Marxism and Philosophy/ Karl Korsch

[Joshue]

Originally posted by Eddier1
Joshue I know that you asked the question about how many artists who are communists have been successful artists vis-a-vis the capitalists artists. And it was a question directed to Suki.

She probably can list them in detail if you wish, but I will give you a few examples from the very many who were communists. One internationally notable one, and you ought to at least know this, was the uncontested greatest artist of the 20th century, and he was a Communist. His name was Pablo Picasso, and that should ring a bell in you even though you are saturated in the Army in tech work. Also Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gaughin, from an earlier time had sympathies with the the communist movement; in Van Gogh's case he had to fight the reactionary tradition of the Dutch Church of which he was once a pastor dedicating himself to working with the poor and oppressed, and he saw the light, and rejected his religionist tradition. This more than anything probably led him to his doom and his suicide. However, his artistic production remains perhaps the greatest production of his time. P.G., his friend, was once a banker, and he rejected the capitalist way of life to become also one of the greatest painters of his day. There are many other who were either communists, like Pablo Picasso, or communist sympathisers in those days, and even today. OTOH, the capitalist artists are few and far between, like Pollack of New York, and others mostly with Jewish backgrounds, who were at the least avant-guard artists, mostly in abstract art production. But they are minimal compared to the really great commie ones I mentioned.

For La_Bambina, it would be nice to welcome you back to the forum, but since you have not changed your ways of sneaky comments against the "editos" of this forum, I still consider you a dangerous and volitile anarchist, and your former posts have proved that. I hope your primo whom you wanted to hack to death with a machete while he was asleep, or at least have some thug, if not you personally, crush his skull with a 'cinder block' is still alive and breathing somewhere.

Well La,La-Bambina, here is one "edito" who is both rational and socially responsible, which you are NOT! You are for anarchistic individualism which is the source of all evil in the world. And even though you have said that you would rather commit suicide in the ocean than accept P.R. becoming a state, you are still an Anarchist and that says it all about you. Now, you can fade away, as is your wont, for another number of months, or exit permanently for all I care. Ni me viene, ni me va!

AGARRE EL DIA BORICUAS, VENCEREMOS!
SOY PUERTORRIQUENO Y PUNTO; Y REALISTA SOCIAL.
EDDIE R.

Hey Edd, what I meant was that, Political affiliation has nothing to do with talent. Commies, Cappies/Ants or roaches [that analogy crack me up]it does not matter, talent has nothing to do with political afiliation. A question, now that you sound anti anarchy. You told me that in true communism, the state wither away. isn't that anarchy? if not why? what is the difrence?
does it have to do with individualism? You throw me off the way you reply to Bambina, sounding anti anarchy.

[Stanley]

The communism that is palpable and real is all about having the state in control of everything-------- and I mean everything------ including where you live, when you can travel, how much money you can have, ect, ect. This is the antithesis of anarchy. However, commies dream about the plateau on top of the mountain or something like the coming of the Messiah. In this instance everybody has become so communist that there is no need for the state to enforce that behavior. In theory this may occur after several generations when the citizens forget what individualism is all about. Suki calls this a natural change and Tovarish affirms this is a scientific fact. In the end we will become ants and will be a part of the group or the Borg (whatever you want to call it---- ultimate collectivism). Those who are individualists (or lovers of personal freedom) will not survive.

[Joshue]

Originally posted by Stanley
The communism that is palpable and real is all about having the state in control of everything-------- and I mean everything------ including where you live, when you can travel, how much money you can have, ect, ect. This is the antithesis of anarchy. However, commies dream about the plateau on top of the mountain or something like the coming of the Messiah. In this instance everybody has become so communist that there is no need for the state to enforce that behavior. In theory this may occur after several generations when the citizens forget what individualism is all about. Suki calls this a natural change and Tovarish affirms this is a scientific fact. In the end we will become ants and will be a part of the group or the Borg (whatever you want to call it---- ultimate collectivism). Those who are individualists (or lovers of personal freedom) will not survive.

Yes if I am not mistaken that is just a transition period, called Dictatorship of the proletariat, then true communism kick in. Well at least in theory, now if that true communism the state wither away, how is difrent from Anarchy?

[Suki]

Originally posted by Stanley
The communism that is palpable and real is all about having the state in control of everything-------- and I mean everything------ including where you live, when you can travel, how much money you can have, ect, ect. This is the antithesis of anarchy. However, commies dream about the plateau on top of the mountain or something like the coming of the Messiah. In this instance everybody has become so communist that there is no need for the state to enforce that behavior. In theory this may occur after several generations when the citizens forget what individualism is all about. Suki calls this a natural change and Tovarish affirms this is a scientific fact. In the end we will become ants and will be a part of the group or the Borg (whatever you want to call it---- ultimate collectivism). Those who are individualists (or lovers of personal freedom) will not survive.

