Castro Resigns as Cuba's President

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Just imagine what they must think of you!!

Yeah, except I really don't care.

Its funny, when you ask people wearing that ######ed t-shirt if they have any idea what kind of man Che was, and what kind of horrible things he did....most of them have no idea.

Apparently its 'cool'....hence the reason why they're 'ignorant.'

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, except I really don't care.

Its funny, when you ask people wearing that ######ed t-shirt if they have any idea what kind of man Che was, and what kind of horrible things he did....most of them have no idea.

Apparently its 'cool'....hence the reason why they're 'ignorant.'

I have the same internal reaction when I see someone wear a t-shirt or hat with the Soviet/Chinese red star on it. Might as well be wearing a swastika in my opinion...

Although, I never say it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by peter12

I have the same internal reaction when I see someone wear a t-shirt or hat with the Soviet/Chinese red star on it. Might as well be wearing a swastika in my opinion...

Although, I never say it.

Yeah, usually it isn't worth it.

But I did ask some kids in school if they knew what kind of a monster he was.

'Duuuuude....its cool!!!'

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Classic socialism with roots in Hegal and Marx, with revolutionary adaptions by Mao, Lenin, Trotskey, and Stalin definitely advocates the wiping of human nature with a re-write carried out by a strong state.

I'm not a socialist, and my opinion on Castro is "good riddance"--though I think the jury is out on whether his brother will be any better.

But I think your understanding of the Left Hegelian tradition is a little flawed. Mao, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin don't really belong in the same category as Marx, who along with Engels was primarily a social theorist. His one explicit political tract, the Communist Manifesto, argues not that human nature should be wiped clean, but that workers should reclaim part of the capital that they produce. It's pretty short on specifics--and if you've read it you know that. If you haven't I think you'll be surprised--it's worth picking up.

An interesting wrinkle--according to the Marxist philosophy, the endpoint of capitalism (not Marxism) is the erasure of the individual subject, who is anyway powerless in the face of monopoly capitalism, which is the final stage in its historical advancement. Note that his attitude toward "human nature" is precisely opposite to what you say.

The old saw that "Stalin wasn't a real Marxist" is true. To equate them is to engage in bad politicial history. Stalin may well have believed that "human nature should be wiped clean." Marx didn't.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm not a socialist, and my opinion on Castro is "good riddance"--though I think the jury is out on whether his brother will be any better.

But I think your understanding of the Left Hegelian tradition is a little flawed. Mao, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin don't really belong in the same category as Marx, who along with Engels was primarily a social theorist. His one explicit political tract, the Communist Manifesto, argues not that human nature should be wiped clean, but that workers should reclaim part of the capital that they produce. It's pretty short on specifics--and if you've read it you know that. If you haven't I think you'll be surprised--it's worth picking up.

An interesting wrinkle--according to the Marxist philosophy, the endpoint of capitalism (not Marxism) is the erasure of the individual subject, who is anyway powerless in the face of monopoly capitalism, which is the final stage in its historical advancement. Note that his attitude toward "human nature" is precisely opposite to what you say.

The old saw that "Stalin wasn't a real Marxist" is true. To equate them is to engage in bad politicial history. Stalin may well have believed that "human nature should be wiped clean." Marx didn't.

Marx expanded upon the traditional Hegalian notion of synthesis and the end of history. This implicit recognition of progress represents a belief in a blank slate. You get more of this from Das Kapital, the Manifesto was just a tract, mainly written by Engels. Marx's theory of species-essence expounded upon his belief that humans could essentially be the producers of their own future/nature.

I don't really want to get into a deep discussion on Marx, as I've only read stuff regarding his view on human nature, but the implicit assumption of man being a blank slate is definitely there and is definitely a result of his reading of Hegal.

Mao and Lenin were theorists in the Marxist tradition, but they also believed in the Marxist synthesis of praxis. Both put their own specific theories, tailor-made for rural peasantry, into action and revolution. Stalin was definitely a Marxist, he differed with Trotsky on the nature of the revolution. Stalin believed it needed to be completed in Russia before turning into a global class struggle.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Marx expanded upon the traditional Hegalian notion of synthesis and the end of history. This implicit recognition of progress represents a belief in a blank slate. You get more of this from Das Kapital, the Manifesto was just a tract, mainly written by Engels. Marx's theory of species-essence expounded upon his belief that humans could essentially be the producers of their own future/nature.

I don't really want to get into a deep discussion on Marx, as I've only read stuff regarding his view on human nature, but the implicit assumption of man being a blank slate is definitely there and is definitely a result of his reading of Hegal.

Mao and Lenin were theorists in the Marxist tradition, but they also believed in the Marxist synthesis of praxis. Both put their own specific theories, tailor-made for rural peasantry, into action and revolution. Stalin was definitely a Marxist, he differed with Trotsky on the nature of the revolution. Stalin believed it needed to be completed in Russia before turning into a global class struggle.

This is the second thread in as many days that has become super-theoretical for me!

