Material conditions necessary for socialism, communism

When Noa Rodman asked me whether or not “I support” so and so he left out exactly who I support them “against” – a rather large oversight. I would assume he meant “as opposed to the Empire.”

I support the Palestinian people's right to defend themselves against annihilation. I also support their right to choose their own leadership. If I were in Palestine and I had a gun I would not shoot at Hamas. I would shoot at Israelis.

This is more difficult - but I would not shoot at those defending Khadafy. If I were in Libya I would study the issue more closely but right now I think I would feel compelled to shoot at those who are hiding behind the skirts of the Empire.

I would defend the right of Persians to defend themselves against the Empire. The question would revolve around whether or not an uprising came from the people of Iran and whether it was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Empire.

This is the easiest one. I support the right of the people of Venezuela to choose their own leaders and they have chosen Hugo Chavez. The hostility of the Empire to Hugo Chavez is a classic example of Imperial hostility to a national leader that is trying to assert the right of his people to self determination. Absolutely yes.

This is the hardest one. Kim il Sung is one of the dumbest, ugliest Stalinists alive today and I cannot find a shred of evidence that the “people” of North Korea have in any sense “chosen” him to be their leader.

But yes. As against the Empire of the United States and its lapdog Britain and sidekick France I would not shoot at the forces behind him but would shoot at the forces of the Empire.

P.S. I believe this is the very old tradition of "military support" as opposed to "political support"

Ok so I think we've firmly established that Rockwell is a Kautskyite who holds the democratic principle above class struggle.

Alex, for none of your answers did you think it relevant to look at the material conditions in the countries ruled by these folk. So why do you insist on asking about material conditions when they don't figure at all in your political positions on the civil war on Lybia, the uprising in Iran, resistance against Israeli occupation, Venezuela's national interest and North-Korean regime's anti-imperialism?
Or have you in each case checked what percentage of the population is proletarian to determine your answer? Maybe you think that you didn't have to look at the material conditions because it is so obvious that socialism is impossible in Venezuela, Iran, Pa, N-K and Libya. But then it's clear that you're not interested in material conditions, but rather think in terms of empire vs. colonies.
If you're still not willing to drop your fake insistence on material conditions, at least recognize that with this there is no ground for you to oppose socialists who argue for a dictatorship of the proletariat (and proles are a minority). I think our disagreement then is (should be) a debate about our political positions in the light of imperialist dominance.
Also, you do know that I was parodying your style with the red font and repetitive series of questions, right?

Unfair to Kautsky, but yes, this is Roxwell's version of rights to self-determination (which he also equates to sovereignty of already existing states). This point as it existed in Lenin's/social-democrats' program however perfectly allowed socialists to argue against actual work for self-determination (so even if the majority of proletarians of a certain nation were in favor).

Ding Dong. I think I have explained over and over and over again why it is that I ask you people about "material conditions" in various countries. You just don't want to hear it.

Some countries are materially ready for socialism. Others are not.

I think I did, in fact. get several of you to finally break down and admit that at long last - including Noa.

The "program" for those countries that have have the material prerequisites would be your classic working class uprising followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat. I think you would agree about that so I don't talk about it very much here.

What is the "program" for those countries that do not have the material prerequisites for socialism? Most of you will do anything to avoid answering that question. That is the question I am very anxious to get you to answer. Instead of anything coherant I get called a Maoist, a Trotskyist, and now, even more ludicrously, I am called a "Kautskyite." This is not debate. It is just silly name calling based on nothing.

The problem is that you're kicking in open doors. Bolsheviks, like Mensheviks, knew very well that socialism wasn't possible in Russia because of material conditions. I don't think your question about the necessary material conditions is sincere, as your answers to my questions take up political positions that either pass over the material conditions as self-evidently lacking (which means you already know what they are), or worse, don't take them into account at all.
I believe that your opposition to the Bolshevik program of the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be based on lacking material conditions. My sense is that your opposition is in reality based on the perceived (neo-)colonial status of these places. You can base your opposition on both arguments of course, but I think it's important not to conflate this in your argument. I believe your real question is (should be); what are the necessary conditions in which a country is (sufficiently) free from imperialist domination?

The answer is dictatorship of the proletariat (ding dong). But the material conditions aren't ready? Granted, but that doesn't mean workers should sit on their hands or hand over leadership to someone other class.

What is your "program" for those countries that do not have the material prerequisites for socialism Noa?

Is it that those "advanced workers" who have communist consciousness should move to one of those countries that do?

Or is it just to proceed blindly and try to get the workers of New Guinea to overthrow their current leaders and impose a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in New Guinea?

I will not call you a dummy just because you have taken two incredibly dumb-ass positions here. Anyone can make a mistake.

Neither will I call you inconsistent and contradictory because these two positions are different from one another. No one is fully consistent all of the time.

I will not call you "insincere" because I am not clairvoyant and have no idea what is going on inside of your mind.

But what if the workers do not listen to you and struggle for something that is less than a "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Is it your way or the highway?

I take it you disagree with me, but that won't change my reply to you. There's no inconsistency in the program I propose. When the socialists have established a dictatorship of the proletariat in New Guinea they should send their best organizers to the advanced countries (in their region that would be Australia, Japan and maybe Hawaii); if they are socialists, their goal is after all the international revolution. But obviously I think they will have their hands more than full with their own country.

Fair enough, but still my impression is that your political positions are based on wanting countries to be 'sufficiently' free from the imperialist yoke. I think you even once explained the lack of necessary material conditions in these backward countries as directly caused by imperialist domination. Your interest in what the necessary material conditions are is at best a secondary issue. So the real debate you and me should be having is about the prospects of anti-imperialism, etc. I don't think your political anti-imperialism is really about creating the possibility for the necessary material conditions. Probably it's about justice or tailing those struggles which involve the majority of the people, but that's mind-reading on my part.

oh nope, it's just reading your posts.

Would you prefer an insincere Kautskyite-Trotskyite-Maoist or someone who believes in the New Guinean Dictatorship of the Proletariat ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9073157933630784238#

The movie tells the story of the successful uprising of the indigenous peoples of Bougainville Island against the Papua New Guinea army and the mining plans of the RTZ company to exploit their natural resources. The documentary reveals how the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) managed to overcome the blockade strategy carried by the papuan army by using coconut oil as fuel.

Which Israelis? The workers or their bosses or both?

Gee Whiz blackrainbow.

I am in Palestine and I see six Israelis armed to the teeth coming to bulldoze down my house.

I have a gun and am prepared to defend myself against this atrocity.

I will look deeply into the eyes of each of the six israelis to determine which of them are "workers" and which of them are bosses.

Once I know for sure which one[s] are capitalists I will shoo .........................

oops. I think I've been shot dead.

.
News today:

NEP!

Has anyone shed any light on this subject for Yoda? He or she seems active on other sites but seemingly has abandoned this one after opening it.

I sent him a question but did not hear back.

I already gave the reading material, from Kautsky: What, then, are the pre-requisites for the establishment of Socialism?
and Trotsky: The Pre-Requisites of Socialism