It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freemasonry: a Cult of Neofascist, Militant, Genocidal, Capitalists and anti-Communists.

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by King Seesar
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Everything you said makes perfect sense and i agree with most of it until you mention socialism, my friend socialism is communism under a different name, now i'm not saying the changes you want are bad but do it with out going the socialist rout, there's ways to make capitalism prosper for the small business and such with out going the socialist rout, basically do what you say but do it under new fair and free laws that are not of socialist values but that are of a free democracy that harbor no threat too America's constitution....

Social values need to be added, anything that is public service for example has social value.
Your postal service, police station, school are all state institutions that offer public services, those are social values under the scrutiny of socialism. I would not call socialism comunism just like I would not call capitalism imperialism, but taken to the extremes each of these can become a form of imperialism or comunism, so yes socialism and capitalism taken to the extreme can become that. You do need capitalism and socialism binded, so they don't go to the extremes, each of them preventing one from becoming a totalitarian rule.

Capitalism can become a form of corporate comunism, imperialistic, just like socialism can cause the same effects, any form of rule can be abused like the soviet union did, and like the west is doing now with capitalism. Today's capitalism is taken to the extremes, it's like a hungry shark eating whatever finds in it's way.
There is room for each of these in moderate amount.



edit on 24-4-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Nazi Germany was a socialist society and what did that get them!!!! A power hungry dictator who people compare to the Anti-christ that was hell bent on taking over the world, innocent people being killed just because of there ancestry thousands and thousands of people lost in the name of good o'l socialism....

Where i think we hit a road bump in our thought process is the way you use the word socialism, to me there's nothing wrong with social values i don't see that as socialism as a mater of fact most of the points you made don't strike me as the way i define socialism and i agree with them, i think we simply have different takes on the word...


edit on 24-4-2011 by King Seesar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by illuminazislayer
 

Thank you for your "refreshing" anti-Semitic views.


This is simply "abuse" and typical of your debating strategy here. The hurlng of abuse and false allegations are generally a poor substitute for intelligent argument, the cries of the despairing and generally the debating strategy of persons who are unable to construct arguments.

A few points.

1: There was nothing remotely anti-Semitic about "illuminazislayer's" posts.

2: The majority of the Jewish people in the modern world are the descendents of Euopeans and are not Semites (i.e., of Arabic appearance)

3: A person whose religious faith was Judaism would be forbidden to join the "Christian" degrees of your religious cult (York Rite Freemasonry) where only members of the diabolical Christian faith may join.



4: Since you ae currently serving in the US forces in Iraq, and the Iraqis are largely a "Semitic" people, littering their nation with several thousand tons of depleted Uranium and subjecting them to torture, murder, genocide and US economc imperialism is really quite a "definition" of anti-Semitism itself.



His Imperial Majesty
Lucifer

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals, to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” – Henry Kissinger ”



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desired1
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Hi, Lucifer777 I broadly agree with your general points. I quite randomly came across this thread while looking for a critique of Masonic ideology and practice written by the International Communist Current (ICC) which you link to. I subscribe to their press but I wouldn't go as far as to call myself a 'sympathiser' (yet!) though I do have a lot of time for them, their programme and what they write etc To the more important issue:


I do conisder the ICC to be a part of the International Revolutionary Vanguard, but having attended som of their meetings, it is a very hierarchical cult like organisation; I personally tend not to get personally involved with such groups and am more entwined with the Anarchist Left.




Frankly the Castro and Guevara method would involve a military coup and the "firing squad" and frankly since the US military is so large, this would have genocidal consequences; however personally I cannot conceive of any other practical option.



Well this sounds to me thoroughly within the realm of 'National Liberation'. The World Revolution is not a national affair and thus it's not in a sense the American proletariat against the US state. But the international working class against all states and the existing political and social conditions. It is also important to reflect upon what has been the result of National Liberation movements. A national working class has still existed, being exploited, the countries in question become isolated and have to follow the dictates of the international economic and political/social system i.e capitalism. You appear to basically be saying you cannot conceive of an international revolution yet one has already been attempted earlier in the last century!


Nationalism is just another disease like racism or tribalism; however unfortunately the world is divided into Capitalist states, each with their own tyrannies; ultimately I believe that humankind will progress to a stage where all such tyrannies will be overthrown like a house of cards; however clearly the conditions for such a revolution are in the process of creation. The transition from Capitalism to stateless collectivism and syndicalism is unlikely to be an "overnight" revolution however and would require a process; the mantra of "Revolution in all the world on a day and an hour" is really more metaphorical for the initial stages of world revoluion; the process of collectivisation is likely to take years and decades


You are also (though you may not realise it) defending state capitalism. i.e the individual take over of nation states which presupposes the management of the national economy, the national capital. Fidel in Cuba, Sankara in Burkina Faso etc etc.


State Capitalism (the nationalisation of banking) was only suggested by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto as a temporal, transitionary state. I am not in favour of permanent State Capitalism, however I think that it would be a progressive move and would disempower the world's Capitalist elites to an extent, since the most profitable form of Capitalism is the actual creation of the money supply itself.





Unfortunately I am sceptical as to whether the world's leading gangster Capitalists and the world's leading terrorist organisation (the US military) can simply be eradicated by "democratic" and "political means," and since they are militant criminals with a long history of genocidal state terrorism, assassinations and military coups, and are armed with weapons of mass destruction. I very much suspect it will require total warfare against America, and this is unlikely to succeed with conventional weaponry. Thus an apocalyptic "military" solution, rather that a purely political solution will almost certainly be required. This seems to be a conclusion which many among the major militant enemies of US imperialism have reached including the Communists and the Islamic religious fanatics, both of whom tend to predict global apocalyptic war, rather than "peaceful" revolution.


As for Guevara I think I'm right in saying he said something like

there needs to be five Vietnams


Yes of course, there needs to be "many" Vietnams and militant global resistance against US imperialism and the International Dictatorship of Capitalism in general. Unfortunately since the Capitalists are militant, genocidal and have weapons of mass destruction, the same kinds of military technology will have to be used to eradicate them.


Which is the same kind of nonsense you're suggesting with "total warfare against America", and the banality about weapons etc. Where does the class politics come into it here? The Vietnam War was partly ended because of American soldiers disobeying orders, shooting officers, refusing to enlist etc etc and the protests in the US itself. To think that 'Socialist States' will need to go to war with America is void of communist and class politics. I could say more on this but I'm sure there will already be some confusion about my rejection of 'Socialist States' etc to some posters on here.


Well certainly Latin America is moving towards the left, and I think that this m,ay partially be due to the American state terrorists having been distracted by their wars in their new Imperial colonies in Iraq and Afghanistan, however with the transition from slave societies, to Capitalism, to Socialism to Communism, the nations of the world are still at various stages between slave societies and partially Socialist societies; the problem with "Socialist states" is that they have had a habit of transforming into dictatorships such as the North Korean state and that they have generally not created "economic paradise" though of course one has to also compare them with the tragedy and poverty of Third World Capitalism; Cuba my be an economic paradise in comparison to Haiti or in comparison to the lifestyle of the American poor. Unfortunately to have a revolution, such as in the Anarchist regions of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, where there is a "giant leap" from Capitalism to Anarchism which avoids the interm "Socialist state" there would need to be a politically educated population who were committed to Anarchist ideals, and clearly the world's population has not yet attained such a political consciousness.



So, lastly you say "the Communists and the Islamic religious fanatics, both of whom tend to predict global apocalyptic war, rather than "peaceful" revolution." Do you mean to imply the Communists are fanatics as well as the 'Islamic' (which should actually be Islamacists or that some Communists are fanatics?


Well the term "fanatic" is generally used in the derogatory sense and I was referring to Isalmic religious fanatics, but yes I suppose that "fanatical zeal" would be required by Communists to eradicate the dictatorship of Capitalsim; if peopele are just complacent and submissive, this is not useful.


I'm not sure how to quantify it but some communists are of the opinion there will probably be civil war. It has long been argued the bourgeoisie will not give up their power, control and ownership voluntarily! And proved quite correct! But your use of 'apocalyptic' I think stems from your understanding of how communist revolution is made and how it will come about i.e through seizing power of individual nation states i.e bourgeois coups and then engaging in your own inter-imperialist wars! All these in my view incorrect understandings of World Revolution i.e socialist revolution stem from an absence of working class politics and full of nationalist ones i.e bourgeois ideology.


