PDA

View Full Version : National Bolshevism: How to solve the problem of parasites?



Social-Nationalist
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 04:26 PM
What do National Bolsheviks propose to solve the problem of the main parasites of the capitalist state and those allied with them? Chiefly:

The city-dwellers and town-dwellers
The bureaucrats
The bourgeoisie
The jews
The intellectuals
The bribed proletarians
The panderers or "pimps" and other exploitative criminals
The landlords
The police force and army
Those sections of the petty-bourgeoisie who are involved in supvision and management (i.e., those who ensure that the workers produce a maximum of surplus value for the employer, the capitalist)

Japetos
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 07:10 PM
"Jews"?

Telperion
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 08:54 PM
What do National Bolsheviks propose to solve the problem of the main parasites of the capitalist state and those allied with them? Chiefly:

The city-dwellers and town-dwellers


The bureaucrats


The bourgeoisie


The jews


The intellectuals


The bribed proletarians


The panderers or "pimps" and other exploitative criminals


The landlords


The police force and army


Those sections of the petty-bourgeoisie who are involved in supvision and management (i.e., those who ensure that the workers produce a maximum of surplus value for the employer, the capitalist)

Since you've included "city-dwellers and town-dwellers" on the list in addition to the other groups, you have classified about 90% of the population of any developed country as "parasites".

Japetos
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 08:57 PM
:cig
Since you've included "city-dwellers and town-dwellers" on the list in addition to the other groups, you have classified about 90% of the population of any developed country as "parasites".

Social-Nationalist
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004, 11:27 PM
Since you've included "city-dwellers and town-dwellers" on the list in addition to the other groups, you have classified about 90% of the population of any developed country as "parasites".
Communism (among other things) is the abolishment of the proletarian state, through the masses of physical-labourers reacting against the tyranny of the mental labourers, the bureaucrats, the city dwellers and town dwellers.

Socialism (among other things) is the abolishment of the bourgeois state through the masses of proletarians reacting against the tyranny of the bourgeoisie.

Under socialism irreconcilable class antagonisms continue on a global level, between the international proletariat and the international bourgeoisie, but within the socialist camp the antagonistic contradictions are the contradictions between non-class social groups, products of the old society, for example contradictions between the rural proletariat and the city dwellers, the bureacrats and the popular masses, the physical labourers and the mental labourers, and so on.

The proletarian state loses its function and withers away of itself only when the international bourgeoisie is eliminated as a class and as physical entities, when socialism is achieved globally, and finally when the remaining non-class antagonistic contradictions among the people under socialism are resolved, foremost those between city dwellers and rural workers.

Marx himself was aware of the contradictions between city dwellers and the rest of the population. For he was aware of the necessity of effecting a "more equable distribution of the population over the country," as stated in chapter two of the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

I think the problem of the city dwellers and town dwellers and their parasitic lifestyle is most evident and must be resolved.

The only communist who made any real attempt at solving this problem was Pol Pot, who actually did solve it, by moving all the city dwellers and town dwellers into agrarian communes, and putting them to work, during which time they built huge lakes, many of them, with shovels, in the space of but five years, without spending any money whatever, and without using machines as well.

Telperion
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 12:28 AM
Marx himself was aware of the contradictions between city dwellers and the rest of the population. For he was aware of the necessity of effecting a "more equable distribution of the population over the country," as stated in chapter two of the Manifesto of the Communist Party.
Marx did not offer any sort of detailed explanation of how civilization (which literally means living in cities) is to exist if cities are abolished. Cities exist for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with economies of scale and the exchange of goods. Indeed, Marx no more explained how a technologically sophisticated society can exist without cities than he explained, operationally and in detail, how an advanced communist society would resolve the problems of efficiently coordinating the production and distribution of goods.


I think the problem of the city dwellers and town dwellers and their parasitic lifestyle is most evident and must be resolved.
It's evident to me that there is a trade-off. If you wish to abolish cities, you must abolish civilization, and revert to a technologically primative agrarian society (though apparently you think that would be a good idea).


The only communist who made any real attempt at solving this problem was Pol Pot, who actually did solve it, by moving all the city dwellers and town dwellers into agrarian communes, and putting them to work, during which time they built huge lakes, many of them, with shovels, in the space of but five years, without spending any money whatever, and without using machines as well.
Pol Pot the war criminal and instigator of the Cambodian genocide? You might wish to visit Cambodia and ask people there what they think of his "solution".

Social-Nationalist
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 04:26 PM
Civilisation does not mean 'living in cities'. This perhaps is in line with its etymology, but certainly not its actual meaning. The word 'civilisation' has many very agreeable connotations. This part of your argument thus relies on word-associations without regard to actual content.

Marx never said anything about the abolishment of cities, but he was perfectly aware that there was a measure of conflict between rural workers and the urban proletariat.

I do not really care what Marx had to say on the question; I was just pointing out that he, too, was vaguely aware of the problem.

Pol Pot the war criminal and instigator of the Cambodian genocide?
Pol Pot was not a 'war criminal' and there was no 'genocide' in Cambodia.

You might wish to visit Cambodia and ask people there what they think of his "solution".
Many people died under Pol Pot, but not because of Pol Pot.

Telperion
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 08:05 PM
Civilisation does not mean 'living in cities'. This perhaps is in line with its etymology, but certainly not its actual meaning. The word 'civilisation' has many very agreeable connotations. This part of your argument thus relies on word-associations without regard to actual content.
I used the word-association to embellish the substantive point, which is that there are functional economic reasons why cities develop, and serious economic (and associated technological) consequences to abolishing, or even depopulating them.


Marx never said anything about the abolishment of cities, but he was perfectly aware that there was a measure of conflict between rural workers and the urban proletariat.
He did not explicitly call for the abolition of cities, but the call for a more "equitable" distribution of population across the countryside implies, at the least, a depopulation of cities, which touches on the point above.

You are right that he noted the conflict between the urban proletariat and rural workers, though of course he did not regard urban proletarians as "parasites", rather the bourgeoisie, rentier and associated classes in the city and the countryside.



Many people died under Pol Pot, but not because of Pol Pot.
Perhaps you would care to elaborate on the difference.

Social-Nationalist
Wednesday, September 15th, 2004, 09:12 PM
I used the word-association to embellish the substantive point, which is that there are functional economic reasons why cities develop, and serious economic (and associated technological) consequences to abolishing, or even depopulating them.
Of course there are, and I agree with you.

You are right that he noted the conflict between the urban proletariat and rural workers, though of course he did not regard urban proletarians as "parasites", rather the bourgeoisie, rentier and associated classes in the city and the countryside.
To be sure.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on the difference.
The only killings for which the Khmer Rouge are responsible are those of political criminals. The Americans are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths in Cambodia under Pol Pot's leadership.