5 ms·

> Landowners would never be the "neighbors" of a peasant in Czarist Russia. Why then the persecution of Kulaks? > More precisely, it would be a war waged bene

by w00pla 17y ago

> Landowners would never be the "neighbors" of a peasant in Czarist Russia. Why then the persecution of Kulaks? > More precisely, it would be a war waged beneath the underclass (in Russia, the serfs and such) and the ruling class. Karl Marx had a word for the “underclass” as you describe them. That is the “lumen-proletariat” (i.e. under the proletariat). What he advocated for them was as bad (if not worse) as his policies against the bourgeois.

pyre 17y ago
> Why then the persecution of Kulaks? You do realize that "what Marx actually preached" and "what happened in Soviet Russia" don't have to be the same thing, right? Do you really believe that Marx preached power-hungry, paranoid rulers that execute anyone that disagrees with them (or is just 'suspected' of doing so)? Arguing against "Marx really stood for Y" with "but X happened in Soviet Russia" is intellectually dishonest.
- w00pla 17y ago
  > You do realize that "what Marx actually preached" and "what happened in Soviet Russia" don't have to be the same thing, right? Looks like the no true Scotsman fallacy?
  - pyre 17y ago
    Your comment "Why then the persecution of Kulaks?" implies that are you arguing against a "what Marx preached" argument with a "X happened in Soviet Russia" response. Am I confusing something here? The "no true scotsman" fallacy would be closer to redefining "Communism" to "Marxist Communism." That's not the case here because this entire thread has been about what Marx himself believed/preached/wrote.
  - prodigal_erik 17y ago
    When totalitarian hellholes call themselves "people's democratic republic of whatever", nobody blames their failings on democracy and republicanism. Why is communism held to a different standard?
    - w00pla 17y ago
      > When totalitarian hellholes call themselves "people's democratic republic of whatever", Because all those groups professes a Marxist philisophy (e.g. The democratic People's Republic of Korea). I personally attribute most of Africa's problems to Marxism. Almost all of the failed states' parties professes a Marxist ideology. No-one can point to a communist country that works. Every communism/Marxist country that fails, is said to be "not truly communist". Yet there are many variations of free market countries and they are all at least moderately successful.
      - pyre 17y ago
        This is like trying to claim that "the Bible is a failure" because people have used it to justify everything from Nazism to plantation slavery to KKK activities. People will glom on to an ideology (X), pull out the parts they don't like (Z) and add in some of their own 'flavor' (Y). Then they try to claim that X+Y-Z = X. And if you try to tell them differently they will just claim that their brand is the 'true' brand of X ideology. This is true of everything from socioeconomic ideologies to religious ideologies. To say that X is a 'failure' because all X+Y-Z combinations up until now have failed is intellectually dishonest. Claiming that making a distinction between X and X+Y-Z is the 'True Scotsman Fallacy' is misguided at best (and misdirection at worst). Most of these 'so-called' communist states are nothing more than power-grabs. They use Communism as a buzz-word to gain the support of the people. Sure they also put private industry under state-control, but this has little to do with trying to improve the condition of the 'common man' and more to do with the increasing power of the government (and therefore the despot). If you're a power-hungry dictator, which sounds better: (1) you have direct control of private industry or (2) private industry can do its own thing making money for other people than yourself? If you want to argue that the term 'Communism' is defined by what the public thinks it means (much the same argument against the people that try to correct the usage of 'begs the question'), then yes, these totalitarian states are Communism, and Communism is a failure. ...But a majority of the (American) public supported invading Iraq because they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11, that doesn't mean it's true. If myself and all of my friends dress up like dinosaurs, act like dinosaurs, and refer to ourselves as dinosaurs, it doesn't make us dinosaurs. Nor does it prove that 'all dinosaurs' were 5-6 feet tall, stood up-right, and spoke English. Edit: clarification
Locke1689 17y ago
Your first point has been satisfiably answered by fellow commenters so I will leave it alone. Karl Marx had a word for the “underclass” as you describe them. That is the “lumen-proletariat” (i.e. under the proletariat). What he advocated for them was as bad (if not worse) as his policies against the bourgeois. No. OK this is clearly an argument from ignorance. First, please don't give German lessons if you don't speak German. The word is "lumpenproletariat" and it doesn't refer to anything like the "underclass" of which I was speaking. Lumpen doesn't translate to "under the proletariat" but to something like "rags of the proletariat." Marx was describing the people who he saw as being the refuse of the society: thieves, con-men, pimps (brothel owners). From Marx himself: Das Lumpenproletariat, diese passive Verfaulung der untersten Schichten der alten Gesellschaft, wird durch eine proletarische Revolution stellenweise in die Bewegung hineingeschleudert, seiner ganzen Lebenslage nach wird es bereitwilliger sein, sich zu reaktionären Umtrieben erkaufen zu lassen. Roughly translated to[1]: The “dangerous class”, the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. You'll notice that he basically said they were tools (ostensibly independent) who were likely to defend the status quo and would have to be defeated when the time came. I'd like to see where he advocated their slaughter. [1] I'm lazy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-ma...
- w00pla 17y ago
  > First, please don't give German lessons if you don't speak German. I did not claim to speak German. (I can understand German when read or speaken slowly to, btw). Also note that your German "translation" is not a translation at all, but a paraphrase of the paragraph in English. The words "thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society" never occurs in the German sections. The correct translation for "diese passive Verfaulung der untersten Schichten der alten Gesellschaft" is "the passive rotting bottommost section of the old society". Don't give German lessons if you do not speak German. Also note that Marx de-humanises the people (by calling them "rotten".
  - 17y ago

by w00pla 17y ago

pyre 17y ago

> Why then the persecution of Kulaks? You do realize that "what Marx actually preached" and "what happened in Soviet Russia" don't have to be the same thing, right? Do you really believe that Marx preached power-hungry, paranoid rulers that execute anyone that disagrees with them (or is just 'suspected' of doing so)? Arguing against "Marx really stood for Y" with "but X happened in Soviet Russia" is intellectually dishonest.

