most crucial, it seems like we have gotten ahead of ourselves here and jumped from A - C and skipped B, the means of transition from capitalism to socialism. right now, despite the greatest level of productive capacity in history, we are probably the furthest away from achieving socialism that we have been since the writings of marx. i think this area deserves much more attention because theorizing about socialism is entirely meaningless if we never actually break free of capitalism and transition to socialism.

The solution is, of course, socialism from below, based on the self-activity of workers -- a bit like we see in Europe right now, only much more so:

http://libcom.org/news/europe-strike-against-austerity-live-updates-13112012

You are right, we seem a long way from this, but things can change very fast. Look how quickly things moved in N Africa and the Middle East last year. And, who could have predicted the German Revolution of 1919-1923 in, say, 1910? Nobody.

i am not as cynical as my post implies, afterall, scratch a cynic and underneath lies a disappointed idealist. my feelings are indeed quite the inverse of nihilistic despair, however, i utterly reject the notion of an inevitable eschatological communism that will simply manifest once material conditions are ripe - it is a hopelessly romantic idea that is ultimately defeatist and detrimental to achieving socialism. not to imply that is what you advocate, apathy, but it still does beg the question how does the proletariat mobilize in modernized countries, in a revolutionary and non-reactionary manner, that is not "top-down" as you say?

a very important and involved question that should be at the very forefront of contemporary marxist thought, yet i do not see it being discussed often enough. we know material conditions are progressing towards a point in which the ruling class will lose the ability to impose their absolute will on the proletariat, that much is certain - but, how do we prevent repetitious of past failures we saw in modernized nations of the early 20th century that went reactionary instead of revolutionary? the inertia of history is not on our side in this respect, and rather it works against our goals. though, this is precisely where the necessity of revolution arises, as it is the forcible upheaval of the currents of history. yet, i have deep concerns we will be lulled into a false sense of certainty, our faith in an inevitable worker's revolution will lead us down a path that discounts the reactionary elements that lay dominant within the first world and we shall repeat the same mistakes the germans made in the 20th century. thus, if we are to believe socialism is assuredly doomed without the first world becoming socialist, then it should be of utmost importance we examine the discrepancies between first world nations, and agrarian nations that had achieved successful revolutions (russia if you like), to prevent previous failures occurring once again.

not to discount failures that arose within the USSR and ignore them, but again i believe we are getting ahead of ourselves here, jumping from A - C with too much faith in a revolutionary model that may not apply directly to contemporary times, let alone a modernized nation. more attention needs to be given to this area if we operate under the assumption socialism hinges entirely on a first world worker's revolution, which have historically all failed.

i am not as cynical as my post implies, afterall, scratch a cynic and underneath lies a disappointed idealist. my feelings are indeed quite the inverse of nihilistic despair, however, i utterly reject the notion of an inevitable eschatological communism that will simply manifest once material conditions are ripe - it is a hopelessly romantic idea that is ultimately defeatist and detrimental to achieving socialism. not to imply that is what you advocate, apathy, but it still does beg the question how does the proletariat mobilize in modernized countries, in a revolutionary and non-reactionary manner, that is not "top-down" as you say?

Where did I say it was inevitable? As Marx pointed out in the Communist Manifesto:

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

Bold added.

Both sides of the class war could mutually ruin one another. There are no guarantees.

I have also pointed out in an earlier post that the capitalist class can extricate itself from any given crisis if the working class is prepared to pay the price. The latter might not be so prepared, and any subsequent revolt could ruin both sides. Revolutionaries have to try to make sure that does not happen.

a very important and involved question that should be at the very forefront of contemporary marxist thought, yet i do not see it being discussed often enough. we know material conditions are progressing towards a point in which the ruling class will lose the ability to impose their absolute will on the proletariat, that much is certain - but, how do we prevent repetitious of past failures we saw in modernized nations of the early 20th century that went reactionary instead of revolutionary? the inertia of history is not on our side in this respect, and rather it works against our goals. though, this is precisely where the necessity of revolution arises, as it is the forcible upheaval of the currents of history. yet, i have deep concerns we will be lulled into a false sense of certainty, our faith in an inevitable worker's revolution will lead us down a path that discounts the reactionary elements that lay dominant within the first world and we shall repeat the same mistakes the germans made in the 20th century. thus, if we are to believe socialism is assuredly doomed without the first world becoming socialist, then it should be of utmost importance we examine the discrepancies between first world nations, and agrarian nations that had achieved successful revolutions (russia if you like), to prevent previous failures occurring once again.