I didn't say Stalin wasn't a "Marxist," I said he wasn't a "real Marxist." What I meant by that is that Stalin's interpretation was flawed. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool marxist can't turn their head away from the atrocities committed by Stalin--he was a bad, bad man. Was he an honest realization of the Marxian notion of a post-capitalist, post-class society? Hardly. All he did was replace the older class system with a newer one that was faceless and bureaucratic, but no less oppressive. Stalin's view was one where the individual's needs are subverted to protect a collective authority enforced by the apparatchiks of the state. Marx valued the individual far more--to him, the erasure of the subject was capitalism's greatest crime.

It strikes me that your analysis must be based on an indirect theoretical interpretation of Left Hegelianism. I infer from your comments that you haven't actually encountered Hegel directly. So: a specific question or two about your logic here, which I'm hoping you can clarify for me.

1. How do you get from teleology (the end of history) to a blank slate? One is a historical interpretation of the Hegelian dialectic. The other sounds like enlightenment liberalism, not left Hegelianism--though "tabula rasa" could be aristotelian for all it matters. In fact, it seems to me like the existence of the dialectic contradicts the notion of human nature as a blank slate.

2. That humans can be the producers of their own nature hardly sounds like the erasure of the individual that you seem to fear.

For my money, Marx wasn't a bad guy. He was optimistic--and as for history, he was wrong--demonstrably wrong in hindsight. But his heart was in the right place.

Stalin? Pure evil. Mao? Castro? These are/were not good people. Whatever ideological flag they chose to rap themselves in doesn't change that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This is the second thread in as many days that has become super-theoretical for me!

I didn't say Stalin wasn't a "Marxist," I said he wasn't a "real Marxist." What I meant by that is that Stalin's interpretation was flawed. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool marxist can't turn their head away from the atrocities committed by Stalin--he was a bad, bad man. Was he an honest realization of the Marxian notion of a post-capitalist, post-class society? Hardly. All he did was replace the older class system with a newer one that was faceless and bureaucratic, but no less oppressive. Stalin's view was one where the individual's needs are subverted to protect a collective authority enforced by the apparatchiks of the state. Marx valued the individual far more--to him, the erasure of the subject was capitalism's greatest crime.

It strikes me that your analysis must be based on an indirect theoretical interpretation of Left Hegelianism. I infer from your comments that you haven't actually encountered Hegel directly. So: a specific question or two about your logic here, which I'm hoping you can clarify for me.

1. How do you get from teleology (the end of history) to a blank slate? One is a historical interpretation of the Hegelian dialectic. The other sounds like enlightenment liberalism, not left Hegelianism--though "tabula rasa" could be aristotelian for all it matters. In fact, it seems to me like the existence of the dialectic contradicts the notion of human nature as a blank slate.

2. That humans can be the producers of their own nature hardly sounds like the erasure of the individual that you seem to fear.

For my money, Marx wasn't a bad guy. He was optimistic--and as for history, he was wrong--demonstrably wrong in hindsight. But his heart was in the right place.

Stalin? Pure evil. Mao? Castro? These are/were not good people. Whatever ideological flag they chose to rap themselves in doesn't change that.

Well you got me there... I've encountered Marx directly many times, but Hegal only once and that was in a reading to interpret the Kojeve-Strauss debate. Actually, I spend a lot of time doing practical research and have only just started going back into theoretical stuff, so I'm a little rusty.

To me, dialectics and the end of history point towards a blank slate with its definition of Hegalian progress. To Hegal and Marx, progress was an active state, a chosen struggle by humans to end up at a desired endpoint. This differs from say, Lockian tabula rasae, but has the same perspective anyway. If you acknowledge change in the world, than you must also acknowledge active transformation in the human condition. This becomes the basis for the practical elements of Marxist theory. The class struggle can only be completed if everyone agrees with it and those who don't must be eliminated.

Teleology, essentially, becomes secular millenarianism, which has the same perspective of basic human nature, that it needs to be changed.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This is the second thread in as many days that has become super-theoretical for me!

I didn't say Stalin wasn't a "Marxist," I said he wasn't a "real Marxist." What I meant by that is that Stalin's interpretation was flawed. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool marxist can't turn their head away from the atrocities committed by Stalin--he was a bad, bad man. Was he an honest realization of the Marxian notion of a post-capitalist, post-class society? Hardly. All he did was replace the older class system with a newer one that was faceless and bureaucratic, but no less oppressive. Stalin's view was one where the individual's needs are subverted to protect a collective authority enforced by the apparatchiks of the state. Marx valued the individual far more--to him, the erasure of the subject was capitalism's greatest crime.

Mind if I play. Your right, Stalin wasn't a Marxist, but he is almost the perfect communist in a lot of ways. Stalin ruthlessly applied the concept of metaphysics to a real world scenario, however when you combine it with his real mental illnesses and a ruthless streak created by his upbringing and his type of education you get someone that is extremely goal oriented.

