--- Charles Brown <CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
wrote: > Soviet philosophy
> "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re:
>
> The view that it is OK to force people to espouse
The Truth
> whether they believe it
> or not is the heart of tyranny.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> CB:
> The heart of the bourgeois and idealist conception
> of tyranny. A Marxist conception of the heart of
> tyranny is the material deprivation of the masses ,
> not the freedom of speech and thought of the
> intelligentsia.
Because there is only a place for stupid people in the revolution. Anyone who might be in danger of thinking is potentially a dangerous counter-revolutionary force.
^^^^^^^
CB: So, you are saying that the intelligentsia are the only smart and thinking people in society , and all non-intelligentsia are stupid.
Your statement is a perfect example of why the non-intelligentsia consider the intelligentsia like you arrogant, elitist, smug, snobbish , which probably contributed some to some of the smartasses among them being repressed.
I mean this is perfect. You are proving my point right here and now.
^^^^^^
> CB: This difference is one of the
> issues in the underlying difference in our
> assessment of philosophies. We say you have an
> inferior conception of freedom and liberty to ours.
I say you have a different conception of freedom and liberty for party leaders.
^^^^^^
CB: You can say it. It doesn't make it true.
^^^^^^
> CB: I don't consider it very tyrannical to force
> people to espouse the truth at all.
How do we define the truth... oh that's right, the good, generous leaders of the party have already done this for us. Praise the party. The truth through the barrel of a gun.
^^^^^^^^
CB: Oh , you are just so witty.
You are right. Marxist revolutionary do not sit around like the "smarter" intelligentsia contemplating whether there is truth . They operate on the presumption that Marx et al. discovered significant relative and applicable truths for this era, and that it is now time to unite theory and practice and get on with it. Don't you get that ? Have you read anything by Marx at all ?
^^^^^^^^^
> CB: The "freedom" to tell lies is not a freedom.
Actually it is - just one that you don't think others should have.
^^^^^^^
CB: No actually it is not . It is a form and handmaiden of oppression.
^^^^^^
>
> Does that mean you would not repress art that you
> found not to be a useful
> weapon in the struggle, just philosophy?
>
> ^^^^^
>
> CB: The only art or philosophy that would be
> repressed would be that which was a weapon AGAINST
> the revoluton.
Like Eisenstein, Tarkovsky and any music that was too complex for Stalin to understand, you mean? Or the various non-political composers who were repressed under various Russian leaders post-Stalin.
^^^^^^^^^
CB: Are you saying that I have made no criticisms of Stalin ?
^^^^^^
> ^^^^
>
> I do think philosophy is relevant
> to the transformation of society, it's just not
> everbody's cuppa. But I am
> not interested in transforming society to a
> situationw here the police tell
> people what to think and say, whether or not I agree
> with the views required
> by the police.
>
> ^^^^^^
>
> CB: The police would only enforce the repression of
> extreme lies and counterrevolutionary or
> anti-socialist views and incitement. The university
> faculties would be deciding a lot of things just
> like in the good ole USA
In other words - anything that the party considers threatening to its personal health. Praise the revolution. Hallelujah!
^^^^^^^
CB: No , not in other words what you say, you patently misrepresenting twerp.
^^^^^^^^
> A situation where you and I don't haveto worry about
> a knowck on the door in
> the middle of the night when we write stuff that the
> government disagrees
> with, how's that for starters?
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> CB: You don't know your history too good. Ever hear
> of the Palmer Raids, the McCarthy era ? Did you see
> _Reds_. Did you notice that the very first First
> Amendment case , opinion Mr. Justice Holmes, created
> exactly such a worry. Or you realize that
> abolitionists had such worries, or Black people in
> the South ( and North ) for ever. That is an
> extremely ignorant historical statement.
>
You're right, its pointless. If we can't live in a perfect society, we might as well stop trying. Medicine doesn't cure all diseases - so we might as well throw it all away.
^^^^^^^
CB: Are you hearing voices or something ? I didn't say "it's pointless".
What exactly does what you say have to do with the fact that Justin forgot the horrendous history of repression of freedom of speech in the U.S. following the passage of the First Amendment, and that therefore many Americans have had to worry about someone coming for them in the middle of the night for what they had said ?
> CB: The role of the socialist state is to repress
the bourgeoisie. You do
> recall that Marx called for the DICTATORSHIP of the
proletariat ? Did
> you think "dictatorship" was a metaphor ? I agree
with Marx.
And the perfect thing about this situation is that the is the dictator stops representing the proletariat, he can just redefine what "DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat" means. Who needs democracy! Or Marx.
^^^^^^^^^
CB: Oh so, you do agree that socialism involves some kind of dictatorship in Marx's theory ? It's just that it has to be your type of dictatorship that YOU define.
^^^^^^
> CB: It is not any old state repression is ok, but
socialist repression of
> reactionary philosophers who promote
counterrevolution is what the socialist
> state is about.
Who needs counter-arguments, when you can just kill those who disagree with you. Right, wrong, its all just defined by the barrel of the gun and the people's "representatives".
^^^^^^^
CB: Let me get this straight . Your dictatorship of the proletariat will not involve any kind of physical repression, it will just repress through counter-arguments. You won't have any guns, and of course, you will be a TRUE representative ( no quotes) of the People , so we can trust your judgment. And of course all the anti-revolutionists won't use any guns or physical force either. They'll play fair and concede to your superior argumentation, because you are one of the really smart intelligentsia, not one of those stupid non-intelligentsias.
Hey , revolution is really just a piece of cake. You are a genius of the "dictatorship" . Where is your revolution going on ? I gotta join up.