w00pla 17y ago
> You do realize that "what Marx actually preached" and "what happened in Soviet Russia" don't have to be the same thing, right? Looks like the no true Scotsman fallacy?
- pyre 17y ago
  Your comment "Why then the persecution of Kulaks?" implies that are you arguing against a "what Marx preached" argument with a "X happened in Soviet Russia" response. Am I confusing something here? The "no true scotsman" fallacy would be closer to redefining "Communism" to "Marxist Communism." That's not the case here because this entire thread has been about what Marx himself believed/preached/wrote.
- prodigal_erik 17y ago
  When totalitarian hellholes call themselves "people's democratic republic of whatever", nobody blames their failings on democracy and republicanism. Why is communism held to a different standard?
  - w00pla 17y ago
    > When totalitarian hellholes call themselves "people's democratic republic of whatever", Because all those groups professes a Marxist philisophy (e.g. The democratic People's Republic of Korea). I personally attribute most of Africa's problems to Marxism. Almost all of the failed states' parties professes a Marxist ideology. No-one can point to a communist country that works. Every communism/Marxist country that fails, is said to be "not truly communist". Yet there are many variations of free market countries and they are all at least moderately successful.
    - pyre 17y ago
      This is like trying to claim that "the Bible is a failure" because people have used it to justify everything from Nazism to plantation slavery to KKK activities. People will glom on to an ideology (X), pull out the parts they don't like (Z) and add in some of their own 'flavor' (Y). Then they try to claim that X+Y-Z = X. And if you try to tell them differently they will just claim that their brand is the 'true' brand of X ideology. This is true of everything from socioeconomic ideologies to religious ideologies. To say that X is a 'failure' because all X+Y-Z combinations up until now have failed is intellectually dishonest. Claiming that making a distinction between X and X+Y-Z is the 'True Scotsman Fallacy' is misguided at best (and misdirection at worst). Most of these 'so-called' communist states are nothing more than power-grabs. They use Communism as a buzz-word to gain the support of the people. Sure they also put private industry under state-control, but this has little to do with trying to improve the condition of the 'common man' and more to do with the increasing power of the government (and therefore the despot). If you're a power-hungry dictator, which sounds better: (1) you have direct control of private industry or (2) private industry can do its own thing making money for other people than yourself? If you want to argue that the term 'Communism' is defined by what the public thinks it means (much the same argument against the people that try to correct the usage of 'begs the question'), then yes, these totalitarian states are Communism, and Communism is a failure. ...But a majority of the (American) public supported invading Iraq because they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11, that doesn't mean it's true. If myself and all of my friends dress up like dinosaurs, act like dinosaurs, and refer to ourselves as dinosaurs, it doesn't make us dinosaurs. Nor does it prove that 'all dinosaurs' were 5-6 feet tall, stood up-right, and spoke English. Edit: clarification

Locke1689 17y ago

Your first point has been satisfiably answered by fellow commenters so I will leave it alone. Karl Marx had a word for the “underclass” as you describe them. That is the “lumen-proletariat” (i.e. under the proletariat). What he advocated for them was as bad (if not worse) as his policies against the bourgeois. No. OK this is clearly an argument from ignorance. First, please don't give German lessons if you don't speak German. The word is "lumpenproletariat" and it doesn't refer to anything like the "underclass" of which I was speaking. Lumpen doesn't translate to "under the proletariat" but to something like "rags of the proletariat." Marx was describing the people who he saw as being the refuse of the society: thieves, con-men, pimps (brothel owners). From Marx himself: Das Lumpenproletariat, diese passive Verfaulung der untersten Schichten der alten Gesellschaft, wird durch eine proletarische Revolution stellenweise in die Bewegung hineingeschleudert, seiner ganzen Lebenslage nach wird es bereitwilliger sein, sich zu reaktionären Umtrieben erkaufen zu lassen. Roughly translated to[1]: The “dangerous class”, the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. You'll notice that he basically said they were tools (ostensibly independent) who were likely to defend the status quo and would have to be defeated when the time came. I'd like to see where he advocated their slaughter. [1] I'm lazy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-ma...

w00pla 17y ago
> First, please don't give German lessons if you don't speak German. I did not claim to speak German. (I can understand German when read or speaken slowly to, btw). Also note that your German "translation" is not a translation at all, but a paraphrase of the paragraph in English. The words "thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society" never occurs in the German sections. The correct translation for "diese passive Verfaulung der untersten Schichten der alten Gesellschaft" is "the passive rotting bottommost section of the old society". Don't give German lessons if you do not speak German. Also note that Marx de-humanises the people (by calling them "rotten".
- 17y ago