[KurtFF8]

what topic?

We were discussing your claim that I "distort your words." I demonstrated this to be false, so you decided that since I demonstrated your claim to be false: you were then bored with discussing it anymore.

You then followed with what's called a Red Herring and want to bring up the purges, which have absolutely no relevance to what we're discussing.

They are Stalinist so they are bound to be lies.

That does not follow, regardless of your political views of "Stalinists."

They dont seem to discuss any of it on the net, you claim it's all done verbally. Seems very strange. Marxists have always valued the written word, even in the old days where few were literate never mind having the internet. Lenin's writings mention Trotsky 561 times but your website mentions him twice. It seems very odd.

This is getting pathetic. You have no argument here. It's literally just based on an assumption and absolutely no backing.

If you can't point to a single "lie" that the PSL promotes, stop slandering the organization with that claim, it's very dishonest of you.

HRW is a bourgeois organisation? It is an NGO with no political leanings.

So you, as a Marxist, are going to claim that an NGO that goes around the world measuring "Human Rights" has no political leanings? This is a very liberal conception of what they do.

It's sad that this even has to be discussed.

Ok, so tell me, in National elections in Cuba, how many people are on your ballot paper?

I believe I've mentioned this. The requirement is that a minimum of 2 candidates, and a maximum of 8 I believe.

...http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/cuapp3.html

Riight.

[Godstud]

BORING!!!

Stop the pissing match and get back on topic.

[Fraqtive42]

BORING!!!

Stop the pissing match and get back on topic.

Yes, can't everybody just get the fuck along? The left is so sectarian that we don't even need enemies. Just look at RevLeft, for example. You can get banned from that site permanently just by being opposed to third trimester abortion. No wonder we can't accomplish anything; we're so freaking fragmented and confused. I mean, DP and ingliz are arguing, with virtually equal positions on the Political Compass. I just don't get it.

[daft punk]

We were discussing your claim that I "distort your words." I demonstrated this to be false, so you decided that since I demonstrated your claim to be false: you were then bored with discussing it anymore.

You then followed with what's called a Red Herring and want to bring up the purges, which have absolutely no relevance to what we're discussing.

kurt, I am just gonna go downstairs and paint a wall and then sit there and watch it dry for entertainment. It's more interesting than this.

This is getting pathetic. You have no argument here. It's literally just based on an assumption and absolutely no backing.

If you can't point to a single "lie" that the PSL promotes, stop slandering the organization with that claim, it's very dishonest of you.

Actually I was surprised that the stuff in their 'what we stand for' was ok, the bit I read.

However it leapt right over the political counter-revolution and omission is a lie.

So you, as a Marxist, are going to claim that an NGO that goes around the world measuring "Human Rights" has no political leanings? This is a very liberal conception of what they do.

It's sad that this even has to be discussed.

It is independent, except for a bit of funding from the Dutch govt. It also gets some money from the Sandler family who also donate to Earth Justice, Oceana and stuff. HRW is an important organisation that does a lot of good work tacking human rights issues around the world. HRW exposes abuse of human rights in all countries

