| Theory |
|
Truth, Expediency, and Personality Cults August 12, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
Every time I think I've finished with the Revolutionary Communist Party (U.S.) -- starring Bob Avakian -- I somehow find myself entangled once more.
They are very serious, very sincere, and hopelessly confused. They will say something very sensible one minute...and the next, they will start "speaking in tongues" about their "main man".
It seems to me that most of them must suffer from a terrible psychological strain: they want communism very much -- and yet they must at least vaguely sense that what they are trying to build is the very opposite of communism...a cult of a "great leader" and a host of dedicated followers.
A number of modern Leninist groups have abandoned the "great leader cult" strategy (at least for the time being). But those who still try to do things "Mao's way" will, I think, inevitably crack under that strain...and, if history is any guide, abandon revolutionary politics altogether.
Such a waste!
===========================================
quote:
First, it says that people are "turned off" by the idea that a political party (movement and ideology) has "Truth." And people are "turned off" by the idea that there is a great leader that they should check out.
So (the logic goes) you can't get anywhere like this. You are better off not claiming you have the truth, and you are better off not talking so much about leadership, and about Avakian in particular.
I think this could be formulated more clearly.
For example, there's a difference between saying Marx was right about this or that...and saying "Marxism is TRUTH".
The first is a provisional claim, subject to further investigation and verification...it fits comfortably within the realm of scientific discourse. The second is an absolute claim that leaves no room for further dispute...it has the "aura" of revelation about it.
What the ideological post-modernists have seized upon and reinforced is the general disenchantment (not to say outright cynicism) about absolute truth.
We have learned, over the last couple of centuries, that such claims of "absolute truth" are not to be trusted. It has turned out that nearly all of them (not surprisingly to Marx) simply reflected the "base" material interests of one or another portion of the ruling class.
Someone wrote on this board a few months back "I believe in MLM because it is true". Setting aside whether or not it actually "is true", the attitude projected by such statements strikes the modern ear as discordant...and even frightening. What always happens to non-believers when such paradigms are reflected in state-power?
Secondly, I think you hedged a bit when you said the RCP has a "great leader" that people "should check out".
You don't just want people to "check out" Avakian, you want them to follow him.
And everyone who reads such a statement realizes that.
The historical track record of "great leaders" is the major obstacle to your efforts..."everyone knows" what "great leadership" means in practice.
You can say your guy is "different" and "better" all you want...and all people perceive is arrogance. With worse to follow should he ever actually come to power.
Thus, when you speak to people of "Truth" and a "great leader", it is indeed a "turn-off"...it runs sharply contrary to the actual experiences of the masses.
quote:
And it is tied to particular forms of radical democracy. In other words, if the point of revolution is just to "let the people decide" (i.e. if self-determination at all levels is the point), then you don't need any truth, you just need to let the people decide. Truth is not an issue; life is just a poll. You should do what the people "want" -- whether their analysis is based on a correct understanding or not.
Put that way, it does seem like a pretty shaky proposition. Who knows what they might decide to do?
Yet what other options do we have that haven't already been tried...and miserably failed?
Every form of class society in recorded history has been ruled by an elite that claimed it used its power "in our best interests". Upon investigation, every such claim has totally collapsed.
No one would deny that some despotisms are "more humane" than others, both past and present. But the one "gift" that despotism cannot "give" is freedom from class society altogether. None have ever done so or even attempted to do so. I don't think it will ever happen.
Thus "radical democracy", with all the risks that are implied by that term, appears to be our only chance to be free.
Some say that "it can't work". Others even say that most people "don't want" to be free. Either or both may be right.
We can only articulate and struggle for what we really want -- communism -- and then see what tomorrow brings.
quote:
The problem is that often people (and here I include everyone, including communists) often don't know what they NEED.
A truism. But matched against that truism is another: how many people, for their own benefit, have lied to us about what we "needed"?
Who has ever told us the truth?
Well, real scientists have told us a lot of true things. Here and there, there've been a few revolutionaries who were as truthful with us as their circumstances and experiences permitted.
