Anti-Kritik

Since our good friend Mark has read so much literature, he will know already that the title of this counter-polemic is of the same name as a book by Rosa Luxemburg. It is my hope that I will be as efficient as Luxemburg herself in destroying my archenemy’s feeble argument.

Mark starts off with a misreading of what I posted: “This is the "valid criticism" that acknowledges that the USSR did terrible things while also having a bureaucratic caste that does not constitute a class.”

Mark obviously did not notice that my argument said that it was a valid criticism if the criticism said the “bureaucratic caste” oppressed the workers. The text that Mark quoted did exactly that, so it is a valid criticism.

It also appears that Mark thinks I believe there was a new class. There obviously was not, because of reasons stated in Mark’s quoted text, which I’m going to go out on a limb and say was from the spartacist site.

The real contradiction I was talking about was that if the caste used the state to oppress the workers, how was it a worker’s state/socialism? However, to address this we need to have an understanding of state, which is Mark’s next topic.

In chapter one of The State and Revolution, there was a passage in which Lenin stated that the state was an instrument for one class to oppress another. I already quoted it, and I’m not going to again because I’m lazy. It was much clearer than the passage Mark quoted.

Using this definition of state, we can see that if the state is an instrument of class oppression/suppression/repression/any other –pression I forgot, then the state in socialism is an instrument of class oppression also. This class is the proletariat, which is obvious to anyone who has ever heard the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The state in socialism is supposed to be for the workers to suppress the capitalists, but in the case of the Soviet Union, the state was an instrument for a “caste” to suppress the workers. Hmm, sounds a lot like a class to me. But of course it can not be a class because classes are defined in relation to the means of production, and as we all know, the means of production in the U.S.S.R. were nationalized. This is an obvious contradiction stemming from Marx’s narrow conception of classes.

Mark tries to avoid this contradiction by claiming that the state in socialism is not a state in the proper sense of the word. Nice try, Mark, but that’s not going to cut it. There is some literature that I have read.





“The free people's state has been transferred into the free state. Taken in its grammatical sense, a free state is one where the state is free in relation to its citizens, hence a state with a despotic government. The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The 'people's state' has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto say plainly that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state dissolves of itself [sich auflost] and disappears. As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist.”



-Engels, pages 321 and 322 of the German original (I’m not sure what that is, but that’s how Lenin quoted in chapter 4 of The State and Revolution.)



So you see that Engels was directing this comment at anarchists who were criticizing Marxists for being authoritarian. They were criticizing Marxists for wanting a state, which is centralized and tyrannical. Engels responded by saying it was not a state in the proper sense of the word, but rather a state according to the Marxist definition, as an instrument of class oppression.

Mark however, thinks that Engels meant not a state in the Marxist definition, which is clearly an absurdity of the highest degree. It is a state Mark, so your infantile defense of “not a state in the proper sense” is now defeated, and we can move on to less retarded aspects of your polemic (hopefully).

“The state coming to existence to prevent both classes from destroying each other”

No, no, no Mark, once again you are misunderstanding your literature. I may not have read as much but at least I understand it. It is true that it comes into existence because of class struggle, but as Lenin said before it is a tool of the ruling class. The ruling class uses it to suppress the lower class. It is to prevent the lower class from destroying them, not both classes from destroying each other. Here Mark is deflecting my argument with a class collaborationist interpretation of Lenin, i.e. turning Lenin into a fascist. This is something I’d expect from Matt, not you.

Mark now ridicules my claim that in socialism, immediately everyone would become a worker. This is an obvious misunderstanding of what socialism is, or just plain idiocy. In socialism you get paid according to how much you work, meaning everyone has to work or they die. I will admit that there will still be some people who don’t work, that may live of the pay of others, like housewives. Hopefully Mark won’t use this as an argument unless he is willing to claim housewife as a separate class. But since Mark is saying that at the beginning everyone won’t be a worker, he is obviously implying that after a while they will. Would you care to tell us when, Mark? The Soviet Union existed for nearly about 75 years; did they get to the right stage yet?