____________________________________________

Suki: Stanley, you are super cerrado with the concept of diversity in HUMAN beings....and what socialism and communism attempts to do. Lovers of personal freedom. I don't think so, more like lovers of personal greed and empty personal vanity... In socialism no one is going to kill your unique qualities as an individual. That is impossible. It goes against nature. Nature has VARIATION built into it. In fact, capitalism is against diversity....they invented chain stores, fashion trends in which every fad and passing phase everyone replicates. Etc. etc. If you went and visited commie countries for once in your life or actually studied your history instead of spouting rhetoric without reality behind it you would realize...communism is not the borg. They speak about the alienation of man (humanity) through the requirements of capitalism...and they speak of it. And analyze it. If you read it you realize they are right. The least alienated and most unique individuals, super creative artists also...such as Picasso, among others are Communists. If you sit there Stanley and say Picasso is borglike and so was Albert Einstein...the socialist. I swear you will be the least analytical person on earth....creativity and talent are innate to the species not to CAPITALIST/personal 'individual' freedom...in fact the USA suffers in raw creative talent, because everything is marketed to death and has a price tag attached to it. I don't expect you to get it again.

Now, corruption, greed and disorganization, etc. are struggles that happen in human societies. That is a given. But one must realize, that happens in all societies....the old ones, and the new emerging ones....but one must be secure enough to know....that in any great project or endeavor, there are going to be big obstacles, mistakes made, and errors committed because humans are not perfect. And that one must allow societies to develop at their own pace and time. WITHOUT artificial pressures. And part of those pressures are baseless fears and paranoia against allowing society to try something new...socially and economically. Now, that is being really creative. Not being AFRAID of that which is until now unpercieved, unknown and untried without interference. And for that to happen...you got to have courage. And vision and a sense of social evolution. Individuals are never in danger of losing their individual uniqueness....Eddie is certainly unique. And I hope I am seen by others as being unique in my way too. But my strength and Eddie's too, is SHARING it with others...so that all of us, may someday....reach our potentials TOGETHER and benefit from interacting and participating together. It is a cool thought!

Eddier1 is not borg-like AT ALL. Neither are the other communists I have met in my life. One was one of the best ballet dancers and later on choreographers I have ever met. Another was a super talented actress and set designer, and some are writers, others are cashiers at stores, mechanics, construction workers...some are welders, and fishermen. One thing they all have in common. They are very bright if they are communists within capitalist societies. None are dumb. Most are creative within their careers. Now, if you don't like Communism because you can't be 'superior' to others and make any money you think you deserve....you are right. Communist societies will question why you want more than the next guy...and what purpose there is behind why you want more 'money' or material possessions. Because that is not what you are suppose to aspire to in society....to be richer than someone else for the only purpose of becoming more 'prestigious' and more 'powerful' than the next guy...if you want to be recognized it had better be for something a lot less superficial...such as real talent and unique abilities that serves and enriches cultural or social life of the entire community and nation....that is not superficial. Wanting flashy possessions and lording it over others just to 'get ahead'......is stupid when you think deeply on it. Get ahead to where? To living off the other people who what? Aren't as brilliant as you? Brilliant people should GIVE more and SERVE more selflessly than the less brilliant....more is expected of them. But not for infulas and cheap and empty opulence, but for balancing out what others are unable to do...so that all have a role. So that all participate and contribute positively. That is a great goal. Nobody loses their uniqueness or their individual ways of being. That is impossible. In every sense. Ask the diving coach in the PRC which diver is the most elegant, which is the most polished technically, which is the most hard-working...etc. He will tell you the names and why that individual is that way. No such thing, as borgy people in most societies, they might exist in societies like super competition driven capitalism in which consumption, ads, and trendy...replication of the same old, same old, chain stores, same old products, same old things are emphasized. Hey, I had friends that came back from two socialist places....and they said, "those people they are really good at art and unique stuff. Music, dance, and painting and singing and expression....they aren't open to ads, or manipulation of what they are 'supposed' to be thinking. I think capitalism is like the computer generated Matrix movie. In which everything is "fed to you" in artificial speedy soundbites...and you are encouraged by the big Matrix profit margin folks who control the 'rules' to sleep and don't wake up...and pursue unfullfilling things without end....so that no one realizes they are some naked, inactive battery sources for some alienated mechanized world.....yep. sounds like Capitalism to me. The borg always is...capitalistic. No DOUBTS IN MY MIND.

