LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Duvniask]

Yeah, pretty much. Dogmatic beliefs like that are emblematic of totalitarian systems. It's why Marxism (and especially Marxism-Leninism) often ends up looking a lot more like a religion than any Marxist would dare admit. That said, it does raise the question of what would've happened if libertarian communists (like Rosa Luxembourg or council communists) had come to power at any point. Would they have stayed the course or would they resort to more authoritarian means when their predictions started to fail?

They would have most certainly have become more authoritarian, due to the fact that communsim often does not factor human nature as part of the equation. Or the libertarian communist 'states' would have collapsed immediately, again due to human nature, which commies don't seem to think exists.

Arguments like these are usually quite bad because they are almost never fleshed out. Your appeal to "human nature", whatever that means, is by itself a vague non-statement. What about human nature? Usually it's some description of human beings as "greedy", which is a terrible argument, because greed already affects the world negatively as it currently is. Greed is just as big a problem, if not bigger, under capitalism. The notion of maximizing value at whatever cost comes to other human beings quite naturally goes hand in hand with capitalism, after all. Greed is too often incentivized under capitalism. At least under communism you'd have a society where the collective good is more in line with the good of the individual.

Honestly, I sometimes wonder how Marx himself would've reacted to something like the Soviet Union. I could honestly see arguments either way.

He probably would have LOVED the Soviets.

I somehow doubt you know very much about the man.

[Duvniask]

Be that as it may, just from anecdotal experience alone I may note that it's rare to ever hear the constitution be brought up in political debates here in my home-country of Denmark. Now, obviously part of that is owing to the federated nature of the United States and discrepancies between the federal and state level. But, the quasi-religious element must play a role as well, and it is seemingly something quite unique to American politics. It also my contention that it is harmful in the sense that it helps stifle debate about what kind of society America truly could and should be. That is not to say everything in the Constitution is necessarily wrong, but I'm not really impressed by arguments whose essence is "the Constitution doesn't say this, therefore we absolutely should not do it" - Like, why? Changing the constitution is so incredibly hard as a it is, that simple common sense requires that you'd have to take measures that aren't explicitly endorsed by the Constitution.

The thing with the US constitution is it's big and contains a lot of amendments that wouldn't normally be made constitutional elsewhere. Prohibition is a good contrast, because both the US and Canada went for prohibition but the US had it as a constitutional amendment and Canada made it just a regular ol' bill (first federal, then provincial when the french rejected the federal proposal).
There's pretty simple reasoning: if it's put on the constitution and doesn't conflict with everything else on the constitution, then later laws and amendements have to come up against it, while if it's not on the constitution later amendments can invalidate it.

Yes, that is one difference, and it really doesn't improve my view of the US Constitution, or rather, how it is handled by the Americans themselves.

[Kubra]

The thing with the US constitution is it's big and contains a lot of amendments that wouldn't normally be made constitutional elsewhere. Prohibition is a good contrast, because both the US and Canada went for prohibition but the US had it as a constitutional amendment and Canada made it just a regular ol' bill (first federal, then provincial when the french rejected the federal proposal).
There's pretty simple reasoning: if it's put on the constitution and doesn't conflict with everything else on the constitution, then later laws and amendements have to come up against it, while if it's not on the constitution later amendments can invalidate it.

Yes, that is one difference, and it really doesn't improve my view of the US Constitution, or rather, how it is handled by the Americans themselves.

The thing is that if the US had euro-structured constitutions (I mean gotta be plural here mirite or mirite) the fundamental substance would probably be the same. Look at the rest of the anglo-world, what's called "constitutions" are more a mish-mash of sometimes half-valid or simply "inspirational" documents centuries old, which should theoretically be harder to work with, but that lot approaches "european" politics to much greater degree.
America has what it has because it is America, not because of its constitution.