Lets look at some other human rights organisations


How about this list

AFGHANISTAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACYC
ALBANIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
ALGERIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
ANDORRA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
ANGOLA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
ARGENTINA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
ARMENIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
AUSTRALIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
AUSTRIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
AZERBAIJAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
BAHAMAS ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
BAHRAIN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
BANGLADESH PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
BARBADOS ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
BELARUS PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
BELGIUM ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
BELIZE ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
BENIN ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
BHUTAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
BOLIVIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOV. PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
BOTSWANA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
BRAZIL ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
BRUNEI DICTATORSHIP
BULGARIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
BURKINA FASO PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
BURUNDI PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
CAMBODIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
CAMEROON PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
CANADA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
CAPE VERDE ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
CENTRAL AFRICAN REP. PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
CHAD PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
CHILE ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
CHINA DICTATORSHIP
COLOMBIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
COMOROS PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
CONGO BRAZZAVILLE PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
CONGO KINSHASA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
COSTA RICA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
COTE D'IVOIRE PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
CROATIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
CUBA DICTATORSHIP
CYPRUS ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
CZECH REPUBLIC ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
DENMARK ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
DJIBOUTI PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
DOMINICA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
ECUADOR ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
EGYPT DICTATORSHIP
EL SALVADOR ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
EQUATORIAL GUINEA DICTATORSHIP
ERITREA DICTATORSHIP
ESTONIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
ETHIOPIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
FIJI DICTATORSHIP
FINLAND ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
FRANCE ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
GABON PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
GAMBIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
GEORGIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
GERMANY ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
GHANA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
GREECE ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
GRENADA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
GUATEMALA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
GUINEA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
GUINEA BISSAU PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
GUYANA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
HAITI PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
HONDURAS PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
HUNGARY ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
ICELAND ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
INDIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
INDONESIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
IRAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
IRAQ PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
IRELAND ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
ISRAEL ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
ITALY ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
JAMAICA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
JAPAN ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
JORDAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
KAZAKHSTAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
KENYA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
KIRIBATI ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
KUWAIT PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
KYRGYZSTAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
LAOS DICTATORSHIP
LATVIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
LEBANON PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
LESOTHO PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
LIBERIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
LIBYA DICTATORSHIP
LIECHTENSTEIN ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
LITHUANIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
LUXEMBOURG ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MACEDONIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MADAGASCAR DICTATORSHIP
MALAWI PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
MALAYSIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
MALDIVES ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MALI ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MALTA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MARSHALL ISLANDS ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MAURITANIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
MAURITIUS ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MEXICO ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MICRONESIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MOLDOVA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MONACO ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MONGOLIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MONTENEGRO ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
MOROCCO PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
MOZAMBIQUE PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
MYANMAR PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
NAMIBIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
NAURU ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
NEPAL PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
NETHERLANDS ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
NEW ZEALAND ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
NICARAGUA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
NIGER ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
NIGERIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
NORTH KOREA DICTATORSHIP
NORWAY ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
OMAN DICTATORSHIP
PAKISTAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
PALAU ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
PANAMA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
PAPUA NEW GUINEA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
PARAGUAY ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
PERU ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
PHILIPPINES ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
POLAND ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
PORTUGAL ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
QATAR DICTATORSHIP
ROMANIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
RUSSIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
RWANDA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SAINT LUCIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SAINT VINCENT/GRENAD. ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SAMOA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
SAN MARINO ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SAUDI ARABIA DICTATORSHIP
SENEGAL PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
SERBIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SEYCHELLES PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
SIERRA LEONE ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SINGAPORE PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
SLOVAKIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SLOVENIA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SOLOMON ISLANDS ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SOMALIA DICTATORSHIP-ANARCHY
SOUTH AFRICA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SOUTH KOREA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SOUTH SUDAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
SPAIN ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SRI LANKA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
SUDAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
SURINAME ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SWAZILAND DICTATORSHIP
SWEDEN ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SWITZERLAND ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
SYRIA DICTATORSHIP
TAIWAN ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
TAJIKISTAN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
TANZANIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
THAILAND PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
TIMOR LESTE ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
TOGO PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
TONGA ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
TUNISIA DICTATORSHIP
TURKEY ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
TURKMENISTAN DICTATORSHIP
TUVALU ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
UGANDA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
UKRAINE PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES DICTATORSHIP
UNITED KINGDOM ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
UNITED STATES ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
URUGUAY ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
UZBEKISTAN DICTATORSHIP
VANUATU ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY
VATICAN CITY NA
VENEZUELA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
VIETNAM DICTATORSHIP
YEMEN PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
ZAMBIA PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
ZIMBABWE PSEUDO DEMOCRACY

http://www.mherrera.org/world.htm

You might be interested to know that the Guardian ranks Cuba 35th worst country , only just worse than the USA

The top 100 offenders

This table ranks human rights abusers in descending order; the figures in the right-hand column are obtained by multipying a weighted score of abuses by the Human Development Index.
(For the second half of the table follow the link at the bottom of the screen)


