Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky

Goodreads Reviews.

A decent book demonstrating the intensity required for revolution, as shown in Trotsky’s promotion of extreme action, as shown in the word count. Made more interpretable by Slavoj Zizek. His opening assertion that political revolution requires a thing to revolt against and continued revolt after dominance is achieved, is anathema to the initial cause is a very keen observation. His introduction, even though relatively brief, still manages to refer to a love affair of Trotsky’s and weave in a brief dream analysis.

This book communicates historical information, both prior and contemporary to the author. It communicates theoretical perspective of communist revolution. It communicates a perspective on a tumultuous period of history, & of class, ignored due to WWII.

At no point is a decent explanation given by Trotsky about why a dictatorship of the proletariat is represented by Trotsky and his political party. The defining quality of the proletariat is factory labour. A person who labours entirely in the field of politics, i.e. Trotsky, has clearly appointed them self as shepherd to a flock. This immediately invalidates the claim of dictatorship by the proletariat. It is too historic to inspire debates if it was a dictatorship for the proletariat.

Further, there is no basis for believing either group, proletariat or politicians, have any skill whatsoever in running an entire nation-state. Organising freight & logistics of food across a nation as vast as Russia or even organisation of plumbing for a town are challenges for a class who are neither politicians nor factory labourers. To some extent this issue is addressed by analogy of communism being a boat on the water, which must be constructed as it sails. This is an insufficient counter-argument, this example of dictatorship of the proletariat is neither true nor appealing (if you like plumbing and food from far away).

The above section is my review of the book on the delightful website, Goodreads.

*Look to pages 143-144 to see harsh condemnation from the wrong man speaking the truth. Abramovic says 1 in 10 men of the labour army actually works, Trotsky says it is 1.4 in 10.*

Advertisements

Pacifist Placations.

*Do note the picture is blatant hypocrisy, Iran is sending & supplying Shia militia.*

To wilfully take life away is wrong. It may be a justifiable wrong in certain situations, such as self defence or in defence of another. The state of Syria, has not sent violence against the USA. Actions which destabilise the Assad government destabilise public goods supply. Further violent action by the Arab Council, Russia and other foreign nations intensify and polarise the situation.

Chemical weaponry in Syria was disarmed without a violent coercion, why not approach it all like that? Dropping bombs on Daesh / ISIS for ignoring human rights is hypocrisy. It is wilfully taking away life, and it does not deliver the substance of human rights. Killing the executioner of infidels does not allow the infidels free practise of religion. Assaulting the Daesh / ISIS group for creating a bad political system does not create a good political system.

Much support for action comes from fear of Islamic extremism. It is a risk and a problem which can strike beyond the places where Islam is most concentrated, however, when it strikes away from it’s homelands, it strikes feebly. More people die from food poisoning in France than have died from Islamic extremism. It must be known that the most common victim of Islamic violence is a Muslim. When the USA intervenes it does not do so from a moral high ground, the money spent on war would be more honourably spent on curbing death from food poisoning. This perspective is found in those who lack awareness of the political groups in the region (Assad, ISIS / Daesh, Shia militia, Kurds, and more).

To support the war is to support death, disease and dismemberment. If moral justification is sought by Human Rights transgressions, than it can only be maintained by supplying the public goods lost by the transgression. More violent action from a multitude of foreign nations will not inspire trust in the honour of those nations.

Male Supremacy. x3

Immediately written out from watching Cornell West.

Male Supremacy.
Partially produced by passive consistency with the past. For example, speakers of gendered languages may always associate two disparate entities due to the arbitrarily assigned gender pronoun. So this consistency may lay apart from months of choices, only to reveal itself before or after a choice. To continue the example, the speaker of a gendered language makes jokes about women having the same qualities as the feminine pronoun word. Having chosen immoral action, subsequent cognitive dissonance, in a word, doubt, will arise about the conflict between the ideal self and reality. Heed it if it ever actually happens like this, although the act would already be receding into the past, consideration and conversation will develop and maintain the ideal moral image.

Male Supremacy.
Also a piece of sexuality. Individuals may become, in a word, ‘invigorated’, by playing upon the concept. For some, the clearer and more spoken the conceptual paradigm becomes, ‘invigoration’ may zero. No one mentions the Emperors New Clothes. However, if it is agreement between individuals, then I refuse it can zero ‘invigoration’. Deliberation, upon when it is not in agreement between people, reveals situations when spoken intents could reveal future crime.

Male Supremacy.
A dynamic of groups, and not only of male groups. Conversations and social occasions will demonstrate an impact. Gender consistency is a fundamental way to phrase this, an example is most people are more comfortable meeting strangers of their own gender. Due to history infinitesimal passage away, our present and immediate future show continuation of male supremacy. It could be expressed by discussion of male body language, of gender equality or something else. However the game must begin somewhere, let me leave you with this, “Men are blessed.”.

*Do visit that site, it’s art*

Over-Coming Anti-War.