[Kubra]

He probably would have LOVED the Soviets.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... ier.htm#n5
Jointly drafted by Marx and Guesde, with help from Engels and Lafargue.
The debate that later sprung up saw Marx breaking with Guesde and Lafargue for being insufficiently reformist.
This should be sufficient in illustrating Marx's political character.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Yes, that is one difference, and it really doesn't improve my view of the US Constitution, or rather, how it is handled by the Americans themselves.

The U.S. Constitution is a quaint Enlightenment document which, as long as independent nation-states exist, really needs to be rewritten from scratch.

[Cappuccina]

He probably would have LOVED the Soviets.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... ier.htm#n5
Jointly drafted by Marx and Guesde, with help from Engels and Lafargue.
The debate that later sprung up saw Marx breaking with Guesde and Lafargue for being insufficiently reformist.
This should be sufficient in illustrating Marx's political character.

Though I myself am not a Marxist, and have many issues with said ideology, to his credit, Marx was not an idiot and constantly sought to improve his theories. He changed his mind on quite a few things over the course of his life, some of his later writings were rather different than his early one's.

[Cappuccina]

Yes, that is one difference, and it really doesn't improve my view of the US Constitution, or rather, how it is handled by the Americans themselves.

The U.S. Constitution is a quaint Enlightenment document which, as long as independent nation-states exist, really needs to be rewritten from scratch.

Why? I'm not a die-hard for enlightenment values, but the US Constitution is a very effective document IMO. I don't find anything fundamentally wrong with it.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Why? I'm not a die-hard for enlightenment values, but the US Constitution is a very effective document IMO. I don't find anything fundamentally wrong with it.

It is just a manuscript written by ordinary human beings. However, it is horribly outdated.

[Kubra]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... ier.htm#n5
Jointly drafted by Marx and Guesde, with help from Engels and Lafargue.
The debate that later sprung up saw Marx breaking with Guesde and Lafargue for being insufficiently reformist.
This should be sufficient in illustrating Marx's political character.

Though I myself am not a Marxist, and have many issues with said ideology, to his credit, Marx was not an idiot and constantly sought to improve his theories. He changed his mind on quite a few things over the course of his life, some of his later writings were rather different than his early one's.

Nah even early on Marx's practical politics were less revolutionary and more electoral, exemplified by his dogged opposition to really "revolutionary" figures. Sure he was hella inflammatory in his speech, but especially in our days of the internet we can discern the differences between written radicalism and practical revolutionary work, and I say that as someone who plays radical Marxist online and whose praxis consists of writing my local MP to complain about things.
I mean here's Marx going on about progressive taxation, and then you've got Blanqui talking about how to best organise armed revolutionary cells and then getting arrested.

[Cappuccina]

Why? I'm not a die-hard for enlightenment values, but the US Constitution is a very effective document IMO. I don't find anything fundamentally wrong with it.

It is just a manuscript written by ordinary human beings. However, it is horribly outdated.

How?

[The Liberated Territories]

Why? I'm not a die-hard for enlightenment values, but the US Constitution is a very effective document IMO. I don't find anything fundamentally wrong with it.

It is just a manuscript written by ordinary human beings. However, it is horribly outdated.

So the Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is outdated? Many amendments (such as the 13th) are outdated?

The constitution is just a manuscript, but it is a manuscript which codifies truths which are far more universal.

[Proctopeo]

It is just a manuscript written by ordinary human beings. However, it is horribly outdated.

So the Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is outdated? Many amendments (such as the 13th) are outdated?

The constitution is just a manuscript, but it is a manuscript which codifies truths which are far more universal.

Such as the freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, freedom of association, right to own and bare arms, protections against unlawful searches and seizures... none of these are outdated. Hell, these are all more relevant now than ever.

[The East Marches II]

So the Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is outdated? Many amendments (such as the 13th) are outdated?

The constitution is just a manuscript, but it is a manuscript which codifies truths which are far more universal.

Such as the freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, freedom of association, right to own and bare arms, protections against unlawful searches and seizures... none of these are outdated. Hell, these are all more relevant now than ever.

