Soviet philosophy
Tricky thing sarcasm - especially via email I guess.
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.
^^^^^^^^^
CB: No, my statements do not imply that the intelligentsia are the only one's who would want freedom of speech and thought. I'm trying to think of a succinct way to clarify , but it may not be possible to say it without going on at length.
The key point is , I guess, is a rejection of the notion the essence of freedom is for an individual to say or do anything they want. That is confusing license with freedom. That after a socialist revolution has been initiated , it is unfreedom to espouse and broadcast bourgeois ideas or ideas that might promote bourgeois counterrevolution. That anti-communist talk does not promote freedom but oppression.
In this context, freedom to talk about a wide range of subjects is a valued by workers and non-intelligentsia for the same reasons as in bourgeois society. But advocacy of going back to capitalism is repressive, not free speech.
A further point would be that it is a rouse that there is freedom of speech to espouse communist ideas in a bourgeois society.
This is short because I have to get going. I will elaborate if it is not clear. Do you have some familiarity with the Marxist critique of bourgeois freedoms ? It is not that they are suppressed in socialism ,but that they are socalled sublated. That is they are both preserved and overcome. Freedom of speech persists but it has a different shape specifically in that it is subordinated to material provision as the necessar premise to ALL freedom. This is a difference between negative and positive freedom . As I say I can elaborate later.
> 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: I'm in a hurry and will reply more completely, but the short answer is that this typical Western ,anti-Soviet picture of the Soviet government is inaccurate. For one thing, the intelligentsia coming out of the Czarist system were largely petty-bureaucrats themselves, not the freethinking petit bourgeois you seem to claim. As to "micro-managing", I'm not even sure I agree with the corporate fad that decries socalled micro-managing, so , so what if they were "micro-managing" , if they were ? They sort of sidetracks the discussion here some.
^^^^^^
> > 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.
^^^^^^^^^
CB: Short answer: straight up, the revolution cannot succeed in a world with bourgoeis armies still without organizing itself with some hierarchy , without leaders. The meaning of "leader" includes inequality. No, socialism is not absolute egalitarianism
^^^^^^
> 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.
^^^^^^
CB: This becomes purposeful misunderstanding, not to mention a stereotypical , shallow criticism of espousing some idea thought up by someone else , in other words, you didn' t think up this criticism yourself. You are repeating a criticism you heard from someone else . So, I can say that your criticism is as much like Christian fundamentalist mantra as you claim mine is.
IN other words you act like Christian fundamentalists around the principle that " can't you communists think for yourselves". It is dogma for you.
Further you are dogmatic about the notion that socalled "thinking for yourself" is smarter, more free , something, than thinking based on principles that others have discovered. Do you have think up Newton's principles or Einsteins' principles for yourself ? The whole thing about humans that sets them free compared to other animals is that we can learn from our ancestors and previous generations. EXACTLY THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO THINK UP EVERYTHING FOR OURSELVES. That we don't have to reinvent the wheel every generation. My thought is freer than yours because I start where Marx left off. You on the other hand have to start from scratch by your idea that the only "free" thought is that which "you think up for yourself" ., This precisely a bourgeois , individualist ( "for yourself " a the highest freedom) conception of freedom which is a lower conception of freedom than the socialist collective conception of freedom. Freedom is the mastery of necessity and collectively we thin! k better in mastering necessity . That I think collectively with Marx makes my thought more free than yours, not less
^^^^^^
Can't you think for yourselves, or do you have to delegate everything to the higher authority of Marx?
^^^^^^^^
CB: This encapsulates the error of the bourgeois conception that its thought is freer than Marxist thought. The notion of standing on the shoulders of prior thinkers, learning from their experience as a starting point, makes our thought freer than yours. FREER !
If you can read my posts and think that I can't think BY MYSELF as well as you, than you are not very perceptive
^^^^^^
I'm an engineer. I have never come across any problem that one person has solved perfectly.
^^^^^^^^
CB: Exactly ! "one person has solved" is " thinking for yourself" . My thinking with Marx PLUS me means I am not ONE PERSON solving it , BUT TWO people solving. Starting from Marx ( and others) means I am relying on two heads being better than one. Two heads thinking is freer than one. That's the whole principle of socialism and communism. Collective, not individual thought.
^^^^^^^^
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?
^^^^^^^^
CB;If you really think I can't think as agily as you, then you can't read. I can insult you as wittly as you insult me.
Do rugged individuals start coming in their pants when you sing the praises of "thinking for yourself" ? Believe me I have a million of them. So, lets stick to the analysis.
^^^^^^
CB: I have to go. I'll pick up the rest of your post later
Regards
Charles
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^