Well, this has been discussed by Marxists, and for many years. This link will provide you with the beginning of an answer to that question:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1963/xx/permrev.htm

But, you mustn't think that (genuine working class) revolutions are rationally planned, they are unpredicatable and spontaneous. They happen when workers have no other option left open to them.

So, they could go backwards, but it is not as if you, or I, or anyone else can stop them from happening. What we have to make sure is that we do the very best we can to prevent them being hi-jacked. That is why I want to re-join the party I left a few years back, and do my level best to make sure it is dominated by workers, not intellectuals.

not to discount failures that arose within the USSR and ignore them, but again i believe we are getting ahead of ourselves here, jumping from A - C with too much faith in a revolutionary model that may not apply directly to contemporary times, let alone a modernized nation. more attention needs to be given to this area if we operate under the assumption socialism hinges entirely on a first world worker's revolution, which have historically all failed.

Well, we certainly have to learn from the mistakes of the past, but that doesn't mean we should abandon the only force that can challenge the power of global capital -- the intenational proletariat.

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

I still don't understand how a peasantry insurgency can impose "top down" socialism

they have the moral high ground and therefore rain bullets down on the oppressors and Let The Bodies Hit The Floor

ilmdge posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

AmericanNazbro posted:

to comment on an early statement you made rosa, about a lack of women and diversity on this forum due to a crude sense of humor exhibited here, i'd just like you correct your assumption and say that we do in fact have a very diverse cadre of posters, which is actually the root cause of such despondent and acerbic humor - it is a defense mechanism, wrought from being targeted as "Others" and pariah of society. for example, a poster here "goatstein" is most notorious for his contempt of humanity, an unabashed misanthropy, yet this is merely due to a deep mistrust of others as he had been routinely mocked for his perceived identity. for you see, goatstein had always felt misplaced and mislabeled as a man yet never fully understanding why, or what was the void felt in his heart - until reaching puberty. he had became cognizant of his true identity and it was in fact not a man, no, but rather a humanoid who possessed the head of a balloon. subsequently, he was met with great ridicule in expressing his desire for society to acknowledge his true identity, and was further mocked ruthlessly for his willingness to transition his head into a giant air balloon. he became calloused, and withdrawn from society, no longer feeling kinship with humanity, as he no longer belonged - both physically and metaphysically. it is a sad tale, but one we all share in someway or another.

in this light, i hope you can empathize with our plight, that despite this forum being comprised of 98% "white males", we have experienced great hardship for who and what we are and as a result came together here, to form the rhizzone, a safe space free from outside scrutiny and ridicule - as we are the dregs of the internet that not even tumblr will take.

Which crazy post sort of makes my point for me...

Whoaa throwing around the C-word here? Go easy on Goatstein, tpaine, and the rest of us.

Ok, 'loopy' if you prefer...

Goethestein posted:

communism failed miserably, killing millions

hmm yes vali0d pointe, communism DONE. any quEstions? fffucks

ggw posted:

I choose Theodore "Ted" Nugent as the vanguard for the working class prole scrubs of America

Not a day goes by where an American outdoorsman doesn’t confide in me that due to the increasingly complex, illogical hunting and fishing regulations across the nation, that it would not surprise them that they have unintentionally violated a game law at some point in time. Other outdoorsmen routinely express their frustration about regulations that serve no purpose and cannot possibly be explained in terms of wildlife management.

America is increasingly drowning in just such strange, goofy regulations and requirements. As logic crusader John Stossel recently exposed, our federal government releases roughly 80,000 pages of new regulations each year–confusing, ambiguous, weird illogical regulations that serve no meaningful purpose other than to feebly attempt to justify bureaucracies already off the rails. It’s way past bizarre.

The “you don’t need to read it, you just need to sign it” health care bill argued before the Supreme Court was almost 2,000 pages long of extraordinarily complex rules and regulations. Sarcastically, Supreme Court Justice Scalia stated that reading the bill was a violation of the 8th Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause.

Regrettably, state hunting regulations have also been ravaged by the over-regulation beast. In Alaska, the hunting regulation book is 128 pages long. The Alaska trapping regulation is 48 pages.

Alaska is not alone. Numerous other states have seen incredible expansion of their hunting regulations over the past few decades. In Texas, the summary of hunting and fishing regulations is 85 pages. The hunting regulations in California are roughly 140 pages long.