He is against the right to arms as it could impede the revolution. Last I heard he wanted only the party vanguard armed so they could decide which workers to get weapons.

I have a feeling he won't be in favor of free speech or a decent trial either for his political foes!

[Duvniask]

It is just a manuscript written by ordinary human beings. However, it is horribly outdated.

So the Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is outdated? Many amendments (such as the 13th) are outdated?

The constitution is just a manuscript, but it is a manuscript which codifies truths which are far more universal.

The phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is from the United States Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

[The Liberated Territories]

So the Right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is outdated? Many amendments (such as the 13th) are outdated?

The constitution is just a manuscript, but it is a manuscript which codifies truths which are far more universal.

The phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is from the United States Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

It's found in the Constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments make reference to it.

And anyway the original Lockean mantra was "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property," but I didn't think my red friend would take that too well.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is from the United States Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

It's found in the Constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments make reference to it.

And anyway the original Lockean mantra was "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property," but I didn't think my red friend would take that too well.

The new age to communists tends to entail gulaging dissidents, so of course to them, liberty would be outdated.

[Byzconia]

Pretty rich coming from someone literally advocating for state terror.


I'm willing to acknowledge that Islamists generally came to dominate the Revolution, but to try and claim it "had always been Islamist in nature" simply doesn't match historical research. Revolutions and movements get co-opted all the time. There's no reason to think this was any different.


Not sure how I'm supposed to take you seriously when you literally admit to being a hypocrite.


Yes, I'm imagining that "murdering people to (possibly) prevent other people getting murdered" is the same as "the ends justify the means." Silly me, those things are totally different!

I guess that all of the crimes of Communist regimes don't count anymore, since they were only trying to establish a global communist utopia, after all.


Literally just disproved your own argument.

literally

Yes, I use "literally" a lot. Deal with it.

[Totenborg]

It's found in the Constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments make reference to it.

And anyway the original Lockean mantra was "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property," but I didn't think my red friend would take that too well.

The new age to communists tends to entail gulaging dissidents, so of course to them, liberty would be outdated.

Recalled. My bad, I got you mixed up with a different poster.
Apologies.

[Proctopeo]

The new age to communists tends to entail gulaging dissidents, so of course to them, liberty would be outdated.

Dude, you advocated for mass incarceration on a different thread. Pardon me if I doubt your understanding of liberty.

A cursory search of his posts suggests that this is a lie on your part.

[Totenborg]

Dude, you advocated for mass incarceration on a different thread. Pardon me if I doubt your understanding of liberty.

A cursory search of his posts suggests that this is a lie on your part.

Yeah, I got them mixed up with someone else. I addressed it.
Not an intentional lie, but it was still a mistruth on my part.

[Byzconia]

Guess what? We have a name for people who actively side with fascists, platform them, repeat their talking points, and actively cater to them on every single level of government policy and society............. they're called fascists.

Except the definition of "fascist" is not "helps fascists." You can make a political alliance with someone without sharing their ideology. (Note: that doesn't mean it's okay to help fascists, but doesn't make one a fascist, either.)

That's it? That's your r ENTIRE basis for Trump being a liberal? Guess what? By using your defenition, EVERYONE would be a fucking liberal, even the commies you love, since most commie countries still engaged in MARKET TRADE.

A) Free trade =/= capitalism

B) It's not "my" definition, it's that actual ideological definition of the term. Just because Americans love to fuck up and misuse political terminology doesn't mean it's okay.

C) When did I ever say I "love commies"? I'm a libsoc, I hate authoritarian socialism as much as I hate capitalism. Though, I do think it's pretty hilarious how you appear to be completely incapable of disagreeing with someone without calling them a fascist/commie. If you're not going to engage in good faith, then please fuck off.

Such definitions are completely useless and help no one.

In other words, definitions that don't suit your preconceived beliefs are bad. Noted and ignored.

