Marxism: an infantile disorder
jos boersema
a bright light. It is all contradictory, from the fact that Marx is
himself a bourgeois in class environment yet he says (maybe he is
right!) everything bouregois is bad; to the fact that Marx says idealism
is bad while being utterly idealistic and divorced from reality in his
proposals for this completely unknown Utopia he's driving for but which
can not even be described, it can be described as 'it has no state, it
has no nations, it has no class divisions, it has no trade,' dare we
say it doesn't exist and is unthinkable ? Marxism also seems to hold
that you can organize millions, billions of people directly, without
a need for markets or specialization in independent trading
corporations; saying that markets always corrupt while at the same time
holding that labor consists solely of saints.
In short: Marxism is an infantile disorder of an infantile mind. Simply
hasn't thought the stuff through for real, that's the whole problem.
It's infantile.
Anarchism is also infantile.
Capitalism is also infantile.
You're all a bunch of little cry-babies, lining up for another
slaughter.
Feodalism is not just infantile, it is utterly criminal. I suppose these
'streetgangs' you hear so much about: they are the growing nucleous of
another round of feudal control if they are allowed to take over. Note
how they control territory and abuse people/labor there: it's a feudal
resurgance (still in its infancy, too).
Economics and lawmaking are part science and part art, if you are no
good at them: LEARN to be good at them ! You can not accomplish that
by reading some blabla books, there is no substitute for thinking on
your own and making your own mistakes in that thinking. You can neither
accomplish anything by thinking for only 20 minutes. We are not in the
early stone age and even then it would take a serious effort to get to
something good (as the North American indians prove, who's systems are
subtle and great, and clearly not the result of 20 minutes of thinking.)
What is it with you people that you simply refuse to think, is this some
kind of disease that you all have inherited ?
--
jos boersema
Notice that marxism believes that in the ancient days, the stone age,
"everything was well and nice." (How utterly stupid !) Anyway, they
simply posited out of nowhere that everything was great when we where
wandering tribes.
Notice something ? Yes, it is the system marx wants to get back to.
Because in a small wandering tribe, you do not have or need
corporations, you do not need to trade because all know all, you do not
need to bother with how land is used, distributed or sold, you do not
need to bother with money. People have some personal belongings and some
very obvious needs such as food, warmth, drink and basic medical care
which can all be provided for by direct democracy on the spot. In such a
small tribe you basically do not need a state-system either, provided
you keep it really very small (which has a great risk of inbreeding i
note, so I guess marx was wrong here too: you do in fact need a form of
decision making that can span several thousands of people at least.)
Notice something ? Look at the structure of marxist thought: "in the
past, all was well, there was no exploitation; we need to get back to a
situation where there is on exploitation." What do I think: Marx is
simply describing his toddler years, with mommy and daddy forming a
little tribe of themselves, all was well and good then, no big problems
to worry about, no evil exploiters roaming around. It was simple, it was
communal, it was warm, it was direct talk: that was the good life.
Much of the western socialist movement has been chasing the toddler days !
Well dudes, if you keep this up you will get there don't worry. The big
catastrophes will come, and eventually we may find ourselves back into
the stone age where suposedly all was well. Wandering accross the lands.
How perfect do you want have the 'Marxism is a child-disorder' be proven !
The ancient days weren't pretty at all, dumbasses. They where harsh,
they where bloody, they where terrible. There was an incredible amount
of abuses all around. Why do you think those ancient tribes couldn't get
their state systems in order (except the indians) ? Because they where
far to violent to bother, to others and to themselves. The past was not
pretty, but if you go even further into the past before the early stone
age, then you get to a situation where the abuses are somewhat less
maybe, because of a lack of tools to foment torturous brutality with.
So there is maybe a little bit of truth there, still. Just enough to
throw the leftist movement on the wrong track for about 150 years.
And of course Marxists don't like laws, because laws are when mommy says
little marx can't take a cookie without asking ! Oh oh, laws are bad !
*
Marxist analyses of capitalism is good, call for unity is good, for
solidarity is good, the rest seems more or less nonsense. Marx said he
didn't bother making solutions, so it can't be surprising that the
solutions attributed to marxism are mere 'child disorder.'
--
jos boersema
> On 2009-12-20, jos boersema <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
[QUOTE]
(...)
Marx himself wrote little about life under
communism, giving only the most general indication as to what
constituted a communist society. It is clear that it entails abundance
in which there is little limit to the projects that humans may
undertake.^[citation needed] In the popular slogan that was adopted by
the communist movement, communism was a world in which each gave
according to their abilities, and received according to their needs.
The German Ideology (1845) was one of Marx's few writings to elaborate
on the communist future:
"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of
activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes,
society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible
for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the
morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening,
criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever
becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."^[10]
(...)