Well of course, the ideal would be world revolution and the total eradication of nation states, however absent such a scenario, what is more likely is the graudal socialisation of nation states; though certainly many of the socialist policies in my own nation state (the UK) are in the process of being reversed. Ultimately I predict that global apocalyptic war will be required to transform the world from it's current Capitalist dictatorships into a more humane Socialist World; however Socialism is only a preliminary stage towards Communism, and probably different regions will continue to be at different stages of the process.

Lux.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 

Non-Christians can indeed join the York Rite, just not the Chivalric Orders.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Lucifer777
 

Non-Christians can indeed join the York Rite, just not the Chivalric Orders.


Vitually "anyone" can join the Scientology cult, but the higher levels and organisations of the cult, such as the Sea Org appear to be restricted exclusively to those who accept the belief that L. Ron Hubbard is the Maitraya (i.e., the reincarnation of Buddha) and the "Messiah;" similarly in Masonry non Christians can purchase fake degrees and pompous titles from York Rite Masonic franchises but only up to a certain level. When the cultist wishes to purchase a fake Knight's Templar degree, it is forbidden to sell such fake degrees to a non Christian; thus to progress in the York rite, one must be profess faith in the vile and diabolical religion of Christianity.

Lux



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by King Seesar
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Nazi Germany was a socialist society and what did that get them!!!! A power hungry dictator who people compare to the Anti-christ that was hell bent on taking over the world, innocent people being killed just because of there ancestry thousands and thousands of people lost in the name of good o'l socialism....

Yes but nazi germany went to the extreme, from socialism to something else, look at the countries in Europe, Germany, France and others all had socialist values and were doing fine before the EU. They were doing fine because there was a well defined balance.

I for one for example would prefer to pay the doctor directly, what are insurance companies doing collecting double ? acting as the middle man, who needs a middle man ? that is capitalism for you, in this case it's bad.
People suffer while they collect the credit, when there is no alternative then capitalism without alternatives is ?
...it is a form of totalitarian rule since there is no other options. I would prefer a more social aproach in this case
and pay the doctor my self, or some form of social care where I don't have to go by the middle man.



Where i think we hit a road bump in our thought process is the way you use the word socialism, to me there's nothing wrong with social values i don't see that as socialism as a mater of fact most of the points you made don't strike me as the way i define socialism

It is socialism, people don't know what socialism is, I would say it's far from comunism, but true from socialism you can get to comunism, but just like capitalism can lead to the same place or to imerialism. True freedom lies in the middle, between the two wings (socialism left and capitalism right wing) there is always a choice when you have something to chose, all else are forms of extremes. The perfect system is one that has bolth
socialistic and capitalist views.


edit on 25-4-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 





I do conisder the ICC to be a part of the International Revolutionary Vanguard, but having attended som of their meetings, it is a very hierarchical cult like organisation; I personally tend not to get personally involved with such groups and am more entwined with the Anarchist Left.


I would be interested to know why you think they are "cult like". Or is this simply a matter of the organisation like practically all other marxist ones not organising along Anarchist lines? At the end of the day this is going to come down to theory in several instances. How they understand consciousness in a marxist sense, the general question of revolutionary organisation, their aims etc. Although they are open to internationalist class struggle anarchists to a certain extent their writing and theory is clearly 'anti-anarchist'. However, I do think the body of work they have published and their theory in general, their clarifications, their history of the workers movement is very good. Especially when you consider the kind of utter rubbish and clueless 'comrades' which come from the likes of the myriad of Trotskyist organisations. I would also think your whole approach to the question of revolution is different anyway if you work within anarchism which suggests local and community activity - which is in stark contrast to the kind of politics you see in the future and are partly 'supporting' below, lefty regimes (left populists in Latin America and state capitalism in general etc)




The transition from Capitalism to stateless collectivism and syndicalism is unlikely to be an "overnight" revolution


I certainly agree with this. I just don't think left populist regimes like Chavez in Venezuela are doing our class any favours for a number of reasons. For one, it will either become more authoritarian or he will be overthrown given time and their will possibly be a period of prolonged repression or even fascism (this is the history of Latin America and all (left wing) bourgeois coups after they run their course) It is mystifying class relations, i.e that you can have 'good' 'socialist' governments, when in reality it is a thoroughly bourgeois government. Not to confuse people too much but I'm pretty sure I'm with the ICC on the question of there being a left wing of capital including all the so-called marxists who want to manage capitalism when (God forbid) they ever take state power!




Unfortunately since the Capitalists are militant, genocidal and have weapons of mass destruction, the same kinds of military technology will have to be used to eradicate them.


Coming back to this question which is where we started originally. I think this is the main problem in your 'case' for socialism/communism (I tend not to differentiate between the two) and revolution. I think this would be a disaster. Don't get me wrong I'm not a pacifist, I do believe in class violence (our class of course!). Nuclear weapons, poisons or whatever are not going to be much use to the proletariat for example. I think this kind of theory could lead to the destruction of both contending classes and ruin for humanity not that humanity isn't already partly suffering on a mass scale, Just as a side note I think when comrades refer to "Socialism or Barbarism" we are much closer presently to barbarism not that it will suddenly happen in the future i.e it's happening around us the longer there isn't a world-wide social revolution. Also, war and mass destruction would probably kill many more proletarians than it would capitalists on the scale you are imagining, infrastructure and environment. I mean you said "apocalypse" before I think, that would certainly be the end of not just the enemy class but probably the whole of humanity!



Well certainly Latin America is moving towards the left


I've already addressed this partly above and the dangers associated with this idea. I think it requires a lot of questioning. Firstly whether this is genuinely the case, what you mean by 'left' and if it is actually progressive.It's very easy to slip into ideas of socialist states and socialism in one country without being a Stalinist. I think it all comes back to questions of theory, what socialism is and how do we get there. Sorry if this sounds like rhetoric.




Anarchist regions of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, where there is a "giant leap" from Capitalism to Anarchism which avoids the interm "Socialist state" there would need to be a politically educated population who were committed to Anarchist ideals, and clearly the world's population has not yet attained such a political consciousness.


Before I make this point I will be honest and say I do not consider myself a Left Communist or a marxist but I have a materialist understanding of the world and am trying to understand questions like the ones we are talking about and I am certainly not 'against' anarchism like the next points may imply (I spend too much time on Libcom.org for a start - an anarchist forum)

I kind of know what your're saying when you "Anarchist regions" - collectives, workers management of factories etc but I'm not sure if this still isn't a form of capitalism. After all you can't have pockets of communism and as capital is global so must the revolution be, 'smashing' all states etc. The thing is there was a state in Spain and one which in the end many anarchists defended and even served directly as ministers, mayors, etc I think this is a huge subject though (Spain) and I am no expert so I'll leave it at that. Maybe you could expand on it?



but yes I suppose that "fanatical zeal" would be required by Communists to eradicate the dictatorship of Capitalsim


I think enthusiastic and willing would be more precise and also it wouldn't just be communists in fact they probably will be a small minority. It will have to be the whole oppressed class acting in their own interest gaining confidence and consciousness through their own actions.



what is more likely is the graudal socialisation of nation states


I'm really not sure about this and would like to know what your theoretical basis is or if it's just a 'hunch' - which is fair enough of course but not very scientific ; ) Also this appears to be a rejection of the fact that class struggle has brought about reforms in ascendent capitalism not some natural evolution. Unless of course you mean by "gradual socialisation" concerted class struggle bringing about major reforms but that surely is something of the past especially with the latest major crisis of capitalism. Where are the reforms going to come from given all these billions of cuts. Capitalism will rebound with a massive boom and there will be loads of reforms for the working class with or without struggle?!



and probably different regions will continue to be at different stages of the process.


I agree! But I would change "of the process" with " a process" as we clearly differ on some major questions : )

Nice discussion by the way, I haven't replied to the other posters because I think you did a great job in already replying to them. I would urge those who still have questions after your posts about socialism in general to re-read your posts as they cover some general themes very well. Lastly, I was wondering why you're on these forums? Do you have an interest in conspiracy theory, it seems like an odd place for someone with a materialist inderstanding of the world. And I would argue these forums are explicitly anti-proletarian, that they do not seek clarification or fact but intrigue and mystification which is fair enough but it's not much help to anyone. So I'm surprised to see someone arguing a case for socialism here!





edit on 25-4-2011 by Desired1 because: Spelling error



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desired1
reply to post by Lucifer777
 





I do consider the ICC to be a part of the International Revolutionary Vanguard, but having attended some of their meetings, it is a very hierarchical cult like organisation; I personally tend not to get personally involved with such groups and am more entwined with the Anarchist Left.


