Glen Beck

[Plane]

<<Flag waving jingoistic demagogue is one thing. Calling his listeners pea brained troglodytes is quite another.>>

Yet in each case the judgment was spot on.

<<Yet your favorite form of demagoguery relies on uneducated peasants to make the revolution real.>>

In Marxist theory, the Revolution was to start in Germany because of the learning and sophistication of the German working class.   The last place in the world that the Revolution was expected to break out was in "backward" Russial

The Revolution is not "made" by "uneducated peasants."  The "uneducated peasants" have to be led into revolt by the Communist Party, as vanguard of the working class - - a small, highly disciplined and motivated core group well schooled in Marxist-Leninist thought, including a thorough understanding of the class war and dialectical materialim

<<Even Chavez exploits the lack of education of his followers.>>

Really?  How?

Can it work in the way that Marx and Engles theroised?

Or is an uneducated and willing following a necessacery element?

[Michael Tee]

<<In other words, the "uneducated peasants" have to be told what to believe and how to behave by a self-selected group of folks who think they know better than everyone else. >>

In the "vanguard" theory, the uneducated peasants must be educated as to the realities of the class war, the resistance of the ruling class and the need for revolution as the only solution to the impasse, yes.  They aren't BORN with an innate knowledge of class war.

<<(Fair warning: sarcasm ahead.) What could possibly be wrong with that?>>

The warning just accentuates the lameness of the sarcasm.  Both of us know that there are substantial risks of judgmental errors by the vanguard, for which the masses must pay.

[Plane]

This becomes a selected and specialised education doesn't it?

[Michael Tee]

<<Can it work in the way that Marx and Engles theroised?>>

Well, Marx and Engels were 19th-century philosophers and we are now in the 21st century.  I don't know of any other theories in the 21st centuries that are judged as they were formulated without allowing for incremental changes in theory over the centuries.

<<Or is an uneducated and willing following a necessacery element?>>

I think the key element is the vanguard.  Once you have a well-schooled vanguard dedicated and committed to the  Revolution, then the "following" will be guided accordingly.  They won't be ignorant any longer.  They will need to be inculcated with Marxist-Leninist theory in order to be good revolutionaries.  At the very least, the proletariat will need to know where its own interest lies.

[Universe Prince]

Both of us know that there are substantial risks of judgmental errors by the vanguard, for which the masses must pay.

There is an understatement if I ever saw one. Of course the notion of the "vanguard" making decisions and the masses paying, often with their lives and livelihoods, may be (and by 'may be' I mean most definitely is) one of the major problems with the whole plan in the first place.

[Plane]

I think the key element is the vanguard.  Once you have a well-schooled vanguard dedicated and committed to the  Revolution, then the "following" will be guided accordingly.  They won't be ignorant any longer.  They will need to be inculcated with Marxist-Leninist theory in order to be good revolutionaries.  At the very least, the proletariat will need to know where its own interest lies.

I think that the vanguard itself depends on haveing an abismal ignorance of history , otherwise they would know about several alternatives to Communism , some with a better record of success and good reguard to human rights.

[Plane]

Getting back to Glen Beck.

I really liked most of his speech , and "stem winder " is an apt description.

But he is getting abuseive to the memory of Theodore Rosevelt.

I think he misrepresents Teddy and misunderstands the "progressive" party at least in its early history.

Or have I misunderstood for so long?

[Michael Tee]

<<There is an understatement if I ever saw one. Of course the notion of the "vanguard" making decisions and the masses paying, often with their lives and livelihoods, may be (and by 'may be' I mean most definitely is) one of the major problems with the whole plan in the first place.>>

Classical statement of the risk-averse position.  The alternative being to abandon the struggle and let the capitalist system slowly bleed the working class to death over a lifetime of wage slavery.

[Universe Prince]

<<There is an understatement if I ever saw one. Of course the notion of the "vanguard" making decisions and the masses paying, often with their lives and livelihoods, may be (and by 'may be' I mean most definitely is) one of the major problems with the whole plan in the first place.>>

Classical statement of the risk-averse position.  The alternative being to abandon the struggle and let the capitalist system slowly bleed the working class to death over a lifetime of wage slavery.

Right. 'Cause those are the only two options. (Better? No sarcasm warning this time so... oh, wait... darn.)

And no, my position is not risk-averse. My position is averse to letting authoritarians (including socialist ones) make all the decisions while the people they rule pay the generally and frequently detrimental consequences. My position, more succinctly, is tyranny-averse.

[Plane]

<<There is an understatement if I ever saw one. Of course the notion of the "vanguard" making decisions and the masses paying, often with their lives and livelihoods, may be (and by 'may be' I mean most definitely is) one of the major problems with the whole plan in the first place.>>

Classical statement of the risk-averse position.  The alternative being to abandon the struggle and let the capitalist system slowly bleed the working class to death over a lifetime of wage slavery.

I think this qualifies as a false dicotomy.

There are several choices not just two.

The choice of Communism has not been demonstrated as a certain way to avoid slavery , and Capitolism has not been confirmed as a certain route to slavery.



What sort of society was it that grew out of the slave owning business before Marx was born?

[Michael Tee]

It seems as if both plane and Prince are accusing me, not necessarily in the same words, of making a false dichotomy.  I see this in a class war perspective, the owners against the renters, the haves vs the have-nots.  One side or the other is gonna win, one side or the other is gonna lose.  That's a dichotimy alright.  What is so false about it?

[Universe Prince]

What is so false about it? Um, basically that it isn't true.

[Plane]

It seems as if both plane and Prince are accusing me, not necessarily in the same words, of making a false dichotomy.  I see this in a class war perspective, the owners against the renters, the haves vs the have-nots.  One side or the other is gonna win, one side or the other is gonna lose.  That's a dichotimy alright.  What is so false about it?

Why do owners have to be against renters?

Have you ever rented a tool?

A vehicle?

 Would you have been better off if there were no owner renting out tools or cars and trucks?

Why must there be a win -loose relationship?

The better business model is win- win, you need what I provide, and I need you just as much to rent or buy what I provide.

[sirs]

<<There is an understatement if I ever saw one. Of course the notion of the "vanguard" making decisions and the masses paying, often with their lives and livelihoods, may be (and by 'may be' I mean most definitely is) one of the major problems with the whole plan in the first place.>>

Classical statement of the risk-averse position.  The alternative being to abandon the struggle and let the capitalist system slowly bleed the working class to death over a lifetime of wage slavery.

Right. 'Cause those are the only two options. (Better? No sarcasm warning this time so... oh, wait... darn.)

And no, my position is not risk-averse. My position is averse to letting authoritarians (including socialist ones) make all the decisions while the people they rule pay the generally and frequently detrimental consequences. My position, more succinctly, is tyranny-averse.

You know, it's easy to see why communism has never been able to materialize the way folks like Tee, like Chavez, like Stalin would have wanted (and still want of course).  The masses have to be so ignorant, dare I say stupid, to fork over all their freedom, so a group of "know better than you all's" can tell them how they're to be, how they're to work, how much they can eat, how much they can water their lawn, how much money they'll be allowed to keep.  And God forbid that the "Vanguard" make some bone headed decisions that cost not just what prescious little freedom they might still have in the corner of their basement, but their very lives.  Not to mention their family's

As I opined earlier, and noted no refutals, Communism is no better than Nazisim.  Both require a vastly superior obediency from their masses, both require an oppressive government, whether its its run by a Fuhrer or a "Vanguard", and both have no hesistancy in liquidating any resistance