Obviously in the Soviet Union the capitalists did not exist anymore. Therefore it was completely proletarian. This goes against classical Marxism, because according to that, when there are no classes, there can be no state. The only thing you can conclude is that either there was a new class or classical Marxism is false. Pick one, Mark!

“This state would be in existence for the purpose of defending against counterrevolution within society”

Are you sure you did not just misspeak, Mark? Because classical Marxism states that the state is for suppression of the lower class. This statement looks to me like an outright endorsement of my theory of classes, which states that the state is to protect the ruling class against actions going against its wishes. My definition implies that the proletarian state will be a protection against counterrevolution, but Mark’s does not. Yet Mark still made the previous statement contradicting his own definition but fitting perfectly with my own. You’re making this too easy for me, Mark; it’s like stealing candy from a baby.

He then criticizes as idealism my assertion that bourgeois ideology is a class. Of course it’s not a class when you look at it one-dimensionally. But when you broaden your perspective you will notice that I mentioned it was not a class as in bourgeois or proletarian. It is a new type of class altogether- an ideological class, which, falling in line with Karl Marx’s base-superstructure model of society, is influenced by the economic classes. To call this idealism reveals sheer ignorance on the part of the polemicizer.

He then talks about some transclass stuff which I am not even going to address. This comment, on the other hand, is worth addressing:

“The emancipation of the Proletariat is not a matter of ideals, as Emy asserts, it is a matter of of opening their eyes to MATERIALIST REALITY thus rendering Emy's campaign to give the proletariat a NEW ideology utterly incorrect” (emphasis Mark’s)

He makes the assertion that the role of the vanguard is not to give the proletariat a new ideology. He says the point is to open their eyes to the material reality. I have two things to say in regards to this:

• The workers observe the material reality all the time. They don’t need their eyes opened, they need to be reeducated by propaganda to help them realize how oppressed they are.
  
• I am defining ideology as what is in the best interest of a certain class. Currently the proletariat has, for the most part, bourgeois ideology. Proletarian ideology is obviously socialism. When the vanguard convinces the proletarians to support socialism, the proletarians will have proletarian ideology. So yes, it is giving them a new ideology.
  

“The Dictatorship of the proletariat and the soviet system will be needed until a classless society is achieved and a state of abundance is reached”

For once I agree with you Mark. But the next statement shows you have interpreted my writing in a way that makes me appear to be an idealist.

“True marxists identify the material reality that breeds different actions and beliefs. Marxists say "being determines consciousness" and Emy's failure to identify this "being" or reality as the root of these fictional "classes" he has created totally alienate him from marxism and make him an idealist thinker.”

Mark, I have repeatedly stated that the basis of the political class is the ideological class, and the basis of that is the economic class. The class structure can most certainly NOT change in the upper two class levels unless it changes in the lowest one, the economic class. Of course communism can not be established until abundance has been achieved. Of course the material conditions have to be right. Did you really believe for a moment that I thought the upper class levels would change on their own? Of course not! That would definitely be idealist and if there is one thing I am not, it is an idealist. However, this does not stop me from using logic, and logic tells me that when there is a contradiction, something is wrong. That thing was the classical theory of classes.

Mark’s complete argument stems from a misunderstanding, whether it is of Marxist literature, or my arguments. I guess what I’m saying is that Mark needs some lessons in reading comprehension. I’m done addressing all of your arguments now.

lol at first point

that was my point i wasn't implying it was yours

but i'll keep reading for your sake

You beteer kep reading it took me so long typing this and my history essay at the same time. It destroys your misunderstandings.

wow

emy

amazing

i am totally incorrect

I thought you told me to not say incorrect until I compleetly readed it.

i finished it

im done with this

i'll let everyone read both

and end it on that note

if people agree with your revolutionary theory of classes than good for you

get it published

better society

Mebbe I should make a poll to see how many pepul here are intelligent enuff to realize the superiority of my theeri. Or mebbe not. Hoo Knows What I SHall DO>>?

just do it so we can end this

it's so damn annoying.