I would be interested to know why you think they are "cult like". Or is this simply a matter of the organisation like practically all other Marxist ones not organising along Anarchist lines? At the end of the day this is going to come down to theory in several instances. How they understand consciousness in a Marxist sense, the general question of revolutionary organisation, their aims etc. Although they are open to internationalist class struggle anarchists to a certain extent their writing and theory is clearly 'anti-anarchist'. However, I do think the body of work they have published and their theory in general, their clarifications, their history of the workers movement is very good. Especially when you consider the kind of utter rubbish and clueless 'comrades' which come from the likes of the myriad of Trotskyist organisations. I would also think your whole approach to the question of revolution is different anyway if you work within anarchism which suggests local and community activity - which is in stark contrast to the kind of politics you see in the future and are partly 'supporting' below, lefty regimes (left populists in Latin America and state capitalism in general etc)


I tend to be rather broad minded when it comes to the Communist Left; I have attended ICC and SWP (Socialist Worker Party) events and meetings and a number of the organised Anarchist groups, and so forth, and although I tend to have Anarchist politics, I try not to be narrow minded when it comes to other Left ideologies, but I am not really a "joiner" of organisations; I mostly spent many years in London in the Anarchist underground; the Anarchist subculture in London is much more informal than groups like the ICC and SWP, and it is entwined with youth culture, music, squat parties, general socialising and Bohemianism, and very few of them belong to the rather tiny groups like "Class War" and the Anarchist Federation (which has 66 members the last time I attended).

It may seem rather trivial to say that "Anarchists have more fun" as political activism is a rather serious matter when it comes to the Marxist and Trotskyist Left, but the Anarchist subculture in London is certainly more socially attractive and less cult-like, as there is no rigid hierarchy. I think that part of the unattractiveness of the old Soviet culture was it's rigid authoritarianism; I think that very few Western Europeans during the period of the Soviet era would have wanted to emigrate to Eastern Europe as we like our freedoms, and the Anarchism movement and ideology has an emphasis on "freedom" and anti-authoritarianism.




The transition from Capitalism to stateless collectivism and syndicalism is unlikely to be an "overnight" revolution


I certainly agree with this. I just don't think left populist regimes like Chavez in Venezuela are doing our class any favours for a number of reasons. For one, it will either become more authoritarian or he will be overthrown given time and their will possibly be a period of prolonged repression or even fascism (this is the history of Latin America and all (left wing) bourgeois coups after they run their course) It is mystifying class relations, i.e that you can have 'good' 'socialist' governments, when in reality it is a thoroughly bourgeois government. Not to confuse people too much but I'm pretty sure I'm with the ICC on the question of there being a left wing of capital including all the so-called Marxists who want to manage capitalism when (God forbid) they ever take state power!


When you refer to "our class," personally I have always been economically "middle class," and I think that you will find that most of the major philosophers of the Marxists and Anarchist Left have also been middle class. Having gone through the university environment, it is my impression that the more educated a person is, the more they tend to have socialist politics, and most of the academic intellectual classes are economically middle class; indeed the world's foremost Anarchist (Neom Chomsky) is probably in the upper economic classes due to his publishing royalties.

I don't really have this "class consciousness" attitude; frankly much of the English proletariat seem to have a rather thuggish, football hooligan mentality and are either completely depoliticised or are more likely to have political views in common with the EDL (English Defence League) or the far Right, though I am referring specifically to the English, since the Scottish are a different matter. In Spain, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Holland and other European nations the "Left" represents a much larger section of the population, but they seem to be marginalised now in the UK.

My Anarchist Communist politics do not derive from a sympathy with the proletariat of my specific nation, but from my travels in the Third World, which is essentially a sewer of Capitalism and poverty, and where there is extreme exploitation and collective human misery. Most of the European working classes today really are economically "middle class" on a global scale; their shops and supermarkets are full of imported goods and agriculture from some of the poorest countries in the world and they are the beneficiaries of Third World labour slavery. The kind of extreme poverty which was on the doorstep of Marx and the 19th century Communists and Anarchists has now been exported to the Third World in the age of globalisation.

With regards to Chavez, while I consider him to be "progressive" he has not really initiated collectivism and he is clearly not a "Communist," though I do have some admiration for him. Since the bulk of Latin American population is quite poor, I think it unlikely that there will be a swing back to the Right unless through military coup and dictatorship. Traditionally it has been the US state terrorists and the CIA in particular who have dictated who rose to power in Latin America, but they seem to now be more distracted by their Islamic wars and colonies, which is why "give me two, three, many Vietnams" seems to be necessary. Islamic culture, which is Capitalist itself, is of course even more backwards and primitive than American culture, but both American Imperialism and Islamofascism are both regressive and anti-revolutionary ideologies, and it is better that they fight each other, since traditionally the enemies of the Americans have been the Communist Left and the Americans and the Muslims are certainly the common enemies of the Left.

Unfortunately since the Marxist and Anarchist Left tend not to be a "majority" at this stage, I think that there is some benefit to also having a "Fabians" attitude which is really a very long term strategy. The Roman dictator and General who the Fabians are named after tried to avoid direct confronation and his strategy was to wear his enemies down over long periods of time, and in terms of Communist revolution this may take many decades.




Unfortunately since the Capitalists are militant, genocidal and have weapons of mass destruction, the same kinds of military technology will have to be used to eradicate them.


Coming back to this question which is where we started originally. I think this is the main problem in your 'case' for socialism/communism (I tend to differentiate between the two) and revolution. I think this would be a disaster. Don't get me wrong I'm not a pacifist, I do believe in class violence (our class of course!). Nuclear weapons, poisons or whatever are not going to be much use to the proletariat for example. I think this kind of theory could lead to the destruction of both contending classes and ruin for humanity not that humanity isn't already partly suffering on a mass scale, Just as a side note I think when comrades refer to "Socialism or Barbarism" we are much closer presently to barbarism not that it will suddenly happen in the future i.e it's happening around us the longer there isn't a world-wide social revolution.not Also, war and mass destruction would probably kill many more proletarians than it would capitalists on the scale you are imagining, infrastructure and environment. I mean you said "apocalypse" before I think, that would certainly be the end of not just the enemy class but probably the whole of humanity!


Well I don't want to be misunderstood about this; I am not promoting the idea of "nuking America," or anything like that; on the contrary; that would just make matters worse for the American proletariat, martial law would be initiated and there would be an even more oppressive fascist police state; however unfortunately I do think that it is inevitable that it will happen and that an "apocalyptic" scenario is likely; the Muslims are entirely aware that the US state terrorists are unlikely to be defeated with conventional armies and conventional weapons and the Americans are already using nuclear weapons including depleted uranium, anyway; thus the moral justification of the use of such weapons in retaliation exists. Islam is also an entirely apocalyptic religion with apocalyptic prophecies. We may not "believe" in the apocalyptic ramblings of ancient and primitive religious fanatics, but unfortunately many people in the world do believe in such apocalyptic prophecies, and some are likely to invoke them; America may seem like a modern scientific nation, but according to polls 40-50% of adults are waiting for Jesus to return; it is still a country of primitive and barbaric religious fanatics, who have much more in common with the Islamic fanatics that with the European Socialists and Left in general.

Ultimately however, Cuba and China are both working on DEW (Direct Energy Weapons) military technology which is apparently quite simply and reproducable and since this seems to be the next and inevitable stage of military warfare, such technology will give large converntional armies no advantage; in fact they will be at a disadvantage and their guerilla enemies will probably be able to inflict genocide; no military base and no military vehicle would be likely to protect them; thus I consider there to be some future hope for the defeat of the US imperialists, but it is does not exist at present, and is unlikely absent the introduction of new non-conventional military technologies in engaging the US state terrorists.





Well certainly Latin America is moving towards the left


I've already addressed this partly above and the dangers associated with this idea. I think it requires a lot of questioning. Firstly whether this is genuinely the case, what you mean by 'left' and if it is actually progressive.It's very easy to slip into ideas of socialist states and socialism in one country without being a Stalinist. I think it all comes back to questions of theory, what socialism is and how do we get there. Sorry if this sounds like rhetoric.



