Saturday, February 23, 2013

An Open Letter to Jason Unruhe, the "Maoist Rebel"

Dear Jason,

When I tried to engage you in serious political discourse surrounding your interpretation of Marx and Lenin's views, I had the best of intentions of changing your mind. I didn't expect I would end up blocked from your YouTube channel, with some "one-liner" insults as responses... Well, expecting something different from a Stalinite is, of course, foolish of me. Though, my concern is not so much about being blocked and unable to view your awkward and reactionary "news" videos, but your total disregard for the evidence I provided you.

I first contacted you via a private message, asking your opinion on some of your viewers who viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism as the same thing. My expectation was a response saying that you didn't hold that view, but held the typical Stalinite line. You responded, to my amusement, that "they are, its a part of Leninist theory"... I immediately consulted a Stalinist friend, who said, contrary to your claim that, the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism were the same [added commas, expressing that the view is not yours, but the friend of mine]. This got me to thinking that you may have misread Marx and Lenin, or you just didn't read them at all, and didn't realize that they expressed that they viewed socialism as a classless society. What person in their right mind, who claims they are the ideological descendants of Marx and Lenin, could claim something contrary to them? So, I responded by providing you with both quotes from Marx, using his Critique of the Gotha Programme, and Lenin's State and Revolution, chapter 5. Perhaps that would open your eyes, and make you rethink your position... of course, you didn't, and just responded with more blithering bull shit. What'd you say? Oh, you said "wtf is wrong with you? Do you not see what you're doing? Dictatorship of the Proletariat is socialism, becuase in capitalism the bourgeois is the dictatorship. Why are you stupid? You're defining socialism as communism. I hereby order you to stop calling yourself a communist. Go form another international. Seriously you're fucked."

Are you really this fucking dumb, or are you afraid of being wrong and losing a part of your fan base? If you were really a Marxist, you would be acknowledging that you haven't read Lenin's State and Revolution and you have been totally ignorant of the facts. You would actually read, and be telling your fans to stop being ignorant as well. The fact that Marxists view the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and socialism to be two different societies is right there, in chapter 5 of State and Revolution. Ask any Marxist that isn't a Stalinite, they will tell you the difference. Plain and simple, you are wrong when you claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism were the same; you are wrong when you claim that socialism is not classless, and is separate from communism. This expression of revisionism is rather annoying, and I beseech you to stop it... just stop.

Lastly, and certainly the least, I am astonished that you actually decided to block me; preventing me from subscribing to your channel, commenting on your videos, and having any possible discourse with you, or your fan base. Am I really that threatening to your revisionist and reactionary views?

All the best,

T.K.

Edit Notice: Due to some poor wording, as a result of my hastily written post, I have edited certain points to make clear my argument to MaoistRebelNews. Obviously some grammatical errors gave him the bulk of his argument.

24 comments:

  1. http://maoistrebelnews.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/trotskyist-slanders-to-covers-his-own-idiocy/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I am writing a response my anon friend.

      Delete
  2. this is why i am no longer a Marxist. why do people feel the need to count how many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Marxism, like libertarianism and anarchism, are secular religions. Marxism now spends its time now getting the language correct, but having NO real effect in the world, like any irrelevant scholasticism. Dunayevskaya and her marxism-humanist cult are the worse examples of scholasticism as political masturbation that I have read within Marxism. Thank god for the left parties in Europe, like Syrizia in Greece and the Socialist Party of the Netherlands, the pink tide in Latin America, and the Nepali Maoists at least the left in these places are engaged in real politics, and not ideological chatter. real political engagement even with huge mistakes in the real world is better than Marxist sectarian idealism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only real Marxists are those that ignore most of what Trotsky said, discount half of what Stalin said and debunk revisionists. The problem is that those that hold their views still call themselves Marxists. True Marxists want to move on from pointless debates with people like the guy that runs this blog.

      Oh and Maoists are Marxists too.

      Delete
    2. The problem is that no, at some point Maoism, Stalinism, etc. has broken with Marxism. If not, then Trotskyism, Luxemburgism and Left Communism has.

      These debates are not pointless, especially coming form an anti-Stalinist view point.

      We can't allow a brutal dictatorship to establish state capitalism, and purge the rest of us into labour camps or executions.

      Delete
    3. Seriously, and these Trotskyites are the absolute worst in turning "Marxism" into a pointless exercise of thinking up new terms and labels. Ever since Trotsky himself, these folks were always really good at making sure that they were completely and totally irrelevant. Real Marxists are exactly that: Marxists. Once you've got your dialectical materialism down, you would know that there are better things to do with your time than engage in endless (literally, decades-long) debates about what the proper dictionary definition for a "deformed workers' state" is. (Just one example.) All Marxist that engage in this pointless, scholastic crap should be chided, by these Trotskyites really take the cake. And here they wonder why everyone hates them?

      Delete
    4. Not a trot, first off.

      Yes, it is a serious concern when you define socialism as something it is not. The same with incorrectly labeling the USSR as a worker's state, DWS, or socialism. This isn't so much about a word, as it is about society.

      If you think socialism is something it isn't, you create all the opportunity needed for the bourgeoisie to take advantage of that.

      Next you'll be whining when I tell Bill Maher what he thinks is socialism actually isn't.

      Delete
  3. Only an idealist would expect to wake up the morning after insurrection and see no classes. Unless you kill all the petit bourgeoisie, and the labor aristocracy, then you should expect them to take up bureaucratic positions in which they are able to preserve their privilege. You should expect a class struggle to arise between the revolutionary state and its workers, until such a time, generations in the future, that technological abundance renders the state obsolete. Jason is right to say you are confusing the class struggle under socialism with the classless society it has never yet become.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not arguing that classes are abolished after the insurrection (seizure of state power). That would be an absurd position to hold.