But that's about it, when you get right down to it.
So when someone tells us, for example, "you need a great leader", why should we accept that?
Why should we not rely on our own "subjective" estimate of objective reality..."here's yet another guy who wants to ride on our backs."
quote:
So it may be true that many radical youth (especially middle class youth) are influenced by radical democracy. They think they can make change without a vanguard, without a revolutionary ideology, and without grasping the insights synthesized by our main man. But the truth is (there is that horrible word TRUTH again!)... the truth is that they NEED these things whether they know it or not.
So you say. But suppose you're wrong?
quote:
Also, what people think now is not at all necessarily what they [will] think tomorrow.
Yes, all our hopes (yours and mine) are pinned on that one. It is a truth...but what kind of truth it will turn out to be remains to be seen.
quote:
Redstar can tell us all how SDS was a liberal, social democratic antiwar group one year, and then (through an explosive process) became a movement with several competing currents that all ascribed to one form or another of revolutionary communism and ML.
That's not actually what I said...but I will say here that SDS became "Marxist"-Leninist not because that is some kind of a-historical process that "always happens", but because Leninism appeared at that time to be the genuinely revolutionary alternative.
As you know, that's no longer the case.
quote:
...those same folks will have a much much harder time dismissing serious, hard-core communist politics, if they engage what is said and done in those two speeches.
I did reply to one excerpt; I will look into the remaining two excerpts posted at your link.
quote:
But the reality is that these are issues that need to be approached first on the level of truth: are these things true or not? Are they objectively true? And then: do people objectively need to hear about this?
I agree with you about this; every positive statement about the universe must be greeted with the question: is that true...what's the evidence for its truth?
It naturally follows that if the answer to that question is satisfactory -- "makes sense" -- then those whom the statement concerns objectively do need to hear it.
quote:
But if we were to refuse to promote communist politics because they are "rejected" or "ridiculed" or "unpopular" in this or that place -- what kind of communists would we be?
Not very good ones, I would agree.
Communist integrity demands that we tell people the truth as best we can, regardless of its "acceptability" or "popularity" or "respectability", etc.
There's simply no getting around that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on July 29, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
This is another one of those "I'll put words in your mouth, then criticize you for them."
Who said "Marxism is truth"?
Not me. And not the RCP.
Believe it or not, it's not really my intention to "put words" in your's or anyone's mouth...but I do have the strong impression that you and the RCP are quite convinced that "MLM" is "TRUE" on a grand scale.
By "grand scale", I mean something that goes far beyond the usual claims of a scientific paradigm.
Evolution, after all, is certainly true "on a grand scale" but the details and mechanisms are hotly contested and likely will be for a considerable period to come.
I don't get this from your statements about "MLM"...it is more like "here is a finished product" which, whether one knows it or not, one "needs".
You know and I know that it's not "really finished"...but I think that's the impression people generally have who've been exposed to it.
Perhaps what is missing in your presentation of "MLM" is a sense of "vitality" (for want of a better word)...a sense that you are offering people something that is alive and growing, full of controversies, rich with struggle, etc.
Something that is really interesting and even challenging.
I will grant you that at this time, people often want a "finished product" (that they perceive as useful, of course). But, as you yourself have pointed out, is that what people really "need"?
Put it this way: some people think that if we convince the masses to "follow communist leadership" that's "all it takes to win".
Others think that if we convince the masses of the correctness of communist ideas...that will "get the job done".
In my opinion, the masses must learn to "think like communists"...a very different process than simply dropping their old bourgeois garments in the trash and putting on some fresh new communist garments, much less simply following some guy who "seems like he knows what he's doing".
And then some people would say that the masses "can't do" what I propose...or that they could only do that after "many, many years, decades, even centuries of training" by "communist leadership".
There's no way of knowing whether or not that is true; but it seems to me that if successful proletarian revolution is to be possible at all, then only a self-conscious proletariat can make that happen.
quote:
So it is unfair (i.e. putting words in our mouths) to suggest that we don't want people to "check it out" -- but only want people to "follow."
