: I'm aware of the Night of the Long Knives. The problem is utiliarian collectivism (Nazism) is politically more powerful than egalitarian collectivism (Communists). This is why Nazism defeats Communism in direct political confrontation. My original post refered to an earlier one in which I showed that Stalin will always defeat Trotsky. Lark's arguing an empirical observation I agree with whole heartedly. He then proceeds to advocate recreating, today, the conditions that allowed this to happen.
This is a highly idealised/abstracted account of teh rise of stalinism, which ignores the material conditions in which teh bolshevik state was built. namely:
1:Tthat Lenin recognised that he had basically rebuilt the tsarist state.
2:That because teh revolution was a minority action, it lacked mass support, leading to Molotovs complaints about the workers sitting around waiting for orders.
3:That the Russian economy was in no way capable of sustaining socialism, and in fact Lenin recognised that Capitalism would be a step forwards for russia, in 1921.
4:That because of this the bureacracy built itself up around the old-guard at the centre, and when they passed Russia became a state capitalist organisation.
: We don't disagree. Again, utilitarian collectivism always defeats egalitarian collectivism. No value judgements here. Pure observation of verifiable and predictable phenomena.
No, thats a hidesou abstraction which does not conform to teh facts. Egalitarianism has always come acropper when it has existed as a minority, thus it could be defeated by the military might of teh ruling class. this is not verfifiable, nor falsifiable- empiricism is bad for human sciences...
: And, additionally, if I'm spouting a social construct so are you. In fact, under this assumption, we were destined to have this conversation. We had no choice in the matter.
We're not 'constructs' so much as processes, hence I prefer the term 'practical consciousness' to your ahistorical utilitarian consciousness...
: National economic indicators show a direct relation between GDP growth and lower regulation coupled with more property delineation (see Cato Journal, Winter 1999). Yes, Cato is a libertarian journal so I suppose you dismiss it out of hand. If, indeed you do, why did you ask for empirical evidence given that any support I produced would automatically classify it as a tool of oppression?
No, this is, right, but you've got it the wrong way round, when the economy is growing, state intervention is a hinderence, but during crisis the state is needed to prvent social chaos and economic disintergration- and to save the rides of the rich. The states been rolling back here since '73 and growth is still buggered up.
: And the social conditions at the time are based on what? Of course you'll argue that it based on the oppression of the capitalists. So the capitalists are a condition of society, and society is a condition of the capitalists.
Social conditions are created by teh economic base- the material productive sector, upon which human institions are built, and by which they are delineated. If the manner of productions gets out of line with the social relations of production, chaos ensues until they re-align. the capitalists are not in charge. No one is in charge.
: These guys are pure Hegelians and much of what they state is simply opinion, but I'll examine. They view individuals not even as possessing individuality. The view "every person is a construct of their society" denies that people exist as anything "besides abstracts of society". Hegel and Compte directly said this.
No, Hegel did believe in individuality, as did Marx (Although IIRC he got some of that from Kant)- what he didn't believe in is the abusrdity of an individual ex-nihil, self- enclosed and uninteractive with their environement. teh whole point of the master-slave dialectic is its about the struggle for recognition as an indidual, a human.
: If this is true than I am merely saying these words as a result of "society's" putting them in me.
No, it means you can only use the words available to you, which are generated, constructed, by society. You are not in charge of your own language, you are not the final arbiter of your own meaning- that can only be arrived at socially and co-operatively. unless you're humpty dumpty.
:. They are solely a product of that perfect clock that is the physical universe.
Actually Hegel asigns responsibility to the Absolute Spirit IIRC. Marx to our interaction with our environment, niether of them were Newtonian mechanists, because that is undialectical. Everything is constantly changing, in motion, in relation, A never meaningfully equals A, etc.
: Hegel and Marx, as physical or idealist, determinists would firmly state that what is real is rational, and what is rational is real. Upon, realizing this, we no longer have any rationale for action as anything we do must have been preordained, physically for Marx. Take the guy at the computer next to me. If I pull out a gun and shoot him it was pre-determined by the physical nature of the universe.
No, check out the section on Determination in William's Marxism and Literature. Its not the universe that brought you to do it, but history, lived human history, the product of the action of men- 'Men make history' Marx said 'but not in conditions of their own choosing'. If it is otehrwise, why don't people just randomly shoot each otehr, for no reason at all, how could society survive, there would be no pattern...no order...
: science has verified indeterminicy in the universe itself through quantum mechanics.
But it still hasn't negated causation. And we still need to account for the relationship of human actions to human environment....