[/QUOTE]
When I read all those "left-wing" scribbles I think to myself
occaisionaly: WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL !?!?!?!?
WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL !!!
WHAT is the protocol for this 'democracy' ?
WHAT is the protocol for just about any proposal whatever ?
/Vagueness/ is what the left-wing writers EXCELL at.
The result is: /nothing/. The historical failure of the oppressive
pretence 'socialist' dictatorships. You can not ACT OUT 'the dialectic
between spontenaeity and organization,' you can not ACT OUT 'from all
according to their ability, to all according to their needs'. Notice
the strong wandering-tribe element right there, where all also need to
know all intimately, and the lack of any structure whatsoever - of any
protocol whatsoever that could actually be done and accomplished -
indicating that we're really talking about a minor wandering tribe.
How in the hell do you do that ? The answer in reality: just do what the
party boss tells you, small member of the working class.
Now compare that to the much more competent (at leading/organizing at
least) French Revolution and the (succesful!) call for universal
suffrage. What is universal suffrage ? IT IS A PROTOCOL THAT CAN BE
ACCOMPLISHED. So it succeeds. What is "all are treated equally in court" ?
IT IS A PROTOCOL THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.
Notice how Marx in his apparently bulk of his writing about what this
communist Utopia would look like, only talks about the kinds of work you
would do in the stone age ? Maybe not even the stone age, because even
in the stone age you needed to do stone tool making, which isn't that
easy at all, and you need to do sowing and all kinds of trades which you
may in fact need to learn. So it's not merely the stone age, it is
either the very early stone age or some kind of fantasy about the stone
age. As if stone age life was peachy simple, and didn't involve many
trades and skills. Even so it's definitely true there where much fewer
trades then, and you probably could become proficient in the bulk of
them if not all if you really wanted to. So marx is not describing the
future of Communism: he is describing the ancient stone age wandering
tribe setting, maybe from several thousands years ago to tens of
thousands of years ago (it was good of Marx to resist idolatry btw, that
magic-thinking that makes people apathic at acting on the problems).
Anyway: always ask, WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL.
What's my system for example: it's a bunch of protocols that can be
achieved. Can you distribute the land, certainly; maybe not with
absolute perfection but you can approach it and do well enough. Can you
band together per 50 persons and elect one housekeeper for that group ?
Sure, why not ? Can that housekeeper then organize a vote ? You want tea
or coffee with that, sure you can accomplish all that. Can you organize
a petition among people, sure, yes it's a protocol, it can be done.
And so on and so on. Can you give a person a bit of credit to start a
business, maybe in cartboard box deliveries, certainly, why not ? How
big does the money need to be ? Do you want the contract with nice
flowers no the paper, or do you prefer things simple. It's a protocol,
it can be done. The money can be payed back from the proceeds of the
business. It can be done. It is a functioning protocol. All these things
on my site are all functioning protocols (ideally, but I'm pretty very
sure it's all coherent and functional because I thought about it a lot
and didn't find any mistakes anymore - oh yes there can be mistakes,
something people never even reach when they only talk in the abstract
never writing a single useful PROTOCOL that can be followed, done,
achieved and having results that are needed.)
P R O T O C O L S. Cut that word out in your desk. See, another PROTOCOL
that you could actually do and accomplish.
"The emancipation of the working class will be the work of the working
class itself." Hehe, ow boy, is that a songline for an Opera ? Because
it sure as hell isn't a protocol that we can DO AND ACCOMPLISH is it.
Or, does it mean we throw away this marxism, because it isn't working
class to begin with. Is that the protocol here ? Considdering that Marx
wasn'tworking class, if we'd have to compute a protocol from
"The emancipation of the working class will be the work of the working
class itself," then that's the end of marxism. Maybe it was even
designed that way, so that once marxism became reactionary (such as
today), there'd be a PROTOCOL for its rejection.
PROTOCOL.
If you are a leftist, say that word 10 times in the morning. Ah, another
protocol. There are good protocols and there are bad protocols. Now the
bad protocols rule, and people suffer. The key is to make good protocols
that do not make people suffer.
This is why the bourgeois rules you: they know protocol is the power,
and you don't. They make protocol why leftists make up vagueness.
Their protocols get done by some people, the absolute lack of any useful
protocols on the left means there's nothing at all that can be done,
except ad-hoc spontenaity that has no lasting power/influence, that
isn't replicated accross time. The bourgeois opens with a tide of
protocol - not even all of it is bad, not at all. Some of it is good and
the product of the French revolution and progressive pressures. Some of
it is part of general order, such as traffic laws, and not being allowed
to counterfit money, not to murder and steal. Some of it is mildly
substandard that could be greatly improved, such as IMHO the laws
governing the representative of the polity; even if you may not agree to
complete overhaul, there are ways to make it more democratic (see for
example my 3.1.b Referendum PROTOCOL THAT CAN BE DONE AND ACHIEVED.)