Same can be said of your commie institutions. But while liberal democracies have had problems, I can say with 100% certainty that NONE of your commie regimes have ever lead to their supposed end goal of a 'stateless, classless society'. And guess what? There was PLENTY of racism, sexism, classist, and homophobic shit in those commie regimes. While Liberal democracies were able to reform and change to address these problems, commie dictatorships did not.

Again, not a communist.

Maybe you're right. But the founding principles of (social) liberalism remain important to modern progressivism.

And?

Well that's LITERALLY how EVERY SINGLE ONE of those commie shitholes turned out.

It really wasn't.

They had genocidal mass murderers be put in power and let their citizens die by the millions.

Some of them did, some of them didn't. Again, really showing your "intellect" here by just parroting stereotypes that aren't completely historically accurate. Maybe try reading an actual history book at some point?

The 'best' (or least bad) commie country is probably Cuba, I admire their social services and healthcare, which is better than the US. But I did NOT tolerate their silencing of dissenters or state run economy.

I am likewise a fan of Cuba's social services, and even wrote my undergrad thesis on the subject. In regards to their silencing of dissent, it's overblown and doesn't really happen anymore (at least, not from what I've seen). The only people who really get in trouble anymore are those who advocate for the government's overthrow (which is reasonable, given that that's illegal in most countries). As for the economy, yeah, I agree that central planning isn't a great way to run a country, but they seem to have handled it better than the rest. Raul has introduced more pro-market reforms, but it remains to be seen if they're not enough, too much, or just right. (I should also note that their state-run economy is pretty much the only reason their healthcare and social services are as good as they are--which is the conclusion I reached in my thesis.)

They would have most certainly have become more authoritarian, due to the fact that communsim often does not factor human nature as part of the equation.

There is no such thing as "human nature," it's just a (vague and arbitrary) concept people invented so they wouldn't have to be responsible for their own actions. If human nature were actually real, then logically individuality couldn't exist, because it would be physically impossible for an animal to override its nature. So, either our nature is extremely complex and you're misrepresenting it or it doesn't exist to begin with. Individuals are responsible for their own actions, not "human nature."

Or the libertarian communist 'states' would have collapsed immediately, again due to human nature, which commies don't seem to think exists.

The EZLN have been in power since the 90s and anarchist Catalonia was doing very well for itself until the Stalinists started massacring people. And "human nature" doesn't exist.

He probably would have LOVED the Soviets.

Evidence? Oh wait, let me guess, "He was a commie and commies is ebul."

[Proctopeo]

A cursory search of his posts suggests that this is a lie on your part.

Yeah, I got them mixed up with someone else. I addressed it.
Not an intentional lie, but it was still a mistruth on my part.

Good on you for admitting an error.

[Totenborg]

Yeah, I got them mixed up with someone else. I addressed it.
Not an intentional lie, but it was still a mistruth on my part.

Good on you for admitting an error.

Hey, whatever else can be said about me, it can't be said that I am a liar or prone to arguing in bad faith.

[Byzconia]

It is just a manuscript written by ordinary human beings. However, it is horribly outdated.

How?

It lacks many of the fundamental rights found in more modern constitutions as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such as healthcare, education, work, housing, and a minimum standard of living. In practical terms, the system is established is also undemocratic, oligarchic, and obstinate. The electoral system is horribly archaic and long since been rendered impractical by the rise of political parties (something the Founders didn't predict nor plan for). The ideas contained within it make perfect sense for an 18th century experiment in liberal Enlightenment ideals, but is extremely impractical in the 21st century due to how politics and human society have evolved in the interim. That's not to say everything in it bad--far from it--it simply doesn't go far enough in protecting and advancing human rights due to the fact it was written at a time when human rights were still in their infancy.

The fact that it's also so extremely hard to amend only adds to the problems (the provision of amendments made a lot more sense with 13 states than it does with 50).

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Yeah, I got them mixed up with someone else. I addressed it.
Not an intentional lie, but it was still a mistruth on my part.

Good on you for admitting an error.

Agreed, it is good trait. Especially when most posters don't have that decency.