COUNTRY POP HDI GDP TOTAL x HDI

Yugoslavia (Federal Republic) 10.4 0.86 24.94
North Korea 23.2 0.765 20.66
Indonesia 206.5 0.681 214,995 20.09
Algeria 30.2 0.665 47,072 19.95
Libya 6.0 0.756 18.14
Colombia 37.7 0.768 95,745 16.90
Egypt 65.7 0.616 75,605 15.40
Israel 5.9 0.883 98,081 15.01
China 1255.1 0.701 901,981 14.72
Iran 73.1 0.715 89,979 14.66
Congo (Democratic Republic) 49.2 0.479 6,101 14.37
Sudan 28.5 0.475 10,224 14.25
Iraq 21.8 0.586 14.06
Burma 47.6 0.58 13.92
Turkey 63.8 0.728 189,878 13.47
Mexico 95.8 0.786 402,963 13.36
Congo (Republic) 2.8 0.533 2,298 12.79
Venezuela 23.2 0.792 87,480 12.67
Syria 15.3 0.663 17,899 12.60
Saudi Arabia 20.2 0.74 140,374 12.58
Rwanda 6.5 0.379 1,863 12.51
Pakistan 147.8 0.508 61,667 12.45
Bahrain 0.832 11.65
Sri Lanka 18.5 0.721 15,093 11.54
Philippines 72.2 0.74 82,157 11.10
Peru 24.8 0.739 63,849 11.09
South Korea 46.1 0.852 442,543 11.08
India 975.8 0.545 381,566 10.90
Cambodia 10.8 0.514 3,044 10.79
Cameroon 14.3 0.536 9,115 10.72
Nepal 23.2 0.463 4,929 10.65
Yemen 16.9 0.449 5,656 10.55
Brazil 165.2 0.739 820,381 10.35
Burundi 6.6 0.324 957 10.04
Cuba 11.1 0.765 9.95
Morocco 28.0 0.582 33,514 9.31
United States Of America 273.8 0.927 7,834,036 9.27
Uganda 21.3 0.404 6,582 8.89
Angola 12.0 0.398 7,662 8.76
Uzbekistan 24.1 0.72 25,047 8.64
Russian Republic 147.2 0.747 446,982 8.59
Croatia 4.5 0.773 19,081 8.50
Togo 4.4 0.469 1,475 8.44
Tunisia 9.5 0.695 18,937 8.34
Chad 6.9 0.393 1,603 8.25
Lebanon 3.2 0.749 14,962 8.24
Lesotho 2.2 0.582 950 8.15
Senegal 9.0 0.426 4,542 8.09
Nicaragua 4.5 0.616 1,971 8.01
Jordan 6.0 0.715 7,015 7.87

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_ ... 30,00.html

I believe I've mentioned this. The requirement is that a minimum of 2 candidates, and a maximum of 8 I believe.

So how come I just posted election results for Cuba and each district had one candidate?

Why did you ignore that?

BORING!!!

Stop the pissing match and get back on topic.

sorry what was the topic?

Yes, can't everybody just get the fuck along? The left is so sectarian that we don't even need enemies. Just look at RevLeft, for example. You can get banned from that site permanently just by being opposed to third trimester abortion. No wonder we can't accomplish anything; we're so freaking fragmented and confused. I mean, DP and ingliz are arguing, with virtually equal positions on the Political Compass. I just don't get it.

I am a Marxist. Ingliz thinks he is a Marxist, but his lot killed my lot in Russia to kill off Marxism.



Look at the dates and reasons of death.

By 1933, the Communist Party had approximately 3.5 million members but as a result of the Great Purge party membership was cut down to 1.9 million by 1939

Of the Central Committee of 134 members, 98 were arrested. And then shot. 70% shot. A counter-revolution.

[VP Note: Do not use distracting colors and resize the text needlessly. You've been warned about this before; the next time I will simply delete the post.]

[KurtFF8]

kurt, I am just gonna go downstairs and paint a wall and then sit there and watch it dry for entertainment. It's more interesting than this.

Why am I supposed to be worried about whether you're interested or not? If you were truly as uninterested in this conversation as you keep claiming, why would you keep responding?

Actually I was surprised that the stuff in their 'what we stand for' was ok, the bit I read.

However it leapt right over the political counter-revolution and omission is a lie.

In other words you are unable to point to a single "lie" whatsoever.

And it's not true that they ignore the things Stalin did:

Please stop claiming that they "lie" about things when you are unable to provide a single example.

It is independent, except for a bit of funding from the Dutch govt. It also gets some money from the Sandler family who also donate to Earth Justice, Oceana and stuff. HRW is an important organisation that does a lot of good work tacking human rights issues around the world. HRW exposes abuse of human rights in all countries

I just find it odd that a self described Marxist would be so open to a bourgeois liberal organization like HRW. Much of the "rights" they look at are based on a very liberal ideology: something that Marxists are critical of, although you seem to not be critical of that fact.