Actually I said this: "You don't just want people to "check out" Avakian, you want them to follow him."
In other words, sure, you want people to "check him out" and "engage his ideas", etc. But then you want people to follow him.
You present him as someone who is "qualitatively superior" to not only ordinary working people but to all other living revolutionaries of any variety.
Over the decades, I've frequently met people who knew a great deal more than I did (or do) about certain matters...and I've read some books by people who could only be described as geniuses -- folks far out of my league in the breadth and the depth of their thinking. (Stephen Hawking comes to mind.)
But I've never encountered any "super-heroes" in revolutionary politics (and I actually met and talked with Che Guevara before he went to Bolivia).
The idea of a "great leader" (your words) strikes me as fundamentally contradictory to the communist project.
quote:
I think all historic projects and achievements of the masses included (as part of their realization) the development of leaders and movements. The emergence of leaders (great and even not so great) is an achievement of the masses and their struggle.
And there have, in fact, been great leaders in history, that accomplished great things -- and not only proletarian leaders but other revolutionary leaders (of other classes) who in their own way, and in their own time, are inseparable from great advances.
Your assumption that our experience with leadership is universally bad, and everyone knows it -- is completely mistaken.
I agree that the rise of new ruling classes has been associated with the rise of "great leaders"...but whatever their positive accomplishments may have been, that rise has generally culminated in despotism.
Thus, is it reasonable to extend that parallel to proletarian revolution and the end of ruling classes altogether?
For those who accept "MLM" perhaps it is; they (you) anticipate a lengthy "transition state" and consequent class society.
But since I don't accept that, it follows that the "great leader" to me is just another part of the debris of class society...off to the "dumpster of history" with it!
quote:
In my experience, many people (especially in the proletariat) have a profound sense of the importance of leaders. And are excited when revolutionaries (especially hard-core revolutionaries, and people they know to be such) come forward and say "we have a leader who can take us through this."
There is an excitement about this. And frankly the whiny negativism of radical democrats and a few anarchist types is far, far from indicative of the overall response.
Well, if that's true, then the existence of this thread seems to be somewhat pointless. That is, if real workers are "lining up" with Avakian, then you are "entitled" to dismiss your internet critics as "whiny negativists" and ignore them.
I think the fact that this thread was begun as a consequence of seeing some of the internet reaction to your claims reveals that "you have a problem".
And I don't think it's limited to the internet.
quote:
I don't agree at all, I think it runs in line with an often deeply felt need. Black people have been "looking for a Moses" explicitly for centuries. And while we don't offer "a Moses" -- I mention that because you are clearly not taking such views, experiences and yearnings into account.
People often feel they are deeply lied to, but are speechless because they don't have access to reliable, penetrating, truthful answers (and counterarguments).
What is our press (the RW) if not the antidote for the lies of a system?
Why is it wrong to say so?
You switched horses there. Yes, I think there are many people looking for truthful answers. "Everyone knows" that the bourgeois media are liars.
You publish a newspaper in which you attempt to provide truthful answers and you say that you are doing that.
Nothing wrong with that at all. I used to do it myself.
But the fact that some people (black or otherwise) may be "looking for Moses" to "lead them out of bondage" does not alter the brutal fact that it can't be done.
The consensus among Biblical scholars now is that there never was an "Exodus" or a "Moses". It was a pious myth.
The "revolutionary" counter-part of that myth is that a great leader will arise "to lead the working class out of bondage". But it won't happen.
Why not? Because liberation is a mass phenomenon. It's not something that "Moses" can do "for people"...people can only do it for themselves, almost always as part of collective rebellion.
Consider what happened during the American Civil War and afterwards. As the Union armies advanced through the Confederacy, slaves just ahead of the advance joyfully abandoned their masters/mistresses and fled to the union lines. "Moses had finally arrived".
But, after the war was over and the ex-slaves had state power in their own hands...they could do nothing effective with it. As soon as the Union occupation troops were withdrawn, the reconstruction governments were overthrown by white minorities at once and black people subsequently terrorized all the way back into serf-like conditions.