Then to counter that, what does the left do ? They throw in a few stones
into the tide, or a few buckets of water if you prefer. A few
demonstrations and petitions, some strikes. Petty actions, petite
leftism. No grandiose PROTOCOLS that would re-define the whole society.
A few reactions (re-reactions if you want) to bourgeois decisions, which
typically reduce worker rights and increase suffering, as they are done
under the interests of finance which gains enormous controlling
influence in a rotting chaos economy.
What's the protocol, the course of action, the LAW of the left ?
'Blablabla, it would be good if the people controlled blablabla.'
At the end of the day we have nothing.
Write your PROTOCOLS if you want to make any significant impact on
anything. Vagueness was always the problem with the Greek thinking, and
also with German thinking. This hovering so far away from reality that
it becomes a detached observation of what's happening, without any
possibility of actually acting upon reality.
Maybe because of this it isn't Germany which is the primary country for
socialist revolution. Too vague, too 'head in the sky'ish, too abstract,
too platonic.
Go ahead and accuse me of being vague, you know it's not true. Go ahead
and search out where some leftist writer has said something that can
really be done, forming a repeatable PROTOCOL for a better society.
IOW: Law, think in laws. It's a war of laws, bad laws versus good laws.
That's what 'it's all about,' imho. Roman law, versus good law. That
good law is still mostly missing to report to the battle front, though
one has to admit that the Torah has some meaningful LAWS -- and guess
you what, it's been around for millenia now, MILLENIA!, I don't think
marxism will be remembered that long because it's just too meaningless;
and also the red indians have stunning sets of laws and traditions, the
creme dela creme of state formation of the world. And then there's my
law system too, probably one of the most detailed sets of state and
economic PROTOCOLS THAT CAN BE DONE for the left ever (and you can
indeed combine them, and should, with what's good in bourgois law
protocols, such as contract law, no theft, no murder, etc; which was
also all progressive and not to be credited to the international finance
mafia who don't shy away from murder of course.)
PROTOCOL, things that can be done, and done again, producing good
results. The better protocol do not work against self-interest, but line
up with it.
--
http://www.socialism.nl <<--- LAW of the left, PROTOCOLS that can be done.
'What is to be done' ? Write good protocols, and then go do them.
jos boersema
> On 2009-12-20, jos boersema <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-20, jos boersema <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
[...]
1Action Decisions Tactics Strategy Laws Principles Empty
Itself | | | | | Abstractions
v v v v v v v
Marxist-Leninist-Trotsyist-Luxembourgist-Maoist-Etcraist:
yes yes yes few none few yes
''We must organize a vanguard party.'' You can call that a tactic,
it's only true in a very peculiar setting.
''We need a world revolution to prevent other nations attacking.''
It seems a more general condition, you can call it a strategy imho.
Some other strategic decisions have been: to use strikes. These
two strategies are also protocol that can actually be done. ''We
must organize a vanguard party,'' is not really that functional,
because what really is that ? Who is to be in it ? It is all mighty
vague when it comes to action on the ground. But it sort of is a
tactic for a short period (a tactic I don't agree with btw, since
it's not really democratic; talking / convincing 'the masses' may
be a good thing, but it must be mass organization and will that
acts to achieve their aims, or it won't be stable anyway.)
There is also quite a bit of action with the Marxist-* left, unlike
with the 'social-democrats' who seem relatively placid, and have
historically failed with their attempt to infiltrate bourgeois
bureaucracy / parliament, because they themselves largely corrupted
and became that bourgeois.
There are a few principles formulated, notably: solidarity and peace,
no exploitation, everyone should work ('workers state' after all?)
and have work. The echo of the French revolution: freedom, equality,
brotherhood is no doubt supported too (or should be). Beyond principles
there seems to be a dire attachment to extreme vagueness and endless
empty words which on closer examination really mean next to nothing
(Marx excells at that, making the simple matter unbelievably complicated
and ranting on about it - I can do that too? ;) - without end).
Critically though, the one area they should be STRONG in: laws, nothing.
What laws did they make, there are the '10 planks of communism.' More
like a set of 10 principles then laws that you can realidy do.
(I did not write this. My comments between {...} below each point.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#10_point_program
[QUOTE]
10 point program
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land
to public purposes.
{Dumb, what does rent mean if there is no property in land anyway,
artifact of cheap thinking again ? Property in land is no problem, as
long as everyone can get their share; and what else if there's no
private rights to land, it's all under state control, why ? Chances
for state corruption seem mighty then, with such a mighty state.}
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
{Income tax ? It's very bureaucratic and cumbersome, it will crush
casual trade between free people. I'd prefer a fixed sum head tax, and
a relatively high wealth maximum for all, and minimum-wage law, and
special circumstances for the very poor, and adequate assistence all
around (unemployement, disease), and forced to work for Government when
taxes have not been payed. I personally see income tax as such, as a
reactionary measure to drive the people in to the claws of the big
corporations and away from trivial free person to free person trade;
although otoh historically it had a function to cut extreme incomes -
it may have been better (still) to not do any income tax but do heavy
taxes on ownership instead, which wealthy people have more then poor
people, leaving the income free of burden. Driving people to trade with
big corporations (such as "the big houscleaning conglomorate" instead
of your neigbor in exchange for casual cash) drives people to the big
banks, thus it's reactionary imho.}
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
{I don't think that's very functional, because people can give gifts to
others thus avoiding inheritance law. If the object is to do away with
the grotesque practices of the nobility: a maximum on personal wealth
should do that ?}
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
{Excessive on the emigrants, and what is a "rebel" ?! People should have
the right to their opinion, in particular when they don't agree with the
powers that be, thus this is basically asking for abuses of power.}
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a
national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
{Ah, socialization of credit is a good idea, however its centralization
is the wrong way to do it. It should be (somewhat of) a monopoly so that
it does nto stimulate business dictatorships anymore. However, imho, it
should be brought under many hundreds, even thousands of funds located
throughout the nation and under control of all kinds of small local and
regional government and special needs programs set up by them under
their power, direction and responsibility, affording a widespread access
to this investment capital, so that business upstarts have a wide choice
of funds they could attempt to tap into increasin personal freedom and
reducing acts of petty policy. Compare a crop field: should you give
water to the plants in small droplets everywhere, or just dump a big
pile of water right in the center. It's tender, crops and corporations,
they emerge slowly from any direction, it's like a set of crops.}
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the
hands of the State.
{Hell no! This is really bad. Is this some kind of joke, is this
really from Marx / communists ?!. If this is 'communism' then maybe the
social-democrats may have been right all along, because it's better not
to act then to establish this kind of oppression. Centralization of the
means of communication sounds really sick, though I seem to remember
this being about the press rather then all.}
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the
improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common
plan.
{The well known plan-economy idea, which won't work because nations are
too big for that.}
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial
armies, especially for agriculture.
{The logical result of not having markets: total state control over
everything, with the extreme chance that it will be a dictatorship, a
hell hole, because it will not work because it is too big, hence
corruption will rule (probably within 6 month').}
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more
equitable distribution of the population over the country.
{Like little plants people can get ordered around hmmm ? What a lust
for power there, that typical ultra-abstract platonic overview position,
basically the G.d position over it all. Who are they to say where people
will live, if people want to live in cities or not, who are they to make
it some kind of directive, for what reason.}
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of
children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of
education with industrial production.^[8]
{Ok, though I note the amuzing contradiction that Dutch NCPN party
vehemently opposed young people to get shoved into factories denying
them the chance of a wholesome free education and making workerslaves
from them. But lookie here: the capitalist want to put young people into
the corporations is actually part of the marxist gameplan.}
According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions
for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels
later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.^[9]
{Crazy stuff!}
[/QUOTE]
*
I know that it was a time when many people still clung to monarchy (no
less), or even serfdom; so it all had a great progressive influence,
indeed mostly in the 'vague' category of culture and general vagueness.
Still, we are here now and we need laws that work well.
I'll say that in all of the tumble and rumble 1850-1921, I'd still favor
the marxists and Bolsheviks over all the other lame ducks who would
whore themselves out to the demons of capital and feudal power in a few
seconds, only to let the world descend into another set of dark ages,
perhaps permanently this time. The only reason these lame semi-left
groups and movements (chiefly the 'social democrats') retained anything
of a progressive nature seems to be the hard pressure from the marxists
on it all. Take that away, the 'social democrats' would probably be gone
and forgotten within 15 years; capitalist/feudal evil would rule with an
iron fist and the old social-democrats who sold out be rewarded their
positions of luxury within the ruling class, laughing at how they
scammed the working class into another stint of unbearable suffering
(like they do right now, they start in the Union top, then move to the
Parliament and end rich in the banking sector for having sold out).
People tend to forget how bad things where under the feudal system and
laissez faire capitalism (yes dipshit Americans, laissez faire you read
that right), when the judge the corruption of the communist / socialist
/ marxist revolutions. But that is not justice.
*
I admit though that I'm surprised at reading those 10 planks (again), it
is really not a good program, it won't end pretty imho. At the same time
you'd have to remember that the papers in the day where pure lies and
distortion, causing immense suffering as the gullible public supported
their enemy: the capitalist ruling class. So it's not exactly without
trying to go in the better direction - hindsight is easy but it was very
bad in the day.
--
http://www.socialism.nl (NOT MARXISM!)