Lets look at some other human rights organisations

What do they have to do with anything?

Your long list seems to be quite irrelevant and just clogging up the post.

You might be interested to know that the Guardian ranks Cuba 35th worst country , only just worse than the USA

Okay, and Fox News probably ranks them even worse, what's your point?

This table ranks human rights abusers in descending order; the figures in the right-hand column are obtained by multipying a weighted score of abuses by the Human Development Index.
(For the second half of the table follow the link at the bottom of the screen)

You realize that HDI includes per capita income, where in a place like Cuba that doesn't have a typical economic structure: that measurement isn't the best comparison. And in terms of health care, education, etc. Cuba actually ranks quite well.

So how come I just posted election results for Cuba and each district had one candidate?

Why did you ignore that?

I didn't ignore it, I asked you to tell me which elections those results were from (e.g. municipal, provincial, national). That's a pretty important factor.

[daft punk]

so what does he say about Stalin? I cant listen to it, he talks too fast.

[KurtFF8]

so what does he say about Stalin? I cant listen to it, he talks too fast.

Hmm, seems quite clear to me, although the audio quality isn't the best.

Sorry about that it's actually in part 2 of the video at this time:

[daft punk]

great. He says they dont support Stalin. One short sentence. He also says they are not Trotskists. No mention of why.

now watch this

[KurtFF8]

Why?

[daft punk]

just do it, I would like your opinion of what he says.

[Vera Politica]

I'm actually a bit confused by your account here. Are you saying that examples like Lenin contributing to Marxism via the notion of Imperialism as an auxiliary function are example of the Marxist program as a progressive project, or would the example of Lenin be part of what you're describing as the degenerative research program.

I'm also curious as to why you've only pointed to British analytical Marxists of the 70s and 80s for their attempts to "save the program" and not someone like Althusser whose entire philosophical project seems to be the exact same thing that you are describing here. (As a matter of fact, a lot of what you're saying here has echos of Althusser)

I'd also be interested to see what you think are some of the possibilities for a resurgence in attempts at making Marxism a progressive research program (which I'm assuming the concept of Praxis is important here) would look like or if you think it's just no longer a worthy attempt (of which I would of course disagree).

Indeed, Lenin's contribution to Marxism was, precisely, at a time where the Marxist program was degenerative. In fact, Lenin was preoccupied with explaining why a revolution in Russia was possible and, later, why it happened. Classical Marxist analysis predicted that revolutions would occur in the most industrialized nations. Lenin's contribution is a "degenerative contribution" in the sense that it was simply the addition of auxiliary hypotheses and theories to protect the Marxist core from refutation.

Althusser's contribution was, largely, the mitigation of the rise of humanist and postmodern Marxism, rather than any novel, progressive contribution to the social science itself.

Any attempt to renew the Marxist program in a progressive way would have to deal very closely with contemporary economic theory. Marxism needs to both meet the challenges of post-labor theories of value and whatever technical issues arise in Marxist economics (I know there are several). In a sense, Marxism must be revived by economists, if it is become a progressive program again. While Marxism remains influential in history and in certain social sciences, it is dead in economics and this is a significant issues Marxists must deal with.

That being said, certain events tend, at times, to vindicate certain core Marxist predictions, but Marxists are largely engaged in retrospect analysis.

The immiseration of the working class is perhaps the only of these that folks have tried to rescue (probably mostly highlighting austerity as an example).

And of course you left out the crisis prone nature of capitalism and class conflict. I feel that your account of Marxism as being in that level of crisis in the 20th century may be a bit strong. (It's of course something that most post-Marxists agree upon). But Marxism is often pronounced dead, then makes surprise comebacks, even before the the Russian revolution folks were pronouncing Marxism "dead."

Indeed, Marxism tends to re-appear, but until it starts to be a serious subject of concern by economists, I think the program will be hopelessly superficial and largely degenerative. Do not get me wrong, I think that much of the core and spirit of classical Marxism is correct, but it has serious issues. There are many developments (historical and theoretical) that much be taken into account if Marxism would like to regain its prominent status as a serious, scientific research program (a status it held in the 19th century).