Whether by revolutionary socialism or evolutionary socialism, progression towards a more ideal world is likely to be a long process.




Anarchist regions of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, where there is a "giant leap" from Capitalism to Anarchism which avoids the interm "Socialist state" there would need to be a politically educated population who were committed to Anarchist ideals, and clearly the world's population has not yet attained such a political consciousness.


Before I make this point I will be honest and say I do not consider myself a Left Communist or a marxist but I have a materialist understanding of the world and am trying to understand questions like the ones we are talking about and I am certainly not 'against' anarchism like the next points may imply (I spend too much time on Libcom.org for a start - an anarchist forum)

I kind of know what your're saying when you "Anarchist regions" - collectives, workers management of factories etc but I'm not sure if this still isn't a form of capitalism. After all you can't have pockets of communism and as capital is global so must the revolution be, 'smashing' all states etc. The thing is there was a state in Spain and one which in the end many anarchists defended and even served directly as ministers, mayors, etc I think this is a huge subject though (Spain) and I am no expert so I'll leave it at that. Maybe you could expand on it?


I would not suggest that the Spanish Anarchists created anything ideal; they only survived for a brief period anyway, before they were defeated by the Spanish Fascists; any kind of modern, scientific “ideal” Communist system would take many years to establish. The Israeli collectivist (kibbutzim) system similarly took many decades to develop. I suppose ideologically I am an Israeli Communist; this has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity or race; it is simply a practical model for collectivism and syndicalism which in the modern world produces a very high standard of living, albeit a model which exists in, and trades with the Capitalist world.




but yes I suppose that "fanatical zeal" would be required by Communists to eradicate the dictatorship of Capitalsim


I think enthusiastic and willing would be more precise and also it wouldn't just be communists in fact they probably will be a small minority. It will have to be the whole oppressed class acting in their own interest gaining confidence and consciousness through their own actions.


Unfortunately at the moment much of the European and American proletariat are entirely depoliticised, nationalistic and anti-Communist. I think there needs to arise more models of collectivism which can be held up as practical examples; especially in the Third World. One of the main conditions for revolution is mass political education and the awareness of the evils of Capitalism and the solutions proposed by the Left; such conditions are yet to be created on a global scale and much of the population is stricken with the disease of religious hypnosis and indoctrination which depoliticises them or turns them into political conservatives. What use are politics anyway if Jesus is coming back on the clouds of heaven to rapture them up to the sky?

The Internet I think is ideal forum for the dissemination of revolutionary propaganda (education), but unfortunately it is also full of religious fanatics and anti-Communists, and the process of education will take time.




what is more likely is the graudal socialisation of nation states


I'm really not sure about this and would like to know what your theoretical basis is or if it's just a 'hunch' - which is fair enough of course but not very scientific ; ) Also this appears to be a rejection of the fact that class struggle has brought about reforms in ascendent capitalism not some natural evolution. Unless of course you mean by "gradual socialisation" concerted class struggle bringing about major reforms but that surely is something of the past especially with the latest major crisis of capitalism. Where are the reforms going to come from given all these billions of cuts. Capitalism will rebound with a massive boom and there will be loads of reforms for the working class with or without struggle?!


Unfortunately the UK in particular is witnessing the overturning of a great many progressive socialist policies which were fought for during the age where the trade unions and the labour movement were more radical; the "New Labour" is really just a Capitalist political party now. This trend seems to be happening in other European states also, and the Third World in general is certainly not moving towards socialism, it is still in the stage of gangster Capitalism.

If we are going to be "scientific," then the world need to eventually emerge into a world where all persons have a general economic equality and where societies are socialist, which puts people first and human rights first, rather than Capitalism, which simply rewards a few Capitalists at the expense of the masses; however as to how we arrive at that world, I think that it is difficult to be purely "scientific" about that, though I think that it will be a mixture of both evolutionary and revolutionary socialism; trying to predict the future is anyway always speculative and not scientific, but trying to "change" the future is another matter. Unfortunately very few Communists have sufficient wealth to initiate collectivist projects and thus they are generally just political activists, writers, propagandists, academics etc.




and probably different regions will continue to be at different stages of the process.


I agree! But I would change "of the process" with " a process" as we clearly differ on some major questions : )

Nice discussion by the way, I haven't replied to the other posters because I think you did a great job in already replying to them. I would urge those who still have questions after your posts about socialism in general to re-read your posts as they cover some general themes very well. Lastly, I was wondering why you're on these forums? Do you have an interest in conspiracy theory, it seems like an odd place for someone with a materialist inderstanding of the world. And I would argue these forums are explicitly anti-proletarian, that they do not seek clarification or fact but intrigue and mystification which is fair enough but it's not much help to anyone. So I'm surprised to see someone arguing a case for socialism here!


This is an American forum predominately, and the US conspiracy theory movement is a phenomenon of the rise of the anti-Communist political right; and this sub-forum is essentially a pro-Masonic forum; the Masons appear to be generally politically conservative and a major Capitalsit gang, and the conspiracy theorists are usually Capitalist reformists; however the reformation of Capitalism is like reforming Nazism; it is just tinkering with a bad system; one has to bear in mind that if one considers the ideology of Neonazism and the kind of discussions going on on the main Neonazi discussion group (Stromfront) that the Neonazis are also conspiracy theorists and they have much in common with US conspiracy theory movement; they oppose US Imperialism and the current International Dictatorship of Capitalism, they seek the nationalisation of the money supply, and many of them have been influenced by the popular "Illuminati" conspiracy and so forth; thus while we cannot label the “conspiracy theory” movement as Neonazi, it is clear that there are similarities and that the influence of the Neonazi movement can been seen in the conspiracy theory movement.

Further bear in mind that the attention given to US state terrorism, narco-terrorism, military coups assassinations, false flag / black covert operations was once almost exclusively an aspect of the political Left, however this also has become entwined with the “conspiracy theory” movement.

I have been debating in discussion groups almost since the beginnings of the www in the early 90's and I am still subscribed to 100's of groups, though I tend to concentrate on certain groups for a while and then move on to new pastures. Frankly I find that debating on Anarchist groups is rather like preaching to the converted and I prefer to debate on enemy territory. I am clearly on enemy territory here, and I doubt that it will be long before I am excommunicated. I was on http:www.flag.blackened.net/forums/ for about a year, but I really have very little to say to other Anarchists; if I get together with my Anarchist friends, we rarely talk about politics, since we seem to have a "hive mentality" or "group mind" on such subjects anyway.

I think that the modern "conspiracy theory" movement, the New Age movement, the 911 truth movement, the atheist / humanist / anti-Christian movement (whose high priest seems to be the admirable Richard Dawkins) are all significant popular movements and they have to dealt with and responded to, though certainly none of these movements could be considered to be predominately Communist; on the contrary, though they all have revolutionary elements to them, though by "revolutionary" I mean that in the same way that the feminist movement is revolutionary, as opposed to "Communist revolution." Philosophically I take more of a "directionist" and "Fabian" approach; clearly I cannot personally overthrow or defeat the US state terrorists; all I can do is seek to influence human consciousness and participate in revolutionary education.

Regards.

Lux


edit on 25-4-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


First off political wise i'm a Independent and more Libertarian then anything else so i know all about the middle but i don't agree with Socialism in any way shape or form i believe in a free and open market i do agree with you however that monopolies are bad but like i said simply regulate that so it's harder to obtain such a monopoly...


Also do things that help small business and help out inventors by making it easier to get grants if you do this then both the small business can blossom and you don't penalize the big business heck if some one is smart enough to have made a ton of money on a business that became big they shouldn't be harassed because so, if they are that is indeed a form of communism and like i said make sure there's no monopolies....

Again i'll repeat myself both America in the 50's and Japan in the 90's were the best ran economical systems to date they were both free and open market places under the banner of Democracy they both just made one bad mistake and that was shipping there jobs over seas, alls America has to do is use both the 50's(US) and 90's(Japan) model of success and this time don't ship so many jobs over seas....


Socialist China is going to start finding this out them selfs because there begining to make the same mistake as America and Japan did there shipping jobs over seas, and that is the begining of there down fall...