Post a link of both articles and make a poll

loser has to SWEAR to never bring this shit up again

deal?

good

I will bring up my theory again but I won't bring up this argument again in the near future. My next essay will be on expressing historical materialism in terms of the correct theory of classes.

sigh

here we go

Quote :

Since our good friend Mark has read so much literature, he will know already that the title of this counter-polemic is of the same name as a book by Rosa Luxemburg. It is my hope that I will be as efficient as Luxemburg herself in destroying my archenemy’s feeble argument.

sectarian opening

Quote :

Mark starts off with a misreading of what I posted: “This is the "valid criticism" that acknowledges that the USSR did terrible things while also having a bureaucratic caste that does not constitute a class.”

Mark obviously did not notice that my argument said that it was a valid criticism if the criticism said the “bureaucratic caste” oppressed the workers. The text that Mark quoted did exactly that, so it is a valid criticism.

You didn't realize i was making that claim
and this has already been addressed here

Quote :

Here is a cited argument about the "inconsistencies" of trotskyism

Quote:
Though I describe myself as a Trotskyist, I have noticed that Trotskyist theory is inconsistent and contradictory. Trotskyists do not criticize the Soviet Union for having a new class, but they do criticize it for having a bureaucratic caste on top of the workers. This criticism is not a valid criticism unless it criticizes the Soviet Union for oppressing the workers; otherwise there is nothing to complain about.

Emy is correct that Trotskyist do not acknowledge a new class in society. That is because there was no new class. After being exhausted by the civil war following the october revolution, the industry in the USSR was crashing, thus further devastating and virtually destroyed the proletariat class (which was very small to begin with)that had carried out the October Revolution to begin with. In accordance, the most conscious and revolutionary layer of the proletariat was becoming extinct because the majority of the most radical and educated marxists with pre-revolutionary experience had died on the front lines of the civil war, leaving only 2% of the communist party with pre-revolutionary experience
Quote:
cited from "Why we fought to defend the Soviet Union"
Under these conditions, a new conservative and bureaucratized layer in the party and state apparatus came to the fore, intent on preserving its relatively privileged status amid extreme poverty, scarcity and imperialist hostility. The defeat of the emerging Left Opposition by these forces at the rigged 13th Party Conference in January 1924 marked the qualitative point at which the bureaucratic caste seized political power—from then on, the people who ruled the USSR, the way the USSR was ruled and the purposes for which it was ruled all changed. This was a political counterrevolution rather than a social one, because the nascent bureaucracy hijacked the governmental apparatus but did not overturn the socialized property forms created by October. But the struggle did not end there. It took a series of bloody purges through the 1930s for the Stalin clique to consolidate its rule. Throughout, Trotsky’s Left Opposition continued the fight for authentic Bolshevism and in defense of October.

This is the "valid criticism" that acknowledges that the USSR did terrible things while also having a bureaucratic caste that does not constitute a class.

they admit they unleashed series of "bloody purges" is that not admitting oppression exists?

Quote :

It also appears that Mark thinks I believe there was a new class. There obviously was not, because of reasons stated in Mark’s quoted text, which I’m going to go out on a limb and say was from the spartacist site.

your quotes
"Though I describe myself as a Trotskyist, I have noticed that Trotskyist theory is inconsistent and contradictory. Trotskyists do not criticize the Soviet Union for having a new class, but they do criticize it for having a bureaucratic caste on top of the workers. This criticism is not a valid criticism unless it criticizes the Soviet Union for oppressing the workers; otherwise there is nothing to complain about."