In fact, so many unique things are lost in this system (the lousiest art I have seen has been shown in many art galleries of the USA, and some of the best art I have seen has been outside the USA WHY? Art, Music etc. are commercialized here. And reserved for those who can afford it. Everything is marketed to death. The public schools will cut every music, art, dance and or 'creative' thing in the curriculum...but emphasize business, tech or science if the business community wants that emphasized...and to save the football program...lit, art, dance, music, theater, and all the fine arts are laid waste...it is pitiful and sickening, and there are still people like Stanley here, who have the audacity to say...the socialists are the BORG, when we got Josh and others who don't know who is an artist and what their political leanings are or not....that happens when someone is not getting a well rounded education and where the society only emphasizes $$$$ over developing truly 'cultured' individuals...and well rounded and broad education people with solid educations......in places in which manufactured and factory produced things are not readily available....people get creative. For example, I have noticed that in Mexico for example, there are a lot of craft material stores, and fabric stores....where people (mostly women) go to buy fabric to sew things at home. There are a huge amount of mom and pop places, little unique places....a lot less chain stores...or none. More fresh and less processed foods. Partly because of the infrastructure of the place, but also, because capitalist societies....through monopolies and aggressive competition and takeovers....destroy smaller places....they become the ONLY option. That kills creativity and uniqueness. Creative and unique qualities of people become very important in difficult circumstances in any society. People are unique (nothing threatens that nor will it ever threaten that unless you believe in dehumanization and alienation of man which happens like clockwork in Capitalism). This superficial individualism is not serving anybody in society....and all it does is create the false illusion that only individuals are important. They are not. People as a whole are the truly important factor in human society. They always will be. Go ahead Stanley try living like Tom Hanks in 'castaway' and find out if living all by yourself holds any real meaning in life. It doesn't dude.

Suki.

P.S. I got to leave the forum for a while...so, if I don't answer for a while, it isn't because I was not interested in the postings and the contents...just had some things to do. I hope all of you have a good time debating the issues.

[Edited by Suki on 21st May 2004 at 07:27]

[Stanley]

Stanley, you are super cerrado

Suki, try to control your aggresivity.

Otherwise, a fine post, you are on the money on your criticism of many aspects of capitalism. I am with you on that one, however, I still think capitalism is needed---------- it is very much like a necessary evil. Coomies don’t know how to create wealth, as you say they want to be artists and things like that. Well, quite often that does not pay the bills unless you are one a million and can actually make a living. As nasty as capitalism is you must understand that the US creates enough wealth to feed and care for the entire planet. If there was no greed things would be fine.

BTW, you keep saying that you understand differences among humans, but you keep pounding the concept that anyone who differs from your point of view (communism) must be driven by greed and avarice. I am sure many are, however, the vast majority of folks simply want to do the right thing.

As for famous artists who are commies. That is part of the avant-garde culture. Not much different than the millions of folks who wear “El Che” T-shirts without knowing what true communism is all about. Don’t forget that many of these artists functioned within a non-commy framework and did not suffer any oppression by the state.

[POV]

Hello Suki,

I have to make it short. But I am addressing the substance of all your points

Suki: POV, such a fine list...the problem I see with it, is that LOVE, FRIENDSHIP, COOPERATION, COMPASSION, UNDERSTANDING, COMRADERIE, COMPANIONSHIP, HELP has nothing to do with CAPITALISM....

Let me accept this statement for the moment for the sake of argument. My answer is that: these virtues have much less with communism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Castrismo, juch�, Marxism in all its wonderful varieties. Again, power is all that matters to them; who's up and who's down, in society as well as in bed.

Capitalism presupposes certain cultural and legal attitudes such as trust, initiative, the rule of law, political freedom, entrepreneurship, creativity. Marxists boast that in theory (always in theory), they will or have achieved this climate of creativity and productivity when history itself demonstrates that this has not been the case, that all the societies ruled by the fist of Marxism end up in collapse, demoralization, and fragmentation. That's why there are very few redoubts of pure Marxism today in this world and they maintain themselves in power by the use of naked power and abuse.

The system you defend as being the most humane and just. Lol. It doesn't have anything to do with those qualities POV.

Your laughter is very cavalier in ill considered, Suki. Behold the dead:

Lenin's purges
Stalin's purges
Gulag
The Iron Curtain
The Berlin Wall
Castro's jail
Pol Pot
Kim Il Sung/Kim Jong Il

The harbingers of Marxism in the 20th century through the present have been responsible for the deaths of many more millions than those that you could ever blame to capitalism in all of history. But there you are, lol'ing and laughing. Please, don't preach to me about the virtues of Marxism and point your little finger of blame to the rest of us. Learn from the history whose "process" you purport to defend. If I were you I would much humbler about these claims.

Capitalism in its purest form is about, free market (which in today's business world is a myth in my opinion), competition, expansion, promotion of consumption of goods and services, advertisements, marketing, etc. En fin when a saleslady or salesman smiles at you in a department store, are they seeing you as their 'friend, co-op partner, compassionate and loving companion, with understanding or comaraderie, are they helping you?

