: 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...
I'm definitely not a utilitarian, in any sense. However, any theory that does not acknowledge the nature of the rational utility maximizing individual falls on the rocks when trying to modify behavior and mould society. Tribal groups were group utility maximizers (i.e. group utilitarianism). As relationships became abstract this propensity began evolving into individual utilitarianism.
: : 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-
Is this why the Liberty caucus (libertarians) of the Republicans is attempting to devolve authority to local control and seeking to keep State influence from encroaching upon the decisions of community leaders?
: and to save the rides of the rich. The states been rolling back here since '73 and growth is still buggered up.
Well, I'm dubious. I'm not sure you answered my question as it pertained to comparitive snapshots of countries during the same time periods. I think many people look at huge historical outcomes and fail to see the numerous smaller causalities that form a cohesive, yet unplanned, structure.
: : 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.
Okay, good. I wouldn't want the capitalists in charge. In fact, no one, not even a democratic super-majority, can ever be in charge during the existance of a society based upon abstract relationships. Outside the small tribe "in charge" is a myth.
: : 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.
Amen. I wholeheartedly agree. Where I think you go wrong, though, is the prophetical nature of your analysis. You claim to see a particular objective of this struggle and assume that any other vision is "against the struggle". Quite frankly I'd be an anarchist if there wasn't that nasty little phenomena of groups naturally assembling to create power structures based on rent-seeking and other collectivist behaviors. That as well as my suspicion that it would encourage disassociation of behavior from consequence.
: : 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.
But right there. Words like humpty dumpty were once completely orginiated out of someone's mouth. Words are conventions taht spontaneously evolve without any foreplanning; but they orginiate first out of one individual's mouth in order to grasp a new concept or differentiate between two that had, at one time, seemed alike, such as 'build' and 'construct'.
: :. 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.
Yes. Short of time and space I condensed.
: : 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...
But each individual act also has a potential cascading effect upon the rest of the populace and upon subsequent generations. As in the US, seventy percent of African-American children are born illegitimate by individuals who see no difference between propagating and abstaining. I grew up in such a neighborhood. The white Democratic do-gooders have destroyed Black America more surely than any neo-Nazi could have ever dreamed. Just one person acting anti-social means almost nothing to a 'great' society. However, a deluge destroys it.
This effect of human decisions is not addressed by either historicism or empiricism. A critical, as opposed to naive, rationalism is the key.
: : 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....
I'm a firm proponent of causality. Often, though, it's mistaken with pure correlation; just be careful. And now you're separating the individual and society when in reality they are indelibly intertwined. My main issue is with those who think taht their throughts are individualist and can be controlled by the thinker. Our actions are creators of 'society' but in turn remain massively affected by society.