Quote :

The real contradiction I was talking about was that if the caste used the state to oppress the workers, how was it a worker’s state/socialism? However, to address this we need to have an understanding of state, which is Mark’s next topic.

it's a degenerated workers state
overthrown capitalism with rotten leadership and not realizing ALL socialist attributes

Quote :

In chapter one of The State and Revolution, there was a passage in which Lenin stated that the state was an instrument for one class to oppress another. I already quoted it, and I’m not going to again because I’m lazy. It was much clearer than the passage Mark quoted.

care to show them? guess not

here it is

Quote :

In chapter one of "State and Revolution"
Quote:
The state is therfore by no means a power imposed on society from the outside; just as little is it "the reality of the moral idea," "the image of reality and reason," as Hegel asserted. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, may not consume themselves and society in sterile struggle, a power apparently standing above society becomes necessary, whose purpose is to moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of "order"; and this power arising out of society, but placing itself above it, and increasingly separating itself from it, is the state.

He also defines "public force" as material appendages utilized by the state, like prisons, guns, repressive institutions of all kinds
Quote:
having at their disposal the public force and the right to exact taxes, the officials now stand as organs above society.


this is the analysis of the bourgeois state

it is also stressed that a worker's state IS NOT A STATE in the proper sense of the word because of it's new characteristics and function.

Lenin writes about these characteristics and the need to suppress the bourgeoisie...
Quote:
...the organ of suppression is now the majority of the population, not the minority [as it was before with the "specialized" armed body of men] and once the majority of the people itself suppresses it's oppressors, a "special force" for suppression is no longer necessary. In this sense, the state begins to whither away. Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority, the majority can itself directly fufil all of these functions; and the more the discharge of the functions of state power devolves upon the people generally, the less need is there for the existence of this power


When taking a look at these citations, we can conclude that the state, while no longer being a state in the proper sense of the word, still serves it's purpose. While it continues to suppress the bourgeoisie and defends the socialized property against counterrevolution, the bureaucratic caste of society takes a reactionary leadership role. While it continues to maintain the worker's state, it continues to protect it's "privilege" and role of leadership in society. An accurate analogy to this condition would be labor unions in america and the relationship between the union tops and the union itself. While the workers do have an established union (workers' state) the union tops(bureaucracy) act as the reactionary leadership and steer the workers' away from class struggle and often channel their energy into the democratic party. The union tops maintain a "good" relationship with the workers and the capitalists by contenting the workers with their position and perpetuating the illusion that their way will bring change (stalinism and socialism in one country) and appease the capitalists(world bourgeoisie) by preventing further class struggle (spread of socialism). While the union tops, which are merely leaders of the workers, do not constitute a class they do serve as an extension of the bourgeoisie and serve as an obstacle to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Bureaucratic caste of society is merely a rotten leadership of the workers which brings up the call for Political revolution to oust the bureaucracy and establish a solid workers' democracy with a large and educated proletariat.

NOW you can say

Quote :

Using this definition of state, we can see that if the state is an instrument of class oppression/suppression/repression/any other –pression I forgot, then the state in socialism is an instrument of class oppression also. This class is the proletariat, which is obvious to anyone who has ever heard the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The state in socialism is supposed to be for the workers to suppress the capitalists, but in the case of the Soviet Union, the state was an instrument for a “caste” to suppress the workers. Hmm, sounds a lot like a class to me. But of course it can not be a class because classes are defined in relation to the means of production, and as we all know, the means of production in the U.S.S.R. were nationalized. This is an obvious contradiction stemming from Marx’s narrow conception of classes.

not only did you throw out what renders this irrelevant, but you continue to use th commanders of the state as your only evidence of the bureaucracy constituting a class, which was taken care of in my polemic above.