"Moses had gone fishing."
Not having liberated themselves, the ex-slaves had no idea of how to use or protect their own liberty. What the new bourgeois ruling class gave...it took away again.
Easily.
In a somewhat different way, this was the history of the 20th century socialist states -- much was "given" to the working class by the vanguard parties...but then it was all taken away. "Moses" turned out to be a con-man.
That's something else I think that "everyone knows".
quote:
...or do you too think that "the truth as best we can" is not really truth. And that we should hang our heads and pretend "all we have to offer is our personal, sorry, subjective opinions, just like everyone else"?
No, I don't. You don't see me doing that, do you?
One advantage that I have over you is that I don't claim to possess a "full package" of "TRUTH"...which makes it a little easier for me to gain a hearing. But I certainly catch plenty of flak ("WHO are YOU to say THAT?")...and you will inevitably catch a lot more.
Your claims are much greater and more inclusive than mine...thus you will draw greater heat from all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Some will have principled political objections to your line; others will be ideological (and material) enemies.
My advice? Develop a very thick skin. You will need it.
quote:
The denial of truth is tied to the assumptions of radical democracy. Which says "you don't need to make any real analysis of objective reality, you just need democratic processes and the modesty to just ask people what they want."
The assumption (a PROFOUNDLY mistaken assumption) is that (somehow) what people want corresponds with what they need, and what they want to do corresponds with what they need to do.
I don't argue that you shouldn't tell people what you think they ought to want or what you think they need to do.
That's where your "analysis of objective reality" comes in.
It is when you seek to impose this analysis and its conclusions on people "at gunpoint" that you have "fallen off the cliff".
After that, it no longer matters whether you were right or wrong in your analysis...now, all that matters is the size of your police force and the loyalty of your army.
And the capacity of your prisons and labor camps, of course.
"Moses", you'll recall, was a rather despotic bastard as soon as the "Hebrew children" got to Mount Sinai.
If proletarian revolution is not followed by radical democracy by and for the proletariat itself (not, of course, for the old ruling class and its lackeys), then the revolution itself is lost -- though it may take several decades for that to become obvious.
I can easily imagine communists in the post-revolutionary era seeing the masses make one or several serious errors -- and how infuriating and demoralizing that would feel.
But yielding to the temptation to "step in", "take over", and "do it right" must be avoided at all costs.
If we do that, then, even if we "win", we lose!
The "hard course" is to struggle in a protracted fashion for the right line among the masses...even if it takes decades.
If you like, there's something that Mao was right about (before 1949).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on August 3, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You make it sound like the idea of following a great leader means literally following them, as in "follow Bill across the street".
It seems to develop into that over time.
Histories of the Bolshevik party suggest that there was quite a bit of internal struggle in that party prior to October 1917. Inspite of his prestige, Lenin actually lost important policy votes. Bolsheviks did not "flop on their bellies" just because Lenin rose to speak.
Attitudes changed after October. Fewer and fewer people argued with Lenin. And the ones who did enjoyed diminishing success. As one Bolshevik put it: "Vote with Comrade Lenin even if you disagree; you'll always be on the right side."
Information about the internal life of Mao's party is much more scarce...did anyone argue with Mao after 1934 or thereabouts? One would imagine that following the catastrophic "Great Leap Forward" and the subsequent great famine, that Mao would have been replaced...but you can't "replace" "great leaders" no matter how much they fuck up. Your whole political identity is tied up with their image...you can only wait for them to die.
You can say that you "don't want" blind obedience...but what do you get whether you want it or not?
Remember that socialism is a class society...which means that the universal rule of class societies prevails: to get along, go along.
Challenging the "great leader" is never "a good career move".
quote:
The mass phenomenon of liberation we're talking about here isn't going to amount to much unless at every stage people are gaining a clearer and clearer picture of where we're going (communism) and why.
No doubt...but unless people are actually exercising power, how will they "gain that clearer picture"?
