US Election 2020

[Hermit]

It started before Stalinism. Perhaps Bolshevism?

Before Bolshevism, even. "...the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat..." Karl Marx...

For Marx government implies a form of dictatorship by one group or class over all others. In the context of his times this is a fair analysis I think, and perhaps still holds true today. In this sense 'dictatorship of the proletariat' can be easily transposed into the popular aphorism 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'. Where Marx parted from the sentiments of Lincoln however was that he saw this form of government as a necessary transitory step on the road to Communism, a road that led away from traditional forms of top-down, hierarchical state control towards a more bottom-up, community-based approach to government. His point was that as the vast majority of people were subject to the control of a small group who embodied and wieled the unlimited power of the state on their own behalf and their own interests, overcoming that situation would involve the vast majority embodying and wielding that power in the interest of themselves. To conflate the word 'dictatorship' in the quote with Stalinism without this context is a little misleading because we don't simply associate 'dictatorship' with the authority to determine the social, economic, and political agenda but with totalitarianisms, despotism, oppression, and brutality etc. Of course, Marx suggested that violence would be necessary to bring about this change in social affairs, but only because the bad guys had all the power and all the guns and would never make a free choice to give up their entrenched power and systems of control voluntarily - particularly as that power and control had been acquired, secured, and maintained by violence in the first place. I'd accept that there's a bit of a paradox there btw.

The enemies of the proletariat were not just the owners of the means of production. They were the millions of supporters of those owners, the entire bourgeoisie, tens of thousands of kulaks, hundreds of thousand cossacks, every soldier fighting on the side of the White Russian army, every peon who attempted to sell a bag of grain and every party member who disagreed with the officially adopted line. All were to be crushed - brutally, summarily and without pity. Lenin made that abundantly clear on many occasions long before Stalin took over, and this was a logical consequence of Marxism - the dictatorship of the proletariat.

"Marx said that the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat lies between capitalism and communism. The more the proletariat presses the bourgeoisie, the more furiously they will resist. We know what vengeance was wreaked on the workers in France in 1848. And when people charge us with harshness we wonder how they can forget the rudiments of Marxism. "

"We can't expect to get anywhere unless we resort to terrorism."

"Comrade Fyodorov, It is obvious that a whiteguard insurrection is being prepared in Nizhni. You must strain every effort, appoint three men with dictatorial powers (yourself, Markin and one other), organise immediately mass terror, shoot and deport the hundreds of prostitutes who are making drunkards of the soldiers, former officers and the like. Not a minute of delay. I can't understand how Romanov could leave at a time like this! [...] Peters, Chairman of the Extraordinary Commission, says that they also have reliable people in Nizhni. You must act with all energy. Mass searches. Execution for concealing arms. Mass deportation of Mensheviks and unreliables."

"Hang (hang without fail, so the people see) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers."

"It is necessary — secretly and urgently to prepare the terror."

"Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws."

So, no, the left has not always accepted the necessity of opposition.

"I am confident that the suppression of the Kazan Czechs and White Guards, and likewise of the bloodsucking kulaks who support them, will be a model of mercilessness."

[Brian Peacock]

While historically accurate haven't you over-egged the pudding somewhat? Marxism, let alone leftism generally, isn't Stalinism, nor does a left leaning perspective necessitate totalitarianism. To be honest, that rebuttal sounds a bit like those lame arguments which tried to pin the horrors of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler et al on atheism. I'm happy to discuss it further, but only if you take the antidote to the 'literal pills' you appear to have overdosed on!

[JimC]

Brian, it is certainly possible to envisage a post-capitalist society which has managed to become peaceful, prosperous, environmentally sane and just. However, the critical problem is "how do we get from here to there?" You've already recognised that the current wielders of power will not go peacefully into that good night, which leads to the principle of violent revolt being built into the DNA of Marxism. For me, the issue is that, when revolutionary violence is begun, then it almost always is self-perpetuating, and provides the perfect soil for dictatorship by violent, ruthless men to flourish.

However compromised and imperfect, for me the only chance is a powerful but peaceful reform movement, committed to non-violent activism. XR, anyone?

[Brian Peacock]

Brian, it is certainly possible to envisage a post-capitalist society which has managed to become peaceful, prosperous, environmentally sane and just. However, the critical problem is "how do we get from here to there?" You've already recognised that the current wielders of power will not go peacefully into that good night, which leads to the principle of violent revolt being built into the DNA of Marxism. For me, the issue is that, when revolutionary violence is begun, then it almost always is self-perpetuating, and provides the perfect soil for dictatorship by violent, ruthless men to flourish.

However compromised and imperfect, for me the only chance is a powerful but peaceful reform movement, committed to non-violent activism. XR, anyone?