Quote :

Mark tries to avoid this contradiction by claiming that the state in socialism is not a state in the proper sense of the word. Nice try, Mark, but that’s not going to cut it. There is some literature that I have read.

shamelessly over simplified and avoided. Actual argument listed above.

this next part is my favorite lolvvvvvvv

Quote :

“The free people's state has been transferred into the free state. Taken in its grammatical sense, a free state is one where the state is free in relation to its citizens, hence a state with a despotic government. The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The 'people's state' has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto say plainly that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state dissolves of itself [sich auflost] and disappears. As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist.”



-Engels, pages 321 and 322 of the German original (I’m not sure what that is, but that’s how Lenin quoted in chapter 4 of The State and Revolution.)



So you see that Engels was directing this comment at anarchists who were criticizing Marxists for being authoritarian. They were criticizing Marxists for wanting a state, which is centralized and tyrannical. Engels responded by saying it was not a state in the proper sense of the word, but rather a state according to the Marxist definition, as an instrument of class oppression.

Mark however, thinks that Engels meant not a state in the Marxist definition, which is clearly an absurdity of the highest degree. It is a state Mark, so your infantile defense of “not a state in the proper sense” is now defeated, and we can move on to less retarded aspects of your polemic (hopefully).

not only does your quote CONFIRM the analysis of the state i explained and it's function. You fail to explain how that definition means that the bureaucracy constitutes a class, thus rendering your argument here irrelevant.

Quote :

“The state coming to existence to prevent both classes from destroying each other”

No, no, no Mark, once again you are misunderstanding your literature. I may not have read as much but at least I understand it. It is true that it comes into existence because of class struggle, but as Lenin said before it is a tool of the ruling class. The ruling class uses it to suppress the lower class. It is to prevent the lower class from destroying them, not both classes from destroying each other. Here Mark is deflecting my argument with a class collaborationist interpretation of Lenin, i.e. turning Lenin into a fascist. This is something I’d expect from Matt, not you.

*sigh* out of context again. here is the entire argument emy

"Capitalism is the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, Democracy for the bourgeoisie, and is carried out by the capitalist state. The Bourgeoisie cannot make profit, and thus rule economically without the state in place. This confirms what i cited before in regard to the state coming to existence to prevent both classes from destroying each other. This designates the state as a tool against class struggle and forces the proletariat to submit to the bourgeoisie and thus allow the bourgeoisie to make profit and survive as the ruling class. The state, in accordance with bourgeois ideology (which is reinforced by the family) and the illusion of universal suffrage all serve as tools to obscure the class line and keep the workers from achieving class consciousness. Class consciousness of the proletariat indefinitely means great class struggle and ultimately the overthrow of capitalism, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, and the abolition of exploitation of labor and private property. The Bourgeoisie understands this and that is why suppressing the workers and preventing them from achieving consciousness is of the utmost importance."
lol incorrect analysis again emy.

Quote :

Mark now ridicules my claim that in socialism, immediately everyone would become a worker. This is an obvious misunderstanding of what socialism is, or just plain idiocy. In socialism you get paid according to how much you work, meaning everyone has to work or they die.

your quotes
" Immediately in socialism everyone will be a worker because if you don’t work you don’t get paid. This means everyone immediately has the same access to the means of production and already there are no classes. Since state is an instrument of class oppression, the state will be already gone so it will be a stateless classless society already-communism. This means that socialism can not exist with the current definitions. This is slightly problematic."
i must have misread lol.

Quote :

I will admit that there will still be some people who don’t work, that may live of the pay of others, like housewives. Hopefully Mark won’t use this as an argument unless he is willing to claim housewife as a separate class.

A) this throws your past assertion out
B)A housewife in capitalist society is not part of the proletariat. Thats why child care would be made free and into a job.