Even with an increasing mountain of often confusing and complex hunting and fishing regulations to abide by, sportsmen have a legal and ethical obligation to know and abide by these regulations, no matter how goofy they may be. I have said this for decades and will continue to do so as we fight to make them sensible.

I have hunted in Alaska for almost 40 years. It is a spectacular, beautiful place that offers incredible big and small game hunting cherished by sporters from around the globe.

In 2009, I returned again with my sons to Alaska to hunt black bear. What I was unaware of is that the specific region where I hunted had a new and unprecedented requirement that a bear hunting tag was considered to be “filled” even with a non-lethal hit on the animal. For sixty years, every “tag” regulation in every state and Canadian province has declared that you tag the animal upon taking possession of the animal.

The first arrow I shot on that hunt was obviously a non-lethal shot where the arrow literally glanced off the animal’s rib, as seen clearly on stop action video. The bear leapt, stopped, looked around, and slowly ambled off, confused but unhurt by the disruption. After diligent effort by my son and me, we were convinced that this bear was alive and well. We then continued our hunt and ultimately killed a beautiful black bear.

I filmed the entire hunt including the first non-lethal arrow and put it on my television program Spirit of the Wild on Outdoor Channel for tens of millions of viewers to witness. Airing the hunt on television proves beyond all doubt that I had no willful intention to violate any hunting regulation.

Was I negligent in not knowing the Alaska bear hunting rule for the specific region I hunted that year? Absolutely. For my negligence, I have been charged with a violation and I pled guilty. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person ever charged with violating this new, unheard of law. Lifetime AK hunters, guides, outfitters, even the resident judge at my hearing were unaware of such an unprecedented regulation.

While I disagree with Alaska’s requirement that a tag is considered to be “filled” even on a non-lethal hit, that was the requirement at the time of my hunt. Had I known of that requirement, I would not have hunted that region because I fundamentally disagree with it, and I certainly would not have hunted another bear.

I have promoted the grand, honorable hunting lifestyle all of my life and will continue to do so. Hunting, fishing and trapping are the epitome of true conservation.

What I also pledge to American outdoorsmen is to work to repeal onerous, unscientific, counterproductive rules and regulations that make no sense such as the seven states where hunting is banned on Sunday, making 50% of the season illegal for the average hunting families in those states. Idiotic laws such as these are a hindrance to real conservation and the critical need for recruiting new hunters. Such arbitrary laws serve no scientific purpose that benefits the management of wildlife value whatsoever.

The outdoor lifestyle cannot be preserved for future generations of sportsmen by constructing such a labyrinth of confusing, unscientific and oftentimes counterproductive regulations and rules. Reversing this trend is my focus.

While I have never intentionally violated a hunting regulation, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and I am truly sorry, and have paid dearly. There is even less of an excuse for ignorant laws.

Haven't they suffered enough?

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Goethestein posted:

communism failed miserably, killing millions

And capitalism kills millions every year...

Good job I'm not advocating communism, but a workers' state...

most capitalist countries are actually quite peaceful and unsullied by the kinds of campaigns of mass murder and genocide-by-incompetence common to former communist states

Goethestein posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Goethestein posted:

communism failed miserably, killing millions

And capitalism kills millions every year...

Good job I'm not advocating communism, but a workers' state...

most capitalist countries are actually quite peaceful and unsullied by the kinds of campaigns of mass murder and genocide-by-incompetence common to former communist states

You have clearly forgotten about Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine... (millions killed because of imperialist aggression), to say nothing of the tens of millions who die needlessly because of poverty and starvation in a capitalist world of plenty (which would rather spend trillions on armamants rather than on feeding other human beings, or providing them with clean water, for example). And you seem to have forgotten about the genocide inflicted on native Americans, native Australians, Tasmanians and native New Zealanders, not to mention the Irish and Bengal famines (both courtesy of capitalist countries). The list is almost endless.

Odd how your memory is selective, isn't it?

But, hey, us Trotskyists were criticising the brutal regime in Russia when the media in the USA and the UK were calling Stalin 'Uncle Joe', in WW2, and Nixon was cuddling up to Mao in the 1970s.

Once more, I am not a communist, so you can stop throwing this at me.

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein (Nov. 16, 2012 18:38:51)

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

But, hey, us Trotskyists were criticising the brutal regime in Russia

Lmao. What Brutal Regime Lol.

deadken posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

But, hey, us Trotskyists were criticising the brutal regime in Russia

Lmao. What Brutal Regime Lol.

Is that your best 'argument'?