Top Comments
All Comments (56)
-
I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I have had my fill of them. I won't deny the shady aspects of the Bolshevik revolution (like subsidies from wealthy western financiers, etc.), but I prefer to appraise this particular point from the standpoint of their ideology. And implicit to their theories is that of basic autocratic rule directed towards Marxist ends.
I disagree with the (orthodox) Marxist ends, but reluctantly agree with the argument for greater centralization.
-
no, the Bolsheviks believed in a centralized state administration like most totalitarian regimes because it gave them greater control.
-
Science is the interpretation of things as perceived by Man. It can be no more than that. Therefor Man reaches beyond his grasp by expending his talents on explaining the inexplicable. This fact separates Man from ALL Earthen lifeforms. He is a Spiritual Being. [Presidents are chosen by the gentry. Man's interpretation of radio waves, & the like, are not necessarily the same as those of extra-terrestrials. Translation: THEORY = educated GUESS.]
-
Darwinism is not implicitly individualistic. The eternal struggles of nature clearly illustrate how the group dynamic supersedes individual efforts. However, in such cases, the group dynamic is founded on a biological criterion. The fact that Darwinism did not vindicate Marx's dialectic materialism caused many Marxist intellectuals (including Communist scientists like Trofim Lysenko) to reject it all together. Again illustrating the similarities between Marxist zealots and the religious.
-
Because I admit the obvious that makes me a capitalist slave? The blind faith you put into the theories of one man is as absurd as that of a Christian desperately clinging onto his/her faith in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. As long as revolutionary leftists continue to cling to the dogma of Marxism, the less likely we are to seriously get anywhere. However, it might still work in the Third World amongst the peasantry (another paradox if we follow Marxism accordingly).
-
Marxism, Owenism, Leninism, Stalinism each bring to mind, unsatisfactorily, the practices of these Fuhrers {or chairmen, generals, potentates, Saviors} of collectivism. Those who allude & defer to Charles Darwin worshipfully {& google-eyed} may, when so moved, renounce him.
-
My point is that the absence of a strong, centralized state bureaucracy will render any subsequent economic planning inefficient. There's a reason why the Bolsheviks rejected bourgeois democracy and instead opted for a centralized state administration. My difference lies in the fact that I don't find humanity worthy enough to ever do without the guidance of the state. Marx's faith in the human ability stems from flawed sociological analysis -which he was in no way qualified enough to engage in.
-
The absence of State is not the same as absence of administration. Obviously there needs to be plenty of global central planning to make sure that the environment etc is stable.
Not strange, Marx described exactly this kind of crisis spot on 150 years ago. If economists and politicians want to understand the crisis they can just pick up Das Kapital.
Ghouma 2 years ago 7
Why would Keynes accept Communism? What you just quoted there was elitism of the worst sort- calling the working class "boorish", and that the intelligentisa are the root cause of "the seeds of human achievement." This argument has been used since societies began organising themselves based on class rather than egalitarian principles: that the unlettered, unwashed masses are incapable of doing anything unless led by the "decent, intelligent sons of Western Europe." What rubbish.
p1nkfl0yd 2 years ago