Quote :

But since Mark is saying that at the beginning everyone won’t be a worker, he is obviously implying that after a while they will. Would you care to tell us when, Mark? The Soviet Union existed for nearly about 75 years; did they get to the right stage yet?

im loving you taking my arguments out of conext
i am not saying after a while, im saying a healthy workers state inevitably will reach classnessless

here is my argument that you ruined

Quote :

Emy's concern lies in the fact that he believes that everyone will immediately become the proletariat socialism. This confirms my assertion that he fails to understand marxism because once all people become workers, a classless society has been achieved and THAT is communism, not socialism. I digress, his concern was that if this were true, then why the need for a state? Certainly a the state characterized as a bourgeois state by lenin would definitely be a concern, but a workers state is not identical. As listed above it is made up of the workers themselves, NOT specialized armed force of men sitting atop society. This state would be in existence for the purpose of defending against counterrevolution within society, WHICH LIES IN THE CONVERTED CAPITALISTS that wish to have their rule re-established and the world bourgeoisie (which will continue to exist until communism is reached) not ideas within established proletariat and the purpose of defending workers' RIGHTS AGAINST REACTIONARY ATTITUDES and will help to achieve equality( which are the product of religion and bourgeois ideology. While this ideology seems to be in accordance with Emy's theory, this actually comes from a failure to achieve true class consciousness and a class struggle perspective)

Again i stress that it is idealist to designate bourgeois ideology as a "class" as Emy is beause this idealogy is TRANSCLASS, meaning that both the proletariat and bourgeoisie can have the same beliefs. It is not a matter of defeating the bourgeois ideology "class" within every person, it is a matter of defeating the bourgeoisie itself that brought into existence that ideology that is TRANSCLASS. An example of "transclass" would be the oppression of blacks and whites, while both are found in both MARXIST classes, it is impossible to revolt against males or whites because whites and males are not the cause of their oppression and cannot be designated as an "oppressor". While many try to launch a campaign against sexism or racism as an ideal, both parties fail to acknowledge the material reality that has created the situation (capitalism). Just like the ideology of the bourgeoisie permeating through both classes, you cannot launch a campaining against greed, only the material reality that breeds it (capitalism). The emancipation of the Proletariat is not a matter of ideals, as Emy asserts, it is a matter of of opening their eyes to MATERIALIST REALITY thus rendering Emy's campaign to give the proletariat a NEW ideology utterly incorrect. With these Material realities acknowledged and abolished, the basis for reactionary attitudes within the working people are abolished.

seriously, how opportunist is taking that out of context?


let's continue

Quote :

Obviously in the Soviet Union the capitalists did not exist anymore. Therefore it was completely proletarian. This goes against classical Marxism, because according to that, when there are no classes, there can be no state. The only thing you can conclude is that either there was a new class or classical Marxism is false. Pick one, Mark!

yes but the world bourgeoisie still existed. this point was made in my polemic. You threw it out to continue this article lol.

Quote :

“This state would be in existence for the purpose of defending against counterrevolution within society”

Are you sure you did not just misspeak, Mark? Because classical Marxism states that the state is for suppression of the lower class. This statement looks to me like an outright endorsement of my theory of classes, which states that the state is to protect the ruling class against actions going against its wishes. My definition implies that the proletarian state will be a protection against counterrevolution, but Mark’s does not. Yet Mark still made the previous statement contradicting his own definition but fitting perfectly with my own. You’re making this too easy for me, Mark; it’s like stealing candy from a baby.

lol im gonna use you quotes on this one

"As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist.”

asshole

Quote :

He then criticizes as idealism my assertion that bourgeois ideology is a class. Of course it’s not a class when you look at it one-dimensionally. But when you broaden your perspective you will notice that I mentioned it was not a class as in bourgeois or proletarian. It is a new type of class altogether- an ideological class, which, falling in line with Karl Marx’s base-superstructure model of society, is influenced by the economic classes. To call this idealism reveals sheer ignorance on the part of the polemicizer.

also explained in my polemic that i just quoted for you because you saw fit to ignore it so you could take more out of context, OH LOOK! you did it againvvvvv

Quote :

He then talks about some transclass stuff which I am not even going to address. This comment, on the other hand, is worth addressing:

