Skip to main content

View Diary: Any anti-imperialists out there (56 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anarchism (5+ / 0-)

    (about which most people have little real understanding) is a non-authoritarian, non-hierarchical form of socialism which Lenin and Stalin suppressed in Russia (Kronstadt Rebellion, Makhnovist rebellion).

    Working people would be far better off with this form of socialism, which is organized around a free society, rather than heavy handed state socialism, or even the authoritarian dictatorships which some forms take.

    If there isn't free association, it isn't really socialism.

    So, regarding Maoism, Stalinism, and other authoritarian approaches, I can't support them, and I don't really consider these to be true socialism or communism.

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

    by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 09:31:22 AM PDT

    •  I support your version of socialism (0+ / 0-)

      which is my ideal, too. But Maoism is hardly an authoritarian approach, in and of itself.

      •  No... its very distributed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG

        ...violent, anti-industrial, sloganeering, and based on perpetual revolution, but no, not authoritarian by definition.  

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 11:16:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Violent, sloganeering, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          based on perpetual revolution. Could you be describing the establishment of capitalism?

          •  Capitalism, by definition, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            is particularly anti-revolution.  Wide-spread violence and mass killings tends to be a bit of a market disruptor.

            Capitalism certainly has blood on its hands, but more often by omission than commission.  The cruelty of capitalism is that it is a system of winners and losers and it does not care nor have any native safeguards to prevent the "losers" from a despondent sub-human death, unseen, unnoticed and uncared about.  It is a Dickensian dystopia with a thin veneer of hyper-success.  

            But ....it is your idealized supposedly peaceful ideologies with a long and established track record of state-sponsored killings of its own people, terrorism, and a wider-spread oppression and serfdom.

            US Capitalism undoubtedly has a very long list crimes for which it is accountable but it is not equivalent to the Khmer Rouge.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 12:19:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not so (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco
              Wide-spread violence and mass killings tends to be a bit of a market disruptor.
              I suppose if you're talking about the first world. Even, there not so. I remember clearly some mass killings and wide spread violence against Native Americans and Aborigines, but maybe I was dreaming. In in other regions, this assertion cannot hold up.
              state-sponsored killings of its own people, terrorism, and a wider-spread oppression and serfdom.
              This is a feature of all economic systems, it is not unique to any ideology.
              US Capitalism undoubtedly has a very long list crimes for which it is accountable but it is not equivalent to the Khmer Rouge.
              You would have to make a side by side analysis to justify this assertion. Or at least flesh it out.
            •  Also, this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco
              Capitalism certainly has blood on its hands, but more often by omission than commission.
              is contradicted by this:
              it does not care nor have any native safeguards to prevent the "losers" from a despondent sub-human death, unseen, unnoticed and uncared about.
              Seems the "blood" on Capitalism's hands is by design, which I thought is the meaning of "by commission".
              •  No...check it again (0+ / 0-)

                It is a sin of omission.  By NOT DOING SOMETHING (ie, provide safeguards) it allows people to suffer and doesn't care.

                It does not actively seek out and murder people.  That would be the unnecessary loss of customers and labor.
                 

                Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                by Wisper on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 12:51:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well okay, I'll give you that. (0+ / 0-)

                  But I still don't agree with that point. The establishment of capitalism in this country involved actively seeking out and murdering Native Americans. Actually for much of the Americas. That's one example I can think of. How do you square that with your assertion?

                  •  Capitalism is agressive to others (0+ / 0-)

                    not its own people.  

                    Market expansion is achieved militarily and politically.  Native Americans were labeled as "others" and an obstacle to the "manifest destiny" of the American Republic.  

                    They were simply in the way and branded a primitive culture with land and resources that could be better utilized by America.  This was in a time when slavery was already tolerated so its not a major leap.  Wrap it up in some kind of nationalistic and missionary-esque religious doctrine then bolster it with atrocity stories recounting the unbridled savagery of the Native Warrior and Westward expansion becomes a virtue.

                    But what Capitalistic society has the reputation of mass-killing subsets of its population, work camps, death camps, assassinations, etc?  

                    The trick for Capitalism is to marginalize and disempower its critics and foes.  Keep the playing field unequal and it doesn't matter if people try to stand against you when you have more power/money than they do by orders of magnitude.

                    It is a collective based government that needs to forcibly weed out resistance.  Whether its Pinochet "Disappearing" every critic, China filtering media to prevent dissent, Khmer Rouge's torture of enemies of the state, sects bombing state facilities, Stalin's genocide of Armenia, etc.  

                    It is almost invariably (unless you want to go way back to antiquity for religious persecutions, crusades and the like) the Maoist, Communist regimes that take active state-sponsored and organized efforts to forcibly suppress its own people using tactics of terror.

                    Capitalism requires its people to think that the country is great and that opportunity is real, even if it isn't.  It does not trade on the fear and terror of its citizens.  It promotes a false positive and looks the other way on the negatives.  Shameful?  Sure... I won't argue otherwise, though I would say, in America at least, it has its ebbs and flows in extremism (compare the 1910's with the 1960's for example).  

                    What communist/maoist regime has ever ruled without an oppressive controlling regime?  Im not asking for idealized theories about a utopian distribution of resources and labor, I'm talking about a real government that adopted these principles and didn't quickly turn into an authoritarian regime?

                    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                    by Wisper on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 01:14:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I disagree with this (0+ / 0-)
                      It is a collective based government that needs to forcibly weed out resistance.
                      Again, this is not unique to any ideology. You named Pinochet, who was the original free market fundamentalist.
                      Capitalism requires its people to think that the country is great and that opportunity is real, even if it isn't.  It does not trade on the fear and terror of its citizens.
                      Again, negated by the experience of South Americans for the last few decades or so.

                      I think you should expand your definition of capitalist regimes beyond the Western World. Most of these dichotomies you're trying to set up don't hold when you have  a world-wide view

      •  Depends on how one defines (0+ / 0-)

        authoritarian. Anarchist theory views the centralized state, and the hierarchical society, as authoritarian forms of communism. From what I've read, Maoists (as Marxists) are still in support these elements, reflecting the "dictatorship of the proletariat" concept.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 12:29:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site