tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post36401109497586024..comments2023-09-12T09:17:19.865-07:00Comments on Socialist Humanism with a human face: SocialismJDHURFhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02133971619468463558noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-75443353059493068742007-10-17T18:43:00.000-07:002007-10-17T18:43:00.000-07:00lefthenry:Again. It appears that many Trotskyists...lefthenry:<BR/><BR/>Again. It appears that many Trotskyists would do well to review the events in Spain during the thirties. There was not required any petty-bourgeoisie vanguard party in order to carry out socialist revolution, to the contrary. It was the Bolshevik power - itself the product of a largely bourgeoisie vanguard, its history and evolution we all by now know so very well – which helped crush the anarchist-socialist revolution in Spain. <BR/><BR/>It is always necessary to separate doctrine from practice. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for stopping by and commenting.JDHURFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133971619468463558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-4657233657449872822007-10-11T18:46:00.000-07:002007-10-11T18:46:00.000-07:00"which may manifest itself through a new ruling el..."which may manifest itself through a new ruling elite or “vanguard,” around which a new exploitive class inevitably emerges."<BR/><BR/>hmm how so? A vanguard is simply the organization which is at the forefront of the struggle for socialism. A vanguard is necessary because revolution requires that type of leadership. Spontanoues uprisings are usually limited in effect. Why? Because there needs to be a vanguard to channel the anger of the masses towards social revolution. Take a look at this<BR/><BR/>http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=818LeftyHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05870433011584211043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-67872068960520569042007-09-14T09:50:00.000-07:002007-09-14T09:50:00.000-07:00You and I are on the same page. The fact that righ...You and I are on the same page. <BR/><BR/>The fact that rights come from below is lost on many people. Freedom of speech, for example, wasn't a right many in the US had until the 1960s or so. An unenforced law is quite worthless.Graemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04230080850680753260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-19495276672428217182007-09-14T08:18:00.000-07:002007-09-14T08:18:00.000-07:00Jim Jay said "Marx was a fine socialist and theori...Jim Jay said <I>"Marx was a fine socialist and theorist but he doesn't own the entirity of future history. A socialist society may or may not conform to the dictatorship of the proletariat but, I think, we should start with the real not attempting to fit life to the theory."</I><BR/><BR/>I take a more autonomous Marxist position myself but I do think there is validity to the idea of class dominance as a means of attaining socialism.<BR/><BR/><I>"There are a number of ways in which it is possible for a society which is run by and for the working class might not be a tight fit with Marx's theories."</I><BR/><BR/>Don't mistake what I'm saying. I wholeheartedly agree that there are other options and other possibilities for attaining the abolition of private property and worker-control of the means of production.<BR/><BR/>"Dictatorship of the proletariat" referred to the workers taking control of the state originally but in a broader sense, Marx referred to the workers as the dominant class. With that in mind, I would put anarcho-syndicalism and other strains of "socialism" in that category. Socialism will have to be implemented in a manner unique to the material conditions of the society from which it forms.MC Fanonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04966360672502646830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-5511274625872380072007-09-14T03:33:00.000-07:002007-09-14T03:33:00.000-07:00Dave M However, socialism as an actual mode of pro...Dave M <I>However, socialism as an actual mode of production is the Marxist "dictatorship of the proletariat",</I><BR/><BR/>Marx was a fine socialist and theorist but he doesn't own the entirity of future history. A socialist society may or may not conform to the dictatorship of the proletariat but, I think, we should start with the real not attempting to fit life to the theory.<BR/><BR/>There are a number of ways in which it is possible for a society which is run by and for the working class might not be a tight fit with Marx's theories. <BR/><BR/>You can argue, if you want, that it can't work any other way but I'm not sure you can legitimately argue that means a socialist society is only one that conforms to Marx's theoriesJim Jeppshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17410387006098326671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-11114781713814537482007-09-14T01:24:00.000-07:002007-09-14T01:24:00.000-07:00renegade eye said:Are you familiar with Trotsky's ...renegade eye said:<BR/><I>Are you familiar with Trotsky's secretary Raya Dunayevskay, who pioneered socialist humanism?</I><BR/><BR/>I have not read Raya Dunayevskay, but now I surely shall. Thank you for bringing her to my attention. <BR/><BR/>I am not a socialist humanist in the strictest sense of the term, a Marxist who more closely follows the early radical humanism of Marx rather than the later Marx, although I have read and been inspired by Erich Fromm’s socialist humanism. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for stopping by and commenting.JDHURFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133971619468463558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-82776892647898849602007-09-14T01:07:00.000-07:002007-09-14T01:07:00.000-07:00Comrade Dave said:”socialism as an actual mode of ...Comrade Dave said:<BR/><I>”socialism as an actual mode of production is the Marxist "dictatorship of the proletariat", though I feel even that is consistent with anarcho-syndicalist leanings.”</I><BR/><BR/>The phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” refers to the Marxist conception of a transitory state which, according to Marxists, must necessarily precede any true socialist society. Anarcho-syndicalists disagree with this. <BR/><BR/><I>Question: You oppose Leninism (as do I now) but do you also reject, as Bakunin did, the idea of socialism as a mode of production?</I><BR/><BR/>When you say “socialism as a mode of production” do you refer to the means and modes of production, as well as the way in which commodities are distributed, being owned and decided by the workers and people themselves? If this is what you mean, then my view of a future socialist society is very much based upon the idea of socialism as a mode of production. <BR/><BR/><I>Libertarian socialism has always struck me as an interesting concept because it seems to want the basis of Marxism in conjunction with traditional anarchism.</I> <BR/><BR/>I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this. <BR/><BR/><I>”Other than to better clarify your own ideology, what differentiates traditional collectivist anarchism from libertarian socialism if there is no transitional mode of production?”</I><BR/><BR/>Collectivists, such as Bakunin, who I disagree with on this and various other points, argue correctly for the means and modes of production to be socialized while, incorrectly in my view, retaining a labor based wage system.<BR/>Libertarian socialism is in fact the broader of the two tendencies; collectivist anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism, as is anarcho-syndicalism. <BR/><BR/>Thank you very much for stopping by and leaving your thoughts and questions.JDHURFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133971619468463558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-84020167466330431142007-09-13T15:34:00.000-07:002007-09-13T15:34:00.000-07:00At my blog one of the foremost socialist humanist ...At my blog one of the foremost socialist humanist is a writer, her name is Maryam Namazie from Iran originally.<BR/><BR/>Are you familiar with Trotsky's secretary <A HREF="http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/index.htm" REL="nofollow">Raya Dunayevskay</A>, who pioneered socialist humanism?Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-47099781485131681162007-09-13T14:02:00.000-07:002007-09-13T14:02:00.000-07:00Like you point out, socialism can be used in many ...Like you point out, socialism can be used in many ways to describe similar ideologies. However, socialism as an actual mode of production is the Marxist "dictatorship of the proletariat", though I feel even that is consistent with anarcho-syndicalist leanings.<BR/><BR/>Question: You oppose Leninism (as do I now) but do you also reject, as Bakunin did, the idea of socialism as a mode of production? Libertarian socialism has always struck me as an interesting concept because it seems to want the basis of Marxism in conjunction with traditional anarchism. Other than to better clarify your own ideology, what differentiates traditional collectivist anarchism from libertarian socialism if there is no transitional mode of production?MC Fanonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04966360672502646830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-45284195377714675192007-09-13T02:40:00.000-07:002007-09-13T02:40:00.000-07:00melloncollie said:"Question: Gonzales referred to ...melloncollie said:<BR/>"Question: Gonzales referred to the standards of the U.S. Charter as "quaint?" LOL!! That would be hilarious if it weren't sad."<BR/><BR/>The direct quote is to be found in a memo Gonzales wrote to Bush in support of the use of "special renditions," in plain words, torture: <BR/><BR/>"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a —high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."<BR/><BR/>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/site/newsweek/<BR/><BR/>Thank you for stopping by and commenting.JDHURFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133971619468463558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-87953000734394864042007-09-12T08:51:00.000-07:002007-09-12T08:51:00.000-07:00I meant UN Charter.I meant UN Charter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19106619.post-65945256594492534542007-09-12T08:48:00.000-07:002007-09-12T08:48:00.000-07:00Very well-written and researched. The quotes from ...Very well-written and researched. The quotes from Kurtz, Chomsky, and others add immeasurably to the essay. You always manage to come up with something interesting to say, and then say it quite well.<BR/><BR/>I love this sentence: "That an overwhelming majority of the population agrees that space should not be militarized, that weapons of mass destruction should not be proliferated, that Social Security should not be destroyed, that there should be increased federal funding for social programs such as education and health, and that the Kyoto protocol should be signed, while government policy is diametrically opposed, is illustrative of this fact."<BR/><BR/>Question: Gonzales referred to the standards of the U.S. Charter as "quaint?" LOL!! That would be hilarious if it weren't sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com