      Jason is 100% incorrect.

      The dictatorship of the proletariat is the political transition (the proletariat organized as the ruling class - withering away from the moment of it's birth).

      This dictatorship of the proletariat exists with a CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION until the bourgeoisie has been expropriated fully, and the rest of the world has overthrown the bourgeoisie as a class. This is what we call a transition period where there is, to quote Marx, "A revolutionary transformation of one into the other [capitalism into socialism/communism]". Marx states that the DOTP coincides with this. Note transformation, not immediate abolition. Now, Marx uses socialism and communism interchangeably, so this is a MOOT POINT, if you try to use it. Lenin acknowledges as much.

      The DOTP oversees capitalism and the purpose of it is to defend the gains of the revolution, expropriate the bourgeoisie, aid communists elsewhere, and organize for socialism.

      Even Stalin himself acknowledged the STATE CAPITALIST nature of the soviet economy until 1934.

      Delete
  4. It's hardly being disputed that the DOTP oversees the transition to a classless society, in a period where capitalist production isn't totally abolished. I find your argument merely semantic. If I say a period of socialism (literally, the progressive socialization of industry and of distribution) precedes a classless society, and you say socialism is a classless society, then we are arguing over definitions alone. There is no substance to your critique. Typical Trot sectarian posturing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question is whether or not the DOTP exists within what Lenin calls socialism, and Marx calls the First Phase of Communism.

      I am arguing that the DOTP, the proletariat organized as the ruling class, does not exist in what Lenin calls socialism -- Lenin says it himself, that it is classless.

      I'm not arguing over definitions. No Marxist, from Marx to Lenin, have defined socialism as a separate society from socialism or as a class based society.

      Go jerk off to some Show trials.

      Delete
  5. I will consider troskyism when it will generate successful organisations capable of leading revolutions. As of now Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties have proven to be better organizers, better adapted theoricians and better tacticians. The first born republic in the XXIst century was maoist and a couple days ago a ML party in India organized a 100,000,000 workers general strike for two days. 1/7 of humanity (India) was jammed by communist protests for two days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could never understand this line of argumentation:

      It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, it only matters who had the most revolutions!!!!!!

      Make a real argument. Cause the bourgeoisie have beat the ML's in number of revolutions.

      Delete
  6. T - OO

    L - ONG

    D - IDN'T

    R - EAD

    ReplyDelete
  7. But socialism and communism "ARE" different. Anyone can be a socialist. A socialist is simply a modified capitalist system. Keynesian can be considered socialism, radical nationalism can be considered socialism. Socialism does not necessitate the end of class struggle, or even the elimination of privatization. It is a bureaucratic reform that either replaces the bourgeois class with a new class, or maintains the bourgeois class under the guise of wealth redistribution, second chances, "opportunities", etc. For you to claim otherwise undermines the efforts of collectivized labor.

    Maybe if you read the communist manifesto instead of the angry ramblings of Revleft, you wouldn't have to go and harass the most intelligent and effective revolutionary thinker of our time: Jason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the modern American sense of the word "socialist" and in the European reformist sense, socialism is referred to as a modified capitalist, welfare state. What that actually is, however, is "social democracy".

      Socialism in the MARXIAN, and anarchist, sense, refers to a stateless (the state as we know it - an organ of class supression), classless and moneyless society.

      Yes, socialism in the sense Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, etc. talked about was CLASSLESS.

      I've read the communist manifesto...as well as Wage Labour and Capital, Critique of the Gotha programme, the 18th brumaire of Lois Bonaparte, das kapital, and much much more by Marx.

      Maybe you should read some Marx and Lenin. It's easily accessible online.

      Delete
  8. Hi Comrade, it's me. It does sound like he is being a bit ignorant. And this will sound stupid but: how do I send you messages? How do I subscribe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems you have figured out the subscribe part of it. You can send me a message...well...I'm not sure haha, I haven't done that.

      Delete
  9. MR is just plain wrong on this one, and his ignorant bombastic reaction to your cogent arguments reflects very poorly on him. This is just Marxism 101, so I can't believe he's decided to pick a fight with you over it. He's definitely a better commentator than theoretician. Despite his general goofiness, I often watch MR and like what he has to say, but you have to cut him a lot of slack on the poor reasoning and horrendous pronunciation of multi-syllable words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stalinites have a habit of being horrendously stupid.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only an idiot or a fraud could or would confuse the issue of the transition period between capitalism and the higher stage of full communism. Only an idiot or a fraud could not or would not understand that the lower (or first) stage of communism, the transitional period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is called socialism. Marx, himself, made this perfectly clear in, both, “The Class Struggles in France,” and in his “Critique of the Gotha Programme” :

      “This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionising of all the ideas that result from these social relations.” (“The Class Struggles in France,”Marx and Engels Selected Works, Vol. 1, p. 282)

      And:

      “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” (“Critique of the Gotha Programme,” Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works,p. 331.)

      Now, please take note, our dear fraudulent idiot friend, that Marx has clearly said that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the period of transition between capitalist and communist society. It follows that this then is the socialist transition period because the means of production have become socialized, that is, they have become the common property of society. And Lenin definitely made this clear in his pamphlet on “The State and Revolution”:

      “But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the 'first,' or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production become the common property, the word 'communism' is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism.” (“The State and Revolution,” Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. 2, pp. 358-359)

      Delete