Revolutions aren't always bloody. Sometime the powers-that-be come to realise that their position is untenable, unsustainable, and they fold before the ladders are propped up against the lampposts. We all think that everything is forever, until it isn't.

[Tero]

[macdoc]

Pinochet comes to mind tho the resistance to the change was bloody.

[Hermit]

While historically accurate haven't you over-egged the pudding somewhat? Marxism, let alone leftism generally, isn't Stalinism, nor does a left leaning perspective necessitate totalitarianism. To be honest, that rebuttal sounds a bit like those lame arguments which tried to pin the horrors of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler et al on atheism. I'm happy to discuss it further, but only if you take the antidote to the 'literal pills' you appear to have overdosed on!

You have misread my posts I have never - nor will I ever - equate Marxism, or Leninism or Bolshevism for that matter, with Stalinism. Stalin was exclusively about personal dictatorship. The others are about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Be mindful also what I am explicitly disagreeing with you about, namely your assertion that "leftism accepts the necessity of opposition". I provided plenty of historical evidence.

By the way, our discussion regarding the alleged leftist acceptance of the necessity of opposition ought to be hived off into another thread just as our discussion regarding the alleged necessity of racism to capitalism should have been separated from this thread too.

[Hermit]

Brian, it is certainly possible to envisage a post-capitalist society which has managed to become peaceful, prosperous, environmentally sane and just. However, the critical problem is "how do we get from here to there?" You've already recognised that the current wielders of power will not go peacefully into that good night, which leads to the principle of violent revolt being built into the DNA of Marxism. For me, the issue is that, when revolutionary violence is begun, then it almost always is self-perpetuating, and provides the perfect soil for dictatorship by violent, ruthless men to flourish.

However compromised and imperfect, for me the only chance is a powerful but peaceful reform movement, committed to non-violent activism. XR, anyone?

Revolutions aren't always bloody. Sometime the powers-that-be come to realise that their position is untenable, unsustainable, and they fold before the ladders are propped up against the lampposts.

Indeed. The collapse of numerous governments in countries behind the iron curtain during the late 1980s provide plenty of examples. Nary a shot was fired in any of them. The dissolution of the DDR in particular took place in almost a festival atmosphere. My middle sister was at the Berlin wall when it came down. She was surprised and impressed by how unburdened by any fear of violence by the East German police and army the masses were. She told me the event was akin to being part of a crowd in a Rummelplatz. She felt sufficiently relaxed to fill her handbag and pockets with concrete fragments of the wall as it was hammered to pieces. Thousands of others souvenired bits of it.

[Brian Peacock]

While historically accurate haven't you over-egged the pudding somewhat? Marxism, let alone leftism generally, isn't Stalinism, nor does a left leaning perspective necessitate totalitarianism. To be honest, that rebuttal sounds a bit like those lame arguments which tried to pin the horrors of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler et al on atheism. I'm happy to discuss it further, but only if you take the antidote to the 'literal pills' you appear to have overdosed on!

You have misread my posts I have never - nor will I ever - equate Marxism, or Leninism or Bolshevism for that matter, with Stalinism. Stalin was exclusively about personal dictatorship. The others are about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Be mindful also what I am explicitly disagreeing with you about, namely your assertion that "leftism accepts the necessity of opposition". I provided plenty of historical evidence.

It would take only one example to prove your point - if I was making an absolute claim regarding the whole history of the left. This is what I meant when I suggested your were being too literal.

By the way, our discussion regarding the alleged leftist acceptance of the necessity of opposition ought to be hived off into another thread just as our discussion regarding the alleged necessity of racism to capitalism should have been separated from this thread too.

I guess that if people are going to assume that a single individual leftist speaks for all leftists and that a single sentence, or even a single clause of a single sentence, represents the entirety of their views or ideas, thus it stands alone completely divorced from any kind of context and subsequent expansions, qualifications or clarifications are therefore moot, then confusion will probably follow.

Perhaps misunderstandings are inevitable where political discussion online seems to take place in exchanges of around 75 characters, but nonetheless your rebuttal still suggests that leftists need to give an account of the historical horrors of Stalin et al in order to legitimise their ideas today - because in the minds of some, to identify as a lefty is to align oneself with Stalin and Stalinism et al along with the underlying brutality of the ideas and outcomes of that time. Haven't you kinda played into that?

As far as the US is concerned, I do think that what passes for the left is at a disadvantage because it acknowledges that political opposition needs to exist. Perhaps this is only because the American left are perpetual oppositionists(!) but more generally I think it's because the left have far more inclusive, compassionate analysis of the contemporary political landscape and its consequences than the right. For example, most on the left in the US would probably agree that voting should be fair, easy and open to the widest possible number regardless of the outcome of the ballot, because ultimately government derives its legitimacy from the mandate of the people, whereas the American right will seemingly stop at nothing to exclude as many voters as possible and suppress votes that aren't likely to go their way, because ultimately the right aren't interested in the legitimacy of government but in maintaining the systems of power and control which have always worked in their favour.