Most workers understand that the best way to learn something is to do it...I don't mean to disparage academic knowledge, but I know from personal experience that there are things that they don't bother to "put in the books". (I read a lot about computers before I purchased one; but it was the experience of actually using one on a daily basis that really taught me how to do it.)
The way to build communism is to actually do that...accepting the fact that errors will be made.
quote:
And that an essential task for the new socialist state is to continually expand and transform the "we" who holds state power, and part of that is training masses in the methods of dialectical materialist analysis and communist methods of leadership (to lead others!).
How is this "we" to be "expanded"? How does that minority that holds state power start giving it away?
And why would they want to do that? How does it serve their material interests?
You know it's no use saying "Oh, we're communists, we wouldn't do something like that, just hold on to state power to benefit ourselves."
People would laugh.
quote:
"Everyone" may think they "know" this, but regardless of what they think, this is way too simplistic an explanation of what happened.
Of course it is "too simplistic". And, thanks to the unceasing efforts of the bourgeois ideologues, people have a much more negative impression of socialism than is really justified.
But it cannot be denied that the masses were really "out of the picture" as far as real power was concerned.
The liberation that was promised never happened.
And that is something that "everybody knows".
quote:
These things run totally counter to what we're about; to try to say that this is what real revolutionary communists intend to do, ever, is just dishonest (or jaded, cynical, whatever, but in any case it's false).
You begin with the premise that your party (a small minority) "must" hold state power, "must" have the "final say" on all decisions of substance. You continue with the further premise that the leadership of that party (an even smaller minority) must "have the final say" within the party itself.
What's the most reasonable and even the only possible outcome?
You don't need "evil intentions"...you've created a dynamic that will overcome and destroy your best intentions.
The "great leader" will become a Great Despot ruling over the tomb of the hopes of the masses for liberation.
I don't see any way you can avoid this unless you attack and overthrow the premises of Leninism itself.
quote:
...and it's only the minority of oppressors and their die-hard supporters who need to have such an analysis of objective reality "imposed" on them.
Defeating the "old oppressors" is "child's play"...we know pretty much how to do that.
It is the new oppressors that rise up within the Leninist party who have never been defeated. Stalin couldn't do it. Mao couldn't do it.
Given the structural constraints of the Leninist paradigm, I frankly don't think anyone can do it...ever.
You may well dismiss that as "jaded" or "cynical"..."your guy" "won't be" "like that".
Maybe not...but his successor will be!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on August 5, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Repeating over and over that the RCP is "cultish" doesn't make it so.
Yes, that's true, it doesn't. But what reactions do you expect from people when you are constantly furnishing evidence of "cultism"?
quote:
When you have a "Marx in your midst" it is actually worth thinking through what that means, and how you talk about that.
What people seem to be thinking (judging from the NYC indymedia thread) is that such a claim is outrageous and completely without any justification whatsoever.
Even Lenin was not described during his life-time by the people who worked most closely with him in such extravagant terms. I don't think even Mao was.
In fact, the only parallel that I know of is that of Kim, père et fils, in North Korea...where supernatural events "take place" on their respective birthdays.
The fact that you "repeat" these astonishing claims about Bob Avakian "over and over again" also does not make them true.
In fact, the more effusive your language becomes on this subject, the more convinced people are going to become of your "cultism".
I think that kid who wrote that post about "opening your heart to Bob Avakian" was a sympathizer and not a member of the RCP...but I also think he was quite sincere and probably a future member.
Keep this stuff up and his sentiments will become the norm in the RCP.
quote:
In fact, one of the complexities of real life revolution and real life socialism is that we will still need leaders, centers, revolutionary authority of specific people, even "judgment halls."
Power is not exercised directly -- with the exception of the very moments of uprising and war. And even there the clash is led.
Then why should the masses be interested? If there's no power for them in your "package", then why should they put their lives on the line?
That's what it really comes back to..."over and over again".
quote:
And many of the leftover anarchist prejudices that have such force (in some circles) need to "move over" -- cause they are in the way of getting where we need to go.
