Re: Lisp is Sin


Hi Bruce!

Bruce Hoult <bruce@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> In article <m34q42z8x5.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> David Trudgett <wpower@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Or perhaps it is you does not understand that there are people who
>> define 'communism' differently from the authoritarian and violent
>> agenda promulgated by Marx, Lenin, Stalin et al.
>
> I'm not sure that Marx and Lenin *intended* authoritarian and violent
> results, although those were the natural consequences of their
> philosophy.

I believe you are correct in one sense; and that sense is that Marx (I
don't know about Lenin, who of course, unlike Marx, was a
revolutionary[*]) most likely did not intend violence as a necessary
outcome or ingredient of his philosophy. I assume that, like a
majority of people, he would have preferred a world without
violence.

[*] In the sense of actively taking part in a revolution.

On the other hand, I am loathe to insult a man who has no come back
that he did not have the intelligence to know what the consequences of
trying to implement his ideas in practice would entail. I see no
reason to believe that Marx was a pacifist or philosophically or
pragmatically opposed to violence; therefore, I can only assume that
he was not in principle opposed to the use of violence in implementing
his revolutionary ideas. On the contrary, he seems to have been of the
belief that, at a minimum, an organised and violent revolution would
be necessary on account of his other belief that the ruling class
would not give up their position of privilege voluntarily.


>
>
>> According to your view there could be no such thing as anarchistic
>> communism, but there is, which shows that your view is not entirely
>> complete or balanced as to what 'communism' is exactly.
>
> There is? In theory or in practise?

Christianity, some say, is a theory that has never been put into
practice. Of course, that is not entirely true, as many individuals
and communities throughout the ages have come a lot closer to the
Christian ideal than, say, present day mainstream Churches of all
flavours. Which is to say that, when looking at the present
disgraceful state of Churches, Christianity is no more than a distant
theory to be discussed in the abstract by theologians. Yet
Christianity exists.

Communism can be regarded in a similar light. State communism, making
necessary use, as it does, of violence, is abhorrent and far from any
true spirit of brotherhood. Yet voluntary and free communism can exist
in small and large communities if they are simply left alone. So, yes,
free communism does exist despite communist states, in the same sense
that Christianity exists despite Christian Churches.

As an aside, although I personally lean towards some of the best
ideals of communism, I am not an ideologue, I don't agree with much of
Marxist analysis, and I believe that any free association and
organisation of people without hierarchical power structures is
legitimate. Hunter gatherer societies, for example, though hardly
communist, were also a good idea at the time and, at least in the case
of Australian Aborigines, largely free of "power" hierarchy long
before the word 'anarchism' was ever thought of.


>
>
>> If you define 'communism' as 'authoritarian communism', as brought to
>> you by the great "communists" of the past, then it is indeed an
>> abomination. Social structures built upon authoritarian principles,
>> coercion and oppression (such as our society, by the way) are
>> illegitimate.
>
> I'm with you there.

As are an increasing number, I believe.


>
>
>> The only legitimate communism is free, anarchistic
>> communism in which people participate free of any coercion.
>
> Does this exist anywhere in any group larger than a hippie commune?

Does it have to, though? Certainly, 'communism' and 'state power' do
not go hand in hand. So there will never be a communist state, same as
there will never be a Christian Church based on a power hierarchy.


>
> All those I've seen (and there were three within about 10 km radius of
> the farm I grew up on in the 60's and 70's and several of my teachers
> and some of my school friends lived in them) had one strong and
> charismatic leader. I don't think that scales becuase eventualyl the
> leader needs several layers of deputies and soon enough the deputies
> become thugs.

There will always be individuals with leadership charisma. That, at
least, appears to be a genuine human trait, as does the propensity of
individuals to give weight to the desires of a leader figure. Christ
himself was a leader by all appearances, yet his deputies did not
become thugs, I think... at least not straight away... :-)

Thuggery and the abuse of one's influence over others will be problems
that will never entirely go away, I think. Unless we become radically
different from the way we are now.

Cheers,

David



--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Problems cannot be solved
at the same level of awareness
that created them.

-- Albert Einstein

.

Relevant Pages
Loading