“The emancipation of the Proletariat is not a matter of ideals, as Emy asserts, it is a matter of of opening their eyes to MATERIALIST REALITY thus rendering Emy's campaign to give the proletariat a NEW ideology utterly incorrect” (emphasis Mark’s)

lol nice

Quote :

He makes the assertion that the role of the vanguard is not to give the proletariat a new ideology. He says the point is to open their eyes to the material reality. I have two things to say in regards to this:


* The workers observe the material reality all the time. They don’t need their eyes opened, they need to be reeducated by propaganda to help them realize how oppressed they are.
* I am defining ideology as what is in the best interest of a certain class. Currently the proletariat has, for the most part, bourgeois ideology. Proletarian ideology is obviously socialism. When the vanguard convinces the proletarians to support socialism, the proletarians will have proletarian ideology. So yes, it is giving them a new ideology.

So you are saying that oppression isn't materialist reality?
the proletariat does not have a unified ideology. Communism is the acceptance of all modes of thinking as long as you are not exploiting or being reactionary, not uniform thought...

Quote :

“The Dictatorship of the proletariat and the soviet system will be needed until a classless society is achieved and a state of abundance is reached”

For once I agree with you Mark. But the next statement shows you have interpreted my writing in a way that makes me appear to be an idealist.

irrelevant

Quote :

“True marxists identify the material reality that breeds different actions and beliefs. Marxists say "being determines consciousness" and Emy's failure to identify this "being" or reality as the root of these fictional "classes" he has created totally alienate him from marxism and make him an idealist thinker.”

Mark, I have repeatedly stated that the basis of the political class is the ideological class, and the basis of that is the economic class. The class structure can most certainly NOT change in the upper two class levels unless it changes in the lowest one, the economic class. Of course communism can not be established until abundance has been achieved. Of course the material conditions have to be right. Did you really believe for a moment that I thought the upper class levels would change on their own? Of course not! That would definitely be idealist and if there is one thing I am not, it is an idealist. However, this does not stop me from using logic, and logic tells me that when there is a contradiction, something is wrong. That thing was the classical theory of classes.

Ideological class=idealism lol
after that i don't even know what the hell you are talking about because i am pretty sure i explained that i don't think ideas alone will bring communism here
" The emancipation of the Proletariat is not a matter of ideals, as Emy asserts, it is a matter of of opening their eyes to MATERIALIST REALITY thus rendering Emy's campaign to give the proletariat a NEW ideology utterly incorrect. With these Material realities acknowledged and abolished, the basis for reactionary attitudes within the working people are abolished."

funny how you forgot that huh?

Quote :

Mark’s complete argument stems from a misunderstanding, whether it is of Marxist literature, or my arguments. I guess what I’m saying is that Mark needs some lessons in reading comprehension. I’m done addressing all of your arguments now.Twisted Evil

OOOOHHHH THE IRONY....lol

MarxistFreeman wrote:

Communism is the acceptance of all modes of thinking as long as you are not exploiting or being reactionary, not uniform thought...

I love you. Really, I do. THANK YOU COMRADE!!! *HHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS*

^o^

Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:

MarxistFreeman wrote:

Communism is the acceptance of all modes of thinking as long as you are not exploiting or being reactionary, not uniform thought...

I love you. Really, I do. THANK YOU COMRADE!!! *HHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS*

^o^

i think i win emy

the communism ideology is the ideology of acceptance. Yes. That is an ideology. SO/?

lmao at how the whole thing is repeating your fisrt pullemik and saying nuh-uh yoor ronggo.

Emy wrote:

the communism ideology is the ideology of acceptance. Yes. That is an ideology. SO/?

lmao at how the whole thing is repeating your fisrt pullemik and saying nuh-uh yoor ronggo.

lol now if i point out that you are wrong i am not accepting...

good job.

Did I say it wasnt accepting? I would make a response but so far I have found nothing worth responding 2.