As a matter of fact, they are. They are also earning their keep.

Or are they 'targeting' you to 'sell' so they may profit....and if they notice you aren't interested in buying, consuming and or generating profit for them...will they 'waste' their time on you?

I sincerely hope not and more often than not, they leave me alone. I keep the choice to buy or not to buy.

Lol. Human relationships in capitalistic economies are not based on anything but producer-consumer, profit-loss, asset-debit considerations....is that a fulfilling relationship in a true human sense?...the ad, the pitch, the sale? Or is it a way of manipulation...if it is a way of manipulation...what is its purpose? Its aim? And why does it need to do that? For what ultimate purpose? I would like for you to expound on the humane merits of Capitalist relationships with human beings as the principal consumers....WHERE is the HUMANE part?

"Humanity" rests on individuals but "individuality" is of no concern to Marxists: only the collective is important. That's why Marxists are so prompt to destroy the individuals for the benefit of the collective. That's why Marxists individual rights and human dignity are but meaningless bourgeois concepts.

And not the objectivification or the making of the whole thing into a materially and mundane enterprise in which the higher values you so loftily mention are EXALTED? Where is it? I would love to read your answer POV. Really and sincerely.

Do you love, Suki? Are you loved? My answer hinges on your answer.

quote:In an economic sense it is a relationship about POWER....and economic profit and exploitation if it is in capitalism?
No, not always. Because within capitalism human beings are free to associate to pursue Love, Friendship, Cooperation, Compassion, Understanding, Comraderie, Companionship, Help...
Suki: Is that what human beings do in capitalism? They pursue love, friendship, cooperation, compassion, understanding and comraderie, and companionship and help each other as brothers and sisters? Is that what people do in Capitalism?

I've seen it done in capitalist countries. Perhaps you should travel more.

In those unfortunate Marxist countries is more difficult to cultivate these virtues, because Marxist theory disregards the intrinsic value of them in favor of jargon, slogans, and marches. Since Marxism is such a limited philosophy, its practitioners do not concern themselves with eternal values, esthetics or the intrinsic dignity of human beings as Children of God.

No no, is worse, Marxists throw God out the window as another construct invented by "them" to exploit "the people." With God also goes out any possibility of an ultimate moral basis for human action. A "moral action" is for the Marxist that which fosters dialectic materialism so if purges, concentration camps, massive displacement, forced collectivism, disappearances, kangaroo courts, disinformation, global brinkmanship, foster the dialectical process, then it is moral. "Ends justify the means" in Marxism since the individual is at his core (and like you like to say) greedy and incorrigible without compulsion from outside.

That's why Marxism is totalitarian, it functions like a fanatical cult. Like you like to do, they (you?) Marxists declare (they always "declare," they never "prove") that "freedom" is illusory and not the true end of humanity, but rather "natural happiness" where natural wants are satisfied by the labor of the many directed by the "compassionate" leadership of the "vanguard of the people," that is, the Party and its apparatus. Of course, "compassion" as defined by a new corpus of dogma and consistent with the principles of dialectical materialism; a "compassion" that will not hesitate to crush the individual and kill the defenseless for sins of thought, since that would be ridding the collective from pockets of self-centeredness and greed.

This is the brave new world you advocate in your wonderful naiveté, Suki.

So please, spare me your "moral outrage," your half-thought philosophical premises, and your teary-eyed critique. You and I can agree that humanity, as a patient, is very sick. But I argue that you want to kill him in order to save him. I just want to save him.

Please, forgive me if I neither believe nor accept your philosophically flawed, yet eloquent and very heartfelt defense of what is, in the last analysis, indefensible.

P.


[Edited by POV on 21st May 2004 at 15:28]

[Eddier1]

POV said:

Do you love, Suki? Are you loved? My answer hinges on your answer.


Like you like to do, they (you?) Marxists declare (they always "declare," they never "prove") that "freedom" is illusory and not the true end of humanity
*******************************************

The first quote shows 'contundentamente' the bad manners that POV has; his lack of discretion in asking a very, very personal question on a public forum. His question should have been asked in private through the use of email, or in person in a confidential environment.

The second quote is totally erroneous as data. Because for the Marxists, Leninists, Maoists freedom and sure freedom, which is achievable only in the highest level of communism is the goal of the communal mind-set of all true communists.

The rest of his post, since it was not addressed to me, I will leave for Suki to answer, if and when she has the time, and I am sure she will answer with a resounding rebuttal of its other errors ala mode the way she has proved to do in all her other posts to Mister POV.

To POV I say directly: Mister, you have lots and lots to learn about the truth of communism.

AGARRE EL DIA BORICUA, VENCEREMOS!
SOY PUERTORRIQUENO Y PUNTO; Y REALISTA SOCIAL.
EDDIE R.