The best example of Stalin having the ability to ruthlessly due away with the concerns of the people over the concerns of the state would be in his hero projects and 5 year plans where he intentionally went out of his way to force near slavery like conditions in order to reach the goals of the nation.

The Politburo after the death of Stalin might have outwardly complained about and erased Stalins legacy, but they certainly applied the same methods in a somewhat more civilized manner. In others words they used assumed civility in the face of Stalin's ruthless and driven manner.



It strikes me that your analysis must be based on an indirect theoretical interpretation of Left Hegelianism. I infer from your comments that you haven't actually encountered Hegel directly. So: a specific question or two about your logic here, which I'm hoping you can clarify for me.

1. How do you get from teleology (the end of history) to a blank slate? One is a historical interpretation of the Hegelian dialectic. The other sounds like enlightenment liberalism, not left Hegelianism--though "tabula rasa" could be aristotelian for all it matters. In fact, it seems to me like the existence of the dialectic contradicts the notion of human nature as a blank slate.

2. That humans can be the producers of their own nature hardly sounds like the erasure of the individual that you seem to fear.

For my money, Marx wasn't a bad guy. He was optimistic--and as for history, he was wrong--demonstrably wrong in hindsight. But his heart was in the right place.

Stalin? Pure evil. Mao? Castro? These are/were not good people. Whatever ideological flag they chose to rap themselves in doesn't change that.[/quote]

[RougeUnderoos]

With all this talk about commies and Che Guevara's image...




Check that watch! It's a Rolex Submariner. I don't know where he got it, but if you were to buy one of those today you'd drop maybe 10 grand.

Doesn't mean anything, but I do think it's funny. He might as well have been driving a Cadillac.

And I think it was Cowperson who said "he makes a good t-shirt" or something along those lines -- no doubt about. We wouldn't even know who he is without that photo.

This is kind of an interesting bit about it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_%28photo%29

[habernac]

that is awesome, Rouge! For a guy who was famous for "walking the walk" (eg, did not live a luxurious lifestyle in order to promote "the cause") that's a damning photograph.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by habernac

that is awesome, Rouge! For a guy who was famous for "walking the walk" (eg, did not live a luxurious lifestyle in order to promote "the cause") that's a damning photograph.

I don't know a lot about him but he was a physician and I believe came from a wealthy Argentine family, so keeping a Rolex seems logical and hardly damning while living rough..

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Mind if I play.

Not at all! The more the merrier.

Your right, Stalin wasn't a Marxist, but he is almost the perfect communist in a lot of ways. Stalin ruthlessly applied the concept of metaphysics to a real world scenario, however when you combine it with his real mental illnesses and a ruthless streak created by his upbringing and his type of education you get someone that is extremely goal oriented.

The best example of Stalin having the ability to ruthlessly due away with the concerns of the people over the concerns of the state would be in his hero projects and 5 year plans where he intentionally went out of his way to force near slavery like conditions in order to reach the goals of the nation.

The Politburo after the death of Stalin might have outwardly complained about and erased Stalins legacy, but they certainly applied the same methods in a somewhat more civilized manner. In others words they used assumed civility in the face of Stalin's ruthless and driven manner.

I think this is a good analysis. If I can poach from it your use of the notion of the state, I think this was exactly Stalin's problem (besides, of course, his being a sociopath). Marx and his tradition are actually quite suspicious of the state, because the main idea of Marxism is to do away with structures of authority and ideology--and that doesn't only mean capitalism but so-called "superstructural" vehicles of ideology, including government, the police, etc. etc.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Marx would have been horrified by Stalin's Russia. And the intellectual wing of the international Marxist movement recognized very early that Stalin had perverted the essence of Marxism and made it something ugly. I'm thinking in particular of the so-called "Frankfurt School," who very pointedly fled to the U.S. during the war and not to the Soviet Union, who they pretty much to a man saw as morally bankrupt.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think if I was going to do a comparison, Communism was the ized version of socialism lacking the humanity that makes government work.

You also have to realize, from Lenin, to Stalin they represented a vicious cult of personality that had one person as the heart of the party. In effect Stalin was the Soviet Union, and all power was consolidated to him, so going back to the first point. Communism was dictated and for the most part has always been founded on the power of one powerful individual who could basically shape the party to his whims.

In nearly every form of early to mid 20th century communism, you saw the concept of workers paradise as the internal motivator for the people, but very few people who actually held power.

Of course it gets uber perverted as it has been in North Korea where they've added the concept of dynastic succession to original Mao based communist theory.

Where Socialism worked to some extent in Western Europe was that there was oversight in a parliamentary configuration. Communism alluded to it with the illusion of local party representation, but that party was subservient to a central committee, and that central committee cowered to the strongest member of that party.

Now Kruschev (sp?) tried to change it so that an individual couldn't accumulate the god like powers of a Lenin or a Stalin, but the power was installed on a small group on men and while it had the illusion of a power democracy it was just a multi headed dictatorship.

The fear going to Cuba, is that if Raul takes over, it almost becomes a corrupted dynastic succession, and that won't help the average Cuban feel any better.