Perhaps you should have them arrested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on August 8, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
How does this "evidence" prove the RCP to be a cult following for Chairman Avakian?
Because it's "over the top".
Because you can't claim that Avakian is "a living Marx" without suggesting to others that you've simply abandoned all rational judgment and critical thinking.
If Avakian had really accomplished something on the theoretical level of Marx -- for example, resolving the problems with the labor theory of value in such a way as to confound the most critical bourgeois economists -- then, you'd have reason to boast.
Or, if in the realm of revolutionary practice, Avakian had genuinely spectacular achievements to his name -- a successful revolution, for example, or at least a large and thriving party solidly rooted in the working class -- then people would certainly have to pay some respectful attention to his ideas. "That Avakian fellow is making things happen; I better check him out."
Neither of those things being true, the consequence is that your praise has "the look and feel" of cultism.
quote:
Also I must comment that Lenin was considered a Marx amongst many, especially within the Bolshevik Party.
Historically that is simply not true.
quote:
The same with Mao Tsetung in the cultural revolution.
Here, you may be right. There was certainly a great deal of completely unjustified praise circulated about Mao...but I can't recall anyone saying that Mao was "a living Marx".
quote:
Essentially promoting Avakian is not just promoting the most important Revolutionary Leader in this nation today, but the Line of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, [to] which he has applied his whole life with deep thought.
You appear to imply that unless the "Line" is personified, no one will be interested.
How does this differ from "and the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us"?
A political line stands or falls on its merits, of course, and not on the basis of "who said it".
quote:
How could the masses practice power "directly" with all aspects of society without there being confusion, illogical planning, etc.?
That's not an answer to my question. All you're saying here is that you think the masses are "incompetent" to directly govern society.
My question did not concern "competence" -- it concerned perceived objective interests.
If ordinary working people are not to exercise power, then why should we lift a finger to help you make a revolution?
Why should we risk our lives to put you in that plush leather chair behind the big desk? You know, the one where our present boss sits now.
What's in it for us?
Your promises?
Why should we believe them?
quote:
There is an ever existing dialectic between Led and Leading.
So you say...and we on the bottom of the food chain know how that "dialectic" plays out in the real world.
You get the goodies and we get the shit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on August 9, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
But let's just say: It was Kautsky (not Lenin) who had the big creds of "large and thriving party" -- and fighting for revolutionary marxism required fighting against those leaders who had "respectful attention" on that basis.
I'm not quite sure as to your point here. As far as I know, Lenin was quite respectful towards Kautsky and German Social Democracy prior to 1914.
Also, as I have recently learned, the Bolsheviks were doing rather well in the period 1912-14...particularly among workers. Lenin had his own "creds".
quote:
I think the Chairman's [Avakian's] work (including these incredible and rather unprecedented DVDs) will actually transform the political landscape.
I guess we'll find out, sooner or later. *sighs*
But what will you do if you're wrong?
quote:
Let's put it another way: what is the difference between a radical upsurge and the emergence of a "revolutionary people" willing to live and die for revolution?
Time and circumstance, I suspect. If the material conditions are favorable, then the "radical upsurge" becomes impossible to suppress and the old order crumbles.
quote:
What actually has to go on for a core of people to emerge that is willing to "do all that needs doing" -- and isn't that INSEPARABLE from the very issues that our main man has made central to his life and work?
Beats me. What I can say is that "a core of people" is and will always be insufficient to "do all that needs doing".
quote:
And that will really upset various forces -- both in the establishment, and in the crusty tired jaded defeated circles of the left -- but so be it.
Crusty, tired, jaded and defeated?
You are aware, presumably, that many of your left critics will turn those very words against you.
Not now, of course, but later...when things "don't work out" and you end up abandoning revolutionary politics altogether.
It's happened before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on August 11, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================= |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| The "professional" under capitalism does not concern himself with the social consequences of his daily work; he’s just doing his job within whatever constraints might exist at any given moment. He "carries out his orders" