--- Charles Brown <CharlesB at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
wrote: > Soviet philosophy
> <cian_oconnor at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re:
>
> --- 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.
I know I was being sarcastic, but I'm baffled by how you came to that conclusion. I don't, unlike you, think that the only intelligent people in this world are the "intelligensia". I like my friends too much to think that. They like to think, ask questions and do their own thing to. They also like the freedom to tell people like you who believe (by what god given right I don't know) that they know what's best for them, to fuck off.
Built into all your statements is the assumption that only the intelligentsia would want freedom of speech and thought, because only they would be interested in criticism. Not only is this elitist (can the workers not think for themselves? What are they, production line robots), but its manifestly bollocks. If you actually talked to a few, or god forbid worked on a production line, you might realise that they have a diversity of opinions and interests. Some of them read books, some like punk rock. Given the history of the Soviet Union I think its a bit naive to assume this is going to change. Also people don't like having to look over their shoulder, and worry about what they say.
> 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.
Repressed by petty-bureaucrats, who wanted to micro-manage the world to some kind of grey perfection. Bloody marvellous.
> > 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.
Well the party leader is in the privileged position of deciding what is allowed and what isn't. Whereas the rest of us poor schmucks have to follow the rules he sets down. Seems like they have more freedom.
> 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 ?
What is it with you people? You're like christian fundamentalists. Can't you think for yourselves, or do you have to delegate everything to the higher authority of Marx?
I'm an engineer. I have never come across any problem that one person has solved perfectly. The way to solutions is through discussion, trial and error, and a willingness to learn from one's mistakes. It certainly doesn't come from sitting cross legged in front of some leader and doing exactly what he says.
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> > 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.
Do worker's choruses start singing when you spout this crap?
It's a freedom that impinges upon other's freedoms.
> > 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 ?
It didn't just happen under Stalin. Plenty of non-political artists were oppressed. Personally I think that any revolution that can't withstand a bit of criticism clearly isn't worth very much.
> >
> > 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.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
But the party is the revolution and socialism. How can anything which threatens the party not be threatening to socialism?
If that sounds cynical - well my parents knew a lot of emigrees from Hungary, Soviet Union and Czech republic. Blackest humour I know.
>> 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".
But apparently you don't think its worth preserving, so you're going to throw it away for your revolution.
> 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 ?
Please. Compared to the Soviet Union, America is incredibly free. It's pathetic to pretend otherwise. They wouldn't even let you leave the Soviet Union - some bloody paradise.
> 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.
I don't think he was talking about some cheap tyrant (or in the case of Stalin v. expensive). Not that I'm a marxist, and even if I was would be stupid enough to keep repeating the mistakes of the Soviet Union again and again.
>> 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.
Acually I was just taking your views to their logical extreme (conveniently an extreme which the history of the C20th has plenty of examples). I think socialism with a dictator isn't socialism.
^^^^^^
> 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.
It won't repress. No socialism without repression. If the people don't want socialism, you can't make them have it without turning them into robots. Nor should you try.
> 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.
I won't be a representative of anyone other than me. Anyone who wants to represent others shouldn't be trustest to do so in my opinion. The professional politician, administrator, etc is one of the evils of our age.
> 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.
It's very kind of you to say so, but I'm really not an intelligentsia. Lack the smarts.
If the revolution's really worth fighting for, then the majority will be for it. Or maybe we won't need a revolution. Who knows. I'm not in the prediction game. Day at a time mate.
> 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.
Oh swimmingly. How's yours going? How are you going to get past the fact that not only have the ideas you cling to been discredited, but the evidence is that the proletariat don't want them.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com