[Brian Peacock]

Brian, it is certainly possible to envisage a post-capitalist society which has managed to become peaceful, prosperous, environmentally sane and just. However, the critical problem is "how do we get from here to there?" You've already recognised that the current wielders of power will not go peacefully into that good night, which leads to the principle of violent revolt being built into the DNA of Marxism. For me, the issue is that, when revolutionary violence is begun, then it almost always is self-perpetuating, and provides the perfect soil for dictatorship by violent, ruthless men to flourish.

However compromised and imperfect, for me the only chance is a powerful but peaceful reform movement, committed to non-violent activism. XR, anyone?

Revolutions aren't always bloody. Sometime the powers-that-be come to realise that their position is untenable, unsustainable, and they fold before the ladders are propped up against the lampposts.

Indeed. The collapse of numerous governments in countries behind the iron curtain during the late 1980s provide plenty of examples. Nary a shot was fired in any of them. The dissolution of the DDR in particular took place in almost a festival atmosphere. My middle sister was at the Berlin wall when it came down. She was surprised and impressed by how unburdened by any fear of violence by the East German police and army the masses were. She told me the event was akin to being part of a crowd in a Rummelplatz. She felt sufficiently relaxed to fill her handbag and pockets with concrete fragments of the wall as it was hammered to pieces. Thousands of others souvenired bits of it.

Yeah. I was thinking of South Africa.

[Hermit]

...your rebuttal still suggests that leftists need to give an account of the historical horrors of Stalin et al in order to legitimise their ideas today...

Stalin's reign was essentially a personal dictatorship cloaked in a thin veneer of communist ideology. Nothing could be further from my mind than to suggest that leftists need to give an account of the historical horrors of Stalin et al in order to legitimise their ideas today. Furthermore, I actually agree with the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and not just because of the works by Marx and Engels. The first three volumes of E.H. Carr's History of Soviet Russia spans the period up to 1923. They convinced me that the ruthless brutality by the revolutionaries was necessary and unavoidable. The Bolsheviks were forced to apply the thick end of the wedge of K. R. Popper's paradox of tolerance. Stalin had nothing whatsoever to do with that. He was just a tyrant.

...the American left...

In so far as we can even speak of an American left, nothing I wrote in my previous posts applies. This is because I do not regard "the American left" - as exemplified by Bernie Sanders, the New Democrats, The Squad and perhaps Elizabeth Warren - as leftist only within the sandbox that is the US of A.

[Brian Peacock]

I don't disagree, and I did say "...what passes for the left" in America. The Democrat establishment aside, I do detect a rise in interest of progressive ideas in the US - particularly in younger people. The same over here actually. They're looking at their own futures and seeing that the realities really don't match the stories they've been told.

[Scot Dutchy]

The American voting system; waiting 10 hours to vote. Third world conditions...

More than 10-hour wait and long lines as early voting starts in Georgia

Georgia, where at least two counties had problems with electronic pollbooks, is latest state to see extremely long lines on first day of in person voting

Voters in Georgia faced hours-long lines on Monday as people flocked to the polls for the first day of early voting in the state, which has developed a national reputation in recent years for voting issues.

Eager voters endured waits of six hours or more in Cobb County, which was once solidly Republican but has voted for Democrats in recent elections, and joined lines that wrapped around buildings in solidly Democratic DeKalb County. They also turned out in big numbers in north Georgia’s Floyd County, where support for Donald Trump is strong.

At least two counties briefly had problems with the electronic pollbooks used to check in voters. The issue halted voting for a while at State Farm Arena, in Atlanta. Voters who cast their ballots at the basketball stadium, which was being used as an early voting site, faced long waits as the glitch was resolved.

Adrienne Crowley, who waited more than an hour to vote, told the Atlanta Journal Constitution there wasn’t anything that would make her get out of the line to vote. “I would have voted all day if I had to.”

A great system

[Tero]

That Mormon guy. I'll know who it is when I see his face. He sometimes gives Trump a hard time.

SALT LAKE CITY — Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden appeared to forget the name of a certain Utah senator when asked Monday whether Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s faith should be part of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week.

“No, her faith should not be considered,” he said in response to a reporter’s question Monday in Delaware before heading to campaign in Ohio. “I don’t think there’s any questions about her faith.”

Biden then said, “You may remember, I got in trouble when we were running against the senator, who was a Mormon, he was a governor, OK? And I took him on, and nobody’s faith should be questioned.”

[Tero]

Simpsons tree house clip
https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/the-si ... 234801745/