The Opinion:
War in Syria, as lead by the USA, will leave behind nothing better than has been left in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

The Counter-Argument:

The purpose of action is good results, but also to exemplify right & wrong intentions. Foreign intervention must clearly include Russian, Iranian, Saudi Arabian actions and also non-violent actions. Actions speak louder than words, to act & speak in & about Syria is partially an exercise in morality. Refusal to speak about the correct way to intervene and denial of a correct way to intervene, or to even opine intervention, refuses and denies one’s own capacity for morality and refuses & denies one’s nations capacity for morality.

On the international stage, there are many moral standards. Human Rights is the most agreed upon standard, but could be held as among the least enforced of moral standards. Agreements justified by a basis in national law have led to a consensual basis of international law. International law has not been the basis to fully create a national code, although it has been used as a standard to decide corrective challenges re-writing a national code. There has not been an extension of Human Rights in an idealistic & realistic method to create a state structure which has the consensus of Human Right principles. If Human Rights are to develop a better tomorrow, they must be implemented. If Human Rights are to have value, that value must be defended.

Actions taken in the three nations (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan) were, definitively partially, against endemic forms of state violence. Prior to engagement of foreign military, there are demonstrable offences against Human Rights, as well as demonstrable attempts to improve the situation by political and economic approaches. The actions of the three nations, and the reactions against them, were not consistent with the principles of Human Rights. The actions of those three nation state-systems are the greater of the two evils, in my opinion.

Now there is a clearer standard for foreign intervention in a positive example of the trumpet calls for war, a negative example in the trumpet calls against war and in a realistic example of what actually happened. It would be a quiet planet if none of those trumpets sounded again. However, the scarcity of public goods & services in Syria, alongside the wrongful exercise of state violence in Syria has struck against the bell of Human Rights, which then sounded both sets of trumpets. Hopefully by heeding the lessons of history, a larger example of what to do and a smaller example of what not to do, shall be the legacy of foreign intervention in Syria.

Violence in Syria.

I support military action, state organised violence, against the Assad government in Syria and against ISIS / Daesh. I support it for the goal of fundamental alteration to the Assad political system. I support the creation of a political system akin to the kingdom of Jordan (quota & geographic democracy) and Ataturks idealised Turkey. Note; although benevolent dictatorships, there is or was an attitude towards continuation independent of the benevolent dictator.

Military action began to be justified decades ago by the Assad government action of stripping citizenship of hundreds of thousands of Kurds and other contemporary crimes. These actions created refugees, which irritated foreign nations, creating demand within foreign nations for action to be taken. Greater and more recent justification was created when violence was used to supress, chemical weapons were used against sleeping civilians and the use of starvation against bastions of political opposition. A political system of autocracy must be not be the goal of military action.

ISIS / Daesh capital punishment system unacceptable to most modern nations, such as death for making magic. This is fundamentally wrong as magic does not exist. Further justification for alteration or destruction of the the ISIS / Daesh political system is grounded in values of equality, transgressed by the treatment of women. A political system of theocracy must not be the goal of military action.

The goal of military action must be to create the environment for a superior government to emerge. Most pressingly this means reduction of violence. If successful, citizens will cease becoming refugees and some refugees will return. Plans to improve the political situation must also include supplying citizens with food, plumbing, housing, medicine, education and worthy labour. A political system based upon the previously mentioned states is held to forth as the best hope to supply those things.

Jordan and ideal Turkey exist within similar environments; physical, religious, social and so forth. Jordan and ideal Turkey represent a political system most acceptable to the elite nations of the world. Gradual change from the Assad government was not possible when first attempted by dissenting Syrians. Gradual change through negotiations may be possible. Difficulty in moving directly from anarchic civil war to a constitutional democratic republic may be overcome if appropriate resources are supplied by the global community, and a touch from Lady Luck. A benevolent dictator could emerge naturally as the situation progresses, or not at all.

An analogy, the creation of refugees is like a broken pipe flooding a room. Let’s say refugees are the flooding water, the broken pipe is the state of Syria and the room is the EU. The water can be spread about the room or thrown out of the window onto the neighbours yard but sooner or later, that pipe has to be fixed.

Science as Modern Elite.

In modern Australia, and in most of the 194 (ish) other nations, science is the commonly accepted source of truth. In some nations, such as Saudi Arabia, and in the past, such as mediaeval Vatican City, faith in a Divine was the source of the truth. This modern mode of truth is good and has supremely enhanced the lives of the citizens of the globe.

Scientific method; of defining a question, hypothesis, testing, recording data, assessment and development of the hypothesis. The results must be repeatable in the same conditions. This validates concepts as having been tested by the scientific method. Conceptually this method emphasises co-operation by communication more than forms of inter-personal competition.

Association with this lodestone of truth to automatically triggers an extension of trust. For example, by corroborating a political initiative (restrictions on cigarettes) with a scientifically qualified opinion (ill health, addiction). The first beginning of science as elite is the public trust in the scientific method as the best determinant of truth in the public domain.

Scientific endeavours are not open to all, resources and connections are too significant. This is a second beginning of elitism in science. However the possibility to alter some specific body of science is open to anything which is demonstrated by the scientific method. This openness to change is a unique advantage which most previous elite concepts have lacked, and is undoubtedly a considerable justification of the position it holds in relation to the truth and to society.

It must be mentioned that science emphasises idea over emotion and this is not properly reflective of human nature. Limitations, when considering the personal or social or political realms merit investigation.