So you see in the end it's not about Capitalism vs Socialism it's about learning from the mistakes of others and being smarter in the future, but like i said i'm all about freedom and a democracy so i absolutely say no to Socialism besides Socialism is really what the pro New World Order people want it falls right in line with a one world dictator because with Socialism at the end of the day you get a dictator always have and always will...



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


I don't think you've given any reasons why the ICC is "cult like" you have just implied certain groups are more formal than others and perhaps more 'serious'. Not to say the ones that aren't are not sincere. To be honest the lack of 'seriousness', interest in theory, anti-intellectualism, idealism - though that can be found in many places and so on is what makes me turn away from some 'anarchists'. I think the over emphasis on individual 'liberty' by anarchists is something which holds them back in many of the aspects I've just mentioned. I think a moralistic approach to questions is also a huge draw back of anarchism. To give one brief example, a (relatively) well known British anarchist recently called for the No Fly Zone in Libya and intervention in general. This was based upon a suffering which was apparently on going and a strong possibility in the near future which was too much.

The ideology of this is very similar to what Slavoj Zizek talked about with George Bush and the initial 'bailout' in the US. They could have their neo-liberal politics and talk about the markets hidden hand but when it all goes tits up politics goes out the window and certain things have to be done without question and in contradiction to everything that went before ('socialism' for the rich). In the anarchists case it is slightly more nuanced. The No Fly Zone was called for in essentially support of the 'rebels'. But for one thing who the # are the 'rebels'? It was also on the basis to paraphrase "we can have pure politics but sometimes in real life etc etc" - and you see the Zizek link I'm making.
Firstly, there is no class anaylsis of the 'rebels' and the situation in general. Secondly, it's a call for bourgeois states to intervene militarily (given their past history!). It seems to go against all notions of proletarian internationalism. Even worse it ignores what is happening throughout the wider region, where there open class struggle. Proletarian internationalism if it means anything is calling upon those already in struggle in the region to widen and deepen and combine their efforts not to 'support' your local bourgeoisie in defense of their imperial interests ('hidden' as humanitarianism). And obviously acting where you yourself are to the best of your abilities.

I don't know what you mean by "economically middle class". As far as I'm concerned class is a relation to the means of production. Are you forced to sell your social labour power or not? If you own or control substantial capital including workplaces or whatever then it's a different matter. As far as theorists go, at certain times it was only possible that they come from the 'middle class' - resources being only open to certain people etc like priests if you go far enough back. Mind you, not all theorists are 'middle class' anyway. Personally I largely reject the term. Middle class for me is small capitalist, not some 'cultural' sociological nonsense about what type of house you live in or ones accent etc etc.



much of the English proletariat seem to have a rather thuggish, football hooligan mentality and are either completely depoliticised or are more likely to have political views in common with the EDL


This could have come straight out The Sun, Daily Mail or any other bourgeois rag to be honest. I just don't think it's true at all. It's not very materialist either. Hooliganism was a pretty big problem in the 1970s and 80s but it's virtually non-existent now. The EDL are tiny and could easily be a state set-up, though obviously there's many people who have repugant and misguided views etc. Hooliganism is clearly a product of an alienated society, but also the views etc have been recuperated by the main parties - hence the weakness of the BNP and far right these days etc. For the main parties it's not a question of being for or against immigration it's a question of numbers and detention centres so to speak. I think there are a couple of angles to the "depoliticised". For one it's not all apolitical or nihilism I think it's the rejection of all political parties. And the process of bourgeois democracy losing or at least calling into question it's legitimacy. We see this in all time low voting numbers and increased political activism and direct action - coinciding with economic crisis.




My Anarchist Communist politics do not derive from a sympathy with the proletariat of my specific nation, but from my travels in the Third World, which is essentially a sewer of Capitalism and poverty, and where there is extreme exploitation and collective human misery. Most of the European working classes today really are economically "middle class" on a global scale; their shops and supermarkets are full of imported goods and agriculture from some of the poorest countries in the world and they are the beneficiaries of Third World labour slavery. The kind of extreme poverty which was on the doorstep of Marx and the 19th century Communists and Anarchists has now been exported to the Third World in the age of globalisation.


My politics or I should say developing politics do derive from my class position in this society. Self education and awareness of the world around me i.e a materialist outlook. Broadly speaking a marxist world view.
Obviously I have sympathy for people who suffer in the World. But if you do not recognise that wage-labour in itself is exploitation you can get into all kinds of 'Third Worldism' and moral burdens like I think you are doing above. By the way I don't have 'class pride'. I don't understand this 'workerist' notion of being proud of being exploited! It makes me think people who are proud of being working class or should I say working 'clarse' want to be working class. I know I don't but on the other hand I don't want to be 'middle class'. I want to contribute in the overthrow of class society. There is a higher level of misery in different places thoughout the world I agree but as it's miserable to beg for food on the street it's also miserable to have to get up every morning and go and owrk at the Baked Beans factory or call centre. There's a lot to say about the poverty of life in the 'West' but maybe for another time.

With regards to war in revolution I think it will have to be the 'power' of the proletariat as an international class acting economically (strikes, occupations) and politically (soviets/councils, demands, programmes) along with mass disobediance along the lines of the armies not following orders etc that will have to happen for any kind of success. Prolonged conflict is just going to be not in our interest and total horror as was the Russian Civil War.

I'm a bit tired now, I'll try and reply to the other half of your reply soon.

All the best



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Desired1
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


I don't think you've given any reasons why the ICC is "cult like" you have just implied certain groups are more formal than others and perhaps more 'serious'. Not to say the ones that aren't are not sincere. To be honest the lack of 'seriousness', interest in theory, anti-intellectualism, idealism - though that can be found in many places and so on is what makes me turn away from some 'anarchists'. I think the over emphasis on individual 'liberty' by anarchists is something which holds them back in many of the aspects I've just mentioned. I think a moralistic approach to questions is also a huge draw back of anarchism. To give one brief example, a (relatively) well known British anarchist recently called for the No Fly Zone in Libya and intervention in general. This was based upon a suffering which was apparently on going and a strong possibility in the near future which was too much.


Well, the example you gave of the Anarchist expressing his opinion, which would probably contradict the views of other Anarchists is a good example of what would be unlikely to happen with the I.C.C. For example I recall at the last I.C.C. meeting I attended in London, that there was a brief lecture, some statements from I.C.C. members on the platform, and then the it became a public discussion where various people stood up and commented and made statements. There were basically two types of opening introductory statements from I.C.C. members; one was "I speak on behalf of the I.C.C" and the other was (I paraphrase from memory) approximately "I am part of the I.C.C., but i do not speak on behalf of the I.C.C." In other words those who were "approved speakers" by the party seemed to be those whose "political correctness" was considered sufficient to be able to speak on behalf of the party and those who were not. As I understand it, the I.C.C., like the S.W.P., is a hierarchical organisation ruled by "committees." I don't want to appear to be too critical of the I.C.C., since I would consider them to be ideological allies to a great extent, though I doubt that they would make the same claim about political Anarchists, however they do seem to be a rather "traditional" and "old fashioned" type "dogmatic" organisation, and if people like that were ever to gain power, I suspect it might descend into the kind of authoritarian type system of the former communist bloc of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; this of course would be a drastic improvement for most of the population of the Third World, but it is hardly ideal.
Anarchist Communists in contrast, although also having a quite rigid dogma, tend to be non-authoritarian and more democratic.

I do agree however that many "Anarchists" are not political Anarchists, but their "Anarchism" is more of a fashion statement and a statement of rebellion which has more in common with the pseudo Anarchism of the Punk-rockers of the 1970's, however these are not the kind of Anarchists you would commonly find at Anarchist book fairs and debating Anarchism on the Internet.

An "archon" was of course a Greek tyrant, and I think that in the modern conspiracy theory movement, political Nihilism is now quite common among people who have lost their faith in all political systems and are anti-Capitalist "and" anti-Communist and appear to be opposed to all forms of political tyranny, and yet they have no thought out counterproposal to tyranny (i.e., government). I tend to be one of these people who has simply lost faith in any type of police state, as they all seem to lead to corruption, economic inequality and tyranny, and I am left only with the political philosophy of Anarchist Communism and syndicalism, though I am partly Neo-Marxist, as I think that such a system could only work with a population which is ideologically Anarcho-Communist, and thus for most of the Third World, Marxist or Neomarxist type solutions are probably the only practical interim alternative to gangster Capitalism.

With regard to Libya, numerous commentators have expressed the view that the Western Imperialists would not be intervening in Libya if Libya's main exports were "cabbages" or "potatoes;" the US state terrorists have a long history of supporting barbaric regimes and even engineering military coups (especially in Latin America) of regimes which have had a total disregard for human rights and workers rights and which have decimated the political left. The Anglo-American Imperialists do not care about human rights in their economic colonies as long as their economic interests are served. The current campaign in Libya is obviously happening because of oil, and "human rights" has nothing to do with it; if it had, perhaps they would be invading Saudi Arabia or Iraq (where torture is endemic in the police state); but since they have already invaded Iraq and are collaborators with such a barbaric and brutal puppet regime, that would be pointless of course; if the Iraqis and Afghans were militantly revolting (as many of them are) as the Libyans are, they would be more likely to face the same opposition from the Anglo-Americans as Iraqi "resistance" is facing from the Libyan government.


The ideology of this is very similar to what Slavoj Zizek talked about with George Bush and the initial 'bailout' in the US. They could have their neo-liberal politics and talk about the markets hidden hand but when it all goes tits up politics goes out the window and certain things have to be done without question and in contradiction to everything that went before ('socialism' for the rich). In the anarchists case it is slightly more nuanced. The No Fly Zone was called for in essentially support of the 'rebels'. But for one thing who the # are the 'rebels'? It was also on the basis to paraphrase "we can have pure politics but sometimes in real life etc etc" - and you see the Zizek link I'm making.

Firstly, there is no class anaylsis of the 'rebels' and the situation in general. Secondly, it's a call for bourgeois states to intervene militarily (given their past history!). It seems to go against all notions of proletarian internationalism. Even worse it ignores what is happening throughout the wider region, where there open class struggle.

Proletarian internationalism if it means anything is calling upon those already in struggle in the region to widen and deepen and combine their efforts not to 'support' your local bourgeoisie in defense of their imperial interests ('hidden' as humanitarianism). And obviously acting where you yourself are to the best of your abilities.




Part of the problem with all these so called people's "uprisings" in the Islamic world, is that we could possibly see old dictators replaced with Islamic republics and religious fanatics, and since the Muslims are also Capitalists, the consequences may not at all be progressive.

I have travelled widely throughout the Islamic world, and although there are Communist movements and there are a minority of educated middle classes who have abandoned religion, the vast majority of the populations seem to be to be culturally primitive. Republicanism seems to be a more progressive system than dictatorship, but unfortunately when the majority of the population have been subjected to religious hypnosis and indoctrination since birth and are essentially primitive religious fanatics, when you have a elected republic in such regions, it is likely to be a republic of religious fanatics. Similarly in America where the majority of the population are Christians who seem to believe that their god is an American Nationalist, a Capitalist, Imperialist and a US state terrorist / narco-terrorist collaborator, then their Republic will tend to reflect that.


I don't know what you mean by "economically middle class". As far as I'm concerned class is a relation to the means of production. Are you forced to sell your social labour power or not? If you own or control substantial capital including workplaces or whatever then it's a different matter.

As far as theorists go, at certain times it was only possible that they come from the 'middle class' - resources being only open to certain people etc like priests if you go far enough back. Mind you, not all theorists are 'middle class' anyway. Personally I largely reject the term. Middle class for me is small capitalist, not some 'cultural' sociological nonsense about what type of house you live in or ones accent etc etc.



In Capitalism, unless once has a large amount of inherited wealth, to derive an income one either becomes an employee or an employer or a landlord or self employed etc. One's personal wealth and one's means of generating Capital are quite separate to one's political ideology, however. Friedrich Engels was the son of a wealthy German industrialist who was also himself a factory owner and employer; similarly the Anarchist Kropotkin was a Russian aristocrat; they simply took sides ideologically with oppressed economic classes. Similarly today in Europe many of the Socialists, Anarchists and Communists are of various economic classes. I don't think it is really useful to somehow idealise the "working classes;" in an advanced Communist society, it would still have to be a technocracy run by the "educated classes" or you would have farmers performing surgery and medical professionals growing potatoes, though there would be ideally be no "economic" classes and everyone who could work would have to work, thus everyone would be "working class."

Ultimately I suppose that "everyone" in the world wishes to enjoy a middle class lifestyle with access to food, shelter, security, healthcare, technology etc., with the minimum of labour and the maximum of leisure; that is just human nature and it is a world which is entirely possible to achieve, though certainly not a world based on the consumerist, wasteful Western Capitalist model where, for example, it is a full time occupation for many women to acquire a home full of useless trinkets and a wardrobe with 100's of pairs of shoes, etc. It's doesn't seem to matter how many pairs of shoes my girlfriend has, she always wants another pair; that is simply a waste of resources and labour which has the effect of devoting billions of labour hours to such useless manufacturing in a world of extreme poverty and hunger.




much of the English proletariat seem to have a rather thuggish, football hooligan mentality and are either completely depoliticised or are more likely to have political views in common with the EDL


This could have come straight out The Sun, Daily Mail or any other bourgeois rag to be honest. I just don't think it's true at all. It's not very materialist either. Hooliganism was a pretty big problem in the 1970s and 80s but it's virtually non-existent now. The EDL are tiny and could easily be a state set-up, though obviously there's many people who have repugnant and misguided views etc. Hooliganism is clearly a product of an alienated society, but also the views etc have been recuperated by the main parties - hence the weakness of the BNP and far right these days etc. For the main parties it's not a question of being for or against immigration it's a question of numbers and detention centres so to speak. I think there are a couple of angles to the "depoliticised". For one it's not all apolitical or nihilism I think it's the rejection of all political parties. And the process of bourgeois democracy losing or at least calling into question it's legitimacy. We see this in all time low voting numbers and increased political activism and direct action - coinciding with economic crisis.


Perhaps my view of the English working classes is rather distorted, however in the Scotland of the 1960's where I grew up, Socialism seems to have been the religion of the working classes, but in 21st century England it seems to be football and celebrity gossip, etc., and they seem to be largely depoliticised Clearly since Thatcherism and globalism, the power of the trade unions and the Left in general has declined along with England's manufacturing base, which has been exported to the Third World. I still recall when the Daily Mirror was England's best selling daily newspaper and a voice of the Socialist Left; it is now just another establishment broadsheet; there is simply no Socialist Left mass media any more.




My Anarchist Communist politics do not derive from a sympathy with the proletariat of my specific nation, but from my travels in the Third World, which is essentially a sewer of Capitalism and poverty, and where there is extreme exploitation and collective human misery. Most of the European working classes today really are economically "middle class" on a global scale; their shops and supermarkets are full of imported goods and agriculture from some of the poorest countries in the world and they are the beneficiaries of Third World labour slavery. The kind of extreme poverty which was on the doorstep of Marx and the 19th century Communists and Anarchists has now been exported to the Third World in the age of globalisation.


My politics or I should say developing politics do derive from my class position in this society. Self education and awareness of the world around me i.e a materialist outlook. Broadly speaking a marxist world view.
Obviously I have sympathy for people who suffer in the World. But if you do not recognise that wage-labour in itself is exploitation you can get into all kinds of 'Third Worldism' and moral burdens like I think you are doing above.


I am quite aware that "wage-labour" is exploitation and of Marx's theory of surplus value, which is why I am ideologically a collectivist / kibbutzist / Communist.


By the way I don't have 'class pride'. I don't understand this 'workerist' notion of being proud of being exploited! It makes me think people who are proud of being working class or should I say working 'clarse' want to be working class. I know I don't but on the other hand I don't want to be 'middle class'. I want to contribute in the overthrow of class society. There is a higher level of misery in different places thoughout the world I agree but as it's miserable to beg for food on the street it's also miserable to have to get up every morning and go and owrk at the Baked Beans factory or call centre. There's a lot to say about the poverty of life in the 'West' but maybe for another time.

With regards to war in revolution I think it will have to be the 'power' of the proletariat as an international class acting economically (strikes, occupations) and politically (soviets/councils, demands, programmes) along with mass disobediance along the lines of the armies not following orders etc that will have to happen for any kind of success. Prolonged conflict is just going to be not in our interest and total horror as was the Russian Civil War.


"Overthrowing" class society, could have disastrousconsequences unless there is a practical working alternative to replace the current Capitalist slave societies with, and this aalternative I believe to be collectivism & syndicalism, and I think that "both" revolutionary and Fabian (i.e., slow gradual) progression to such a society will have to take place. I was watching a film this evening about the Indian silk workers, who were mostly impoverished slaves, who in the 20th century began to try to form trade unions, and many of them left their employers to form worker's "co-operatives" where instead of a factory owner becoming rich, the profits where shared among all the workers; this is of course an ideal temporary transition between a Capitalist system to Communist collectivism and syndicalism, however there are very few such worker's "co-operatives" in the world in comparison to the those who are labour slaves in Capitalist companies.

Unfortunately to initiate such collectivist projects in the Capitalist First World would require massive Capital investment by individuals, nations or groups of organised collectives and there does not seem to be the mass political will to do this. My intention at some point is to emigrate to India and initiate such a project there, as it is possible even with moderate means and there are millions of Communists in India, and such projects tend to welcomed with grateful and open arms. Having travelled throughout the Indian continent, my heart and compassion is more with the Indian and Third World proletariat anyway and frankly I have a revulsion for modern working class English popular culture.

Marx believed that revolution should first begin in the industrialised nations and then exported to the rest of the world; but that was just his opinion, and while that would certainly be ideal, I think that the opposite scenario may be more likely. Socialist and Communist revolutions and collectivism are urgently required in the poorest nations on earth, but in the Capitalist First World, we are almost all "the spoiled children of human history," and there is a general complacency and lack of solidarity with the new labour slaves of the Third World. The European proletariat no longer see around them children down coal mines and slave labourers in textile factories; much of the manufacturing has been exported to the Third World and the European proletariat have become the recipients of this labour slavery; their clothes are manufactured by Third World labour slaves and their supermarket shelves are full of imported produce. "“[I]The mother of revolution and crime is poverty” may be a general truthism, but the European proletariat are no longer the same "poor" that surrounded Marx and the 19th century Communists, and generally they have very little concern or solidarity with the proletariat of the Third World; those who are the greatest victims of the "worst form of violence," that of poverty and slavery.

Lux


edit on 29-4-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


I won't reply to your new post yet. Your position on the question of conflict and violence seems to still lack any class basis. Of course what you could say might happen but that doesn't make it right or good. For instance you can be against the Iranian ruling class AND against US imperialism without defending the Iranian state i.e take up position in defence of the working class as an independent force. I don't think in reality you take this position although you may think you do? It is possible for police and military to come over to the working class.

You mentioned about Anarchist forums etc I find Libcom.org pretty good to be honest. I mainly read the discussions instead of directly contributing but there is also a vast library of texts. And it's not just Anarchists, there's marxists, Left Communists, Anarcho-syndicalists, and Anarcho-communists. Once in a while you'll get the odd 'Insurrectionary anarchist' as much as they still exist, Primitivist, and others as well as people new to all these politics and discussions. To be honest the forums especially helped me shed a lot of liberal ideas and thoughts. I think it is absolutely necessary to try and clarify ones politics constantly, come to a better understanding on certain questions etc and listen to different opinions. Of course within a materialist, revolutionary and internationalist perspective.

On the question of consciousness in general here is a very good debate hosted by the Socialist Party of Great Britain. I think it addresses many of our divergences which continue into your latest post which I will take up shortly.

Can a Majority of Workers Develop a Socialist Consciousness Under Capitalism?

Part 2 especially, which is given by the Communist Workers Organisation now Internationalist Communist Tendency who are Left Communists very similar to the International Communist Current is a very clear and explicit explanation of a marxist approach. I hope you and others give it a listen.
edit on 29-4-2011 by Desired1 because: Spelling error



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desired1
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


I won't reply to your new post yet. Your position on the question of conflict and violence seems to still lack any class basis. Of course what you could say might happen but that doesn't make it right or good. For instance you can be against the Iranian ruling class AND against US imperialism without defending the Iranian state i.e take up position in defence of the working class as an independent force. I don't think in reality you take this position although you may think you do? It is possible for police and military to come over to the working class.


I really don't have anything "new" to add to the political philosophy of Anarchist Communism, however I do think that certain trends among the political left border on the kind of "primitivism" which gave birth to the Khmer Rouge( see en.wikipedia.org... and en.wikipedia.org... ). The Khmer Rouge ideology was generally derived from middle class, educated Cambodians who were primarily a product of Parisian universities, which made their radical primitivism and anti-intellectualism quite surprising; it was quite common during the Khmer revolution for Cambodians who were educated or who spoke foreign languages or who had a middle class background to be executed. The world we live in is certainly a world where the vast majority of humankind are little more than the labour slaves of the ruling economic elites, however there is also another "class" of people who cannot be defined purely economically and these are the "educated classes," and here we have to consider persons who are academics, teachers, engineers, scientists, medical professionals etc. To create a modern technoloically advanced revolution, it is the educated classes who are very much the vanguard of this, and generally they are mostly from the current "middle classes," in the economic sense.

With regards to the police and military coming over to the side of the "working classes," unfortunately almost anywhere one travels outside the First World, there is almost universal corruption among the police, and the police operate as a kind of organised crime fraternity; this is expecially the case throughout India and Africa. It is the existence of corrupt police states which appears to be central to the problem of economic hell on earth and it is generally the police and military who maintain this system. In the First World, the police and military tend to be very well paid and are really part of the establishment, rather than part of the revolutionary vanguard. I tend to think that in an apocalyptic scenario, with the implimentation of martial law, that the masses would be further alienated from the police and military, and that the police and military would become very much the protectors of the economic elites.

With regard to Iran, having personally travelled through Iran, unfortunately it is almost certainly the case that most Europeans would have the most affinity with the Iranian middle classes, among whom one would find the "educated classes" who make up the majority of intellectuals, humanists, liberals, Socialists, etc., and unfortunately it seems to me that the Iranian "working classes" are much more likely to be religious fanatics. Unfortunately Islam is not merely a religion, it is a primitive and barbaric system of law and government; elements of which are integrated into all Islamic states.

"The criticism of religion is the premis of all criticism."

Unfortunately many of the "working classes" in the world are the victims of mass religious hypnosis and indoctrination and equate "Communism" with "Satanism;" this is expecially true in the Islamic world and in North America, and this view is also unfortunately entwined with the modern "conspiracy theory" movement. The idea that the economic liberation of the world's oppressed peoples and the eradication of poverty is a "Satanic" idea and that American Imperialism, state terrrorism, narco-terrorism and Islamic-fascism are "godly" seems to be a bizarre and rather incredible belief, but unfortunately it has mass appeal. It is really among the intellectual classes where such concepts are widely reviled and ridiculed.

It is my view that the modern humanist, atheist and anti-religious movement, spearheaded by such "High Priests" of atheism such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins and Sam Harris is important in creating the conditions for world revolution, since organised religion appears to be a central barrier to economic revolution. In Latin America, although the masses have been infected with the virus of Christianity, the Liberation Theology (Neomarxist Christianity essentially) movement has had a central role in the radicalisation of Christianity, which although this does not go far enough in eradicating the curse of Christianity, it is certainly progressive, however the Liberation Theology movement has had very little effect on North American religious fanaticism, apart from among academics and certain more "liberal" demonitations; however such "Liberation" Christians are also generally reviled as "Satanic" by the evangelical Right and the "Henry Makow" brand of Christian compsiracy theorists.

We homo sapiens have been on this planet for possibly as much as 300,000 years, and it is only really in the last few centuries since the Enlightenment that humankind has begun to awaken from the fear and superstition of organised religion; the eradication of the memetic virus of religion is still a "work in process" and we still have a long way to go, and I expect this process of education and awakening from the effects of centuries of religious hypnosis and indoctrination will take many decades and possibly even centuries to complete. The idea of a 1000 Year revolution of Light (i.e., the Enlightenment or awakening of humankind) may seem like a long time, but a 1000 years is a relatively short period considering humankind's long history.

I think that there is also often a revolutionary "fatigue" where there is an impatience to see the conditions for revolution created, however such a process will inevitably take generations and it is highly improbable that such conditions can be created quickly, absent an apocalyptic scenario and the outbreak of global warfare, and even then the world could plunge into an even greater economic hell on earth than humankind currently experiences.


You mentioned about Anarchist forums etc I find Libcom.org pretty good to be honest. I mainly read the discussions instead of directly contributing but there is also a vast library of texts. And it's not just Anarchists, there's marxists, Left Communists, Anarcho-syndicalists, and Anarcho-communists. Once in a while you'll get the odd 'Insurrectionary anarchist' as much as they still exist, Primitivist, and others as well as people new to all these politics and discussions. To be honest the forums especially helped me shed a lot of liberal ideas and thoughts. I think it is absolutely necessary to try and clarify ones politics constantly, come to a better understanding on certain questions etc and listen to different opinions. Of course within a materialist, revolutionary and internationalist perspective.


Yes I think that such discussions are useful in forming and developing one's political ideology; it is just that I prefer to debate on enemy territory. There is a saying that the philosopher who does not debate, is like a farmer who does not plant crops; I find that engaging one's enemies in debate is more interesting than engaging one's allies. As stated by one of the speakers in the audio lecture you hyperlinked, a Socialist society would be impossible without a society of Socialists, and unfortunately we are still a long way from the radicalisation of the masses, and this is an educational process which will take time; since the mass media is controlled by the propagandists of Capitalism, I consider the Internet to be an ideal format for such an educational process, however unfortunately we are also faced wth propagandists of ideological Capitalism and religious fanaticism.

Lucifer



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Sorry for the delay in responding.

I haven't been to a 'meeting' with the ICC so I can only offer an opinion on that basis. It does sound odd to be a member of an organisation (they're not a Party but a 'current' hence International Communist Current - sorry to be pedantic) and not speak on behalf of it. However, it is not uncommon for members to speak as minorities within an organisation and not represent the majority position i.e they're not speaking on behalf of the organisation on a particular question - because they're opinion is in opposition to the majority or 'official' position.

In regards to comparison with the SWP (Socialist Workers Party) I don't think there are many similarities. I think they are two completely different animals. For a start the ICC explicitly seeks to educate its militants and provoke intellectual debate and discussion, the advancement of theory within and in its press and literature. I am not a member myself so this is purely my reflection of them and taking them at face value on what they say themselves. I don't know much about their internal organisation but apparently you don't have to agree with their 'secondary' programmatic declarations and whole international sections reject particular thesis etc. As I'm sure you're aware the SWP has been criticised by about every far leftist, communist and anarchist for being completely un-democratic, beauracratic, and more Stalinist than Trotskyist. i.e the Central Committee come up with all the theory and have all control, no internal factions are allowed except for a limited time then they must dissolve. They take control/stifle (of) struggles, make reactionary alliances, are class collaborationist etc etc.

I think you're saying the SWP gaining power rather than the ICC - who make it clear that is not their aim or desire. They don't even seek to 'organise the class' like other organisations may seek to do. For anyone interested in what the ICC are about, their aims etc check out what they say themselves:

International Communist Current

As for the ICC being old fashioned, they do use a lot of language associated with revolutionary currents from the last centuries and take a certain amount of pride in their historical origins and workers movements traditions so I can see what you're saying. But personally I don't see it as a criticism. It's up to people to educate themselves in the rich history of the workers movement and its traditions not to be dumbed down or reject the history in its entirety. After all words do have meaning.

To be fair I saw quite a few Anarchists all dressed in black at the anarchist bookfair in London a couple of years ago, and people wearing fair trade slippers, shoulder bags and whatnot ; ). Though I don't think that's the end of the world, it certainly can be a route for more radical politics. But to highlight how silly it can be for a brief moment I actually thought #! I'm wearing Nike trainers! Later I realised not buying certain commodities wasn't a form of struggle....though I'm not sure I ever did, probably thought it was just 'the thing to do' once you were aware of how these products were produced etc. What it turned out I was actually doing was buying more expensive commodities which I didn't need anyway. I think 'fair trade' ideology is much the same as the ideology of 'green' commodities.

As for punk rock etc a lot of it is utter # but to be fair a lot of it was 'political' and introduced a lot of people to new ideas and a lot of it was also honest etc something which is lacking in a lot of todays music. I'm in my late twenties so I missed punk at the time but a post-punk outfit like Gang of Four got a hell of a lot of Marx into their songs and produced some good tunes at the same time. I'm not aware of anything like that today. Though I hear they were actually anarcho-sydicalists? But anyway you see my point.

Just a short point on Iran as you mention it, according to Iranian socialist Torab Saleth the state militias which number in their millions are made up of heavily 'brainwashed' youngsters, lumpen proletariat and so forth. In his opinion the vastness and depth of the Iranian state is quite a thing to overcome. But despite this he looks back on the Shah's regime which at the time was one of the most feared and vicious states, machine gunning crowds from helicopters etc and was thought could never be overthrown, but it was. For anyone interested on Iran he gives a very interesting perspective which can be found on Google Videos.

About the working class/proletariat it's not that I idealise this class (not sure if you are saying I do) it's that what you refer to as middle class I see as part of the proletariat. Just as students are a section of the working class so are the unemployed, because they are simply unemployed workers.

I don't think we can really blue print or imagine what an "advanced Communist society" would be. But I certainly don't think it would be run by 'educated classes' - as I've already tried to explain I don't think there is such a thing.
Going back to Iran, maybe what you experienced was what Saleth refers to as "Out of Bounds People"? People beyond city limits who aren't eligible for state benefits, neglected, ostracised and so forth.

Marx explained that once the state and classes disappeared it would be the start of human history and the end of the stage of pre-history if I have that correct. If there is no class, there is no state and no ownership. People will work (as part of ones life) but they will not be a class of workers. One cannot imagine a classless society within todays socio-economic organisation. When you do you can often end up thinking all that will change in a communist society will be the goods and how they are distributed. Many anarchists seem to fall into this trap. (I'm not saying you do, many on Libcom seem to take this approach). Marx did not even see communism as the final stage of society or human history, he saw it as the beginning. Essentially that human society will progress further, beyond communism.

I take your point about consumerism, but it's not 'natural' your girlfriend wants loads of pairs of shoes, even when she already has lots of pairs. There is the heavy weight of constant propaganda and alienation at work. The situationists were especially good on Marx's theory of alienation for anyone interested.

I broadly agree about the lack of working class/socialist consciousness. The result of many things I think. The legacy of Stalinism, the lack of a break with the Labour Party by many organisations, consumerism, increasing isolation within society and individualism, anti-strike legislation, destruction and break down of communities, massive defeats of workers struggle, and so on.

Honestly I don't have any knowledge on co-ops and collectives but I am aware a lot of it was critiqued in the 19th and 20th century before and after it was attempted in places like Scotland and America. It's something I should read about.

That's all for now, I encourage others to also participate in this discussion. It's not socialists only.

edit on 9-5-2011 by Desired1 because: Spelling error and link inserted

edit on 9-5-2011 by Desired1 because: Spelling error



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 

It's not fake nor a degree, but a Masonic Order. I was though referring in your post where you said both the Scottish and the York Rite require a Christian faith, and that is not true as only the York Rite requires you to be Christian to advance through all the bodies. I'm trying to clear up your constant false and mismatched termed propaganda.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I gotta be honest here... Lucifer, get your facts straight before trying to present them as facts.

You are wrong about needing to be a Christian in all of the different rites.

You are wrong about extreme political idologies also being present in members of the lodge.

You are wrong about the anti-communist position that you think the masons hold.

And you are flat out wrong about the masons... you keep talking about all these things that you have found with masons.... yet, you completely fail to present who you know that is a mason that you are getting this from, you completely fail to cite your sources for your obvious delusions and you completely fail to make an intelligent point of any kind.

Proof, or nothing that you have said ever happened.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Just a quick comment on on marx. Marx was right about the alienation, disassociation and B.S. that comes with capitalism. Marx was right! period. Get over it. you arent all gonna become millionaires, you are just sheeple who buy into the illusion of capitalism...



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BanMePlz
Just a quick comment on on marx. Marx was right about the alienation, disassociation and B.S. that comes with capitalism. Marx was right! period. Get over it. you arent all gonna become millionaires, you are just sheeple who buy into the illusion of capitalism...


If you have ever read Marx, you can't say he is right. Since you have read him enough to agree with him, please tell us all what he says needs to be done with 10% of the population when you install socialism.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
What you are describing is simply human nature...
Doesn't matter what crest, logo or nametag these people wear.

It is either Service To Self (Ego) or Service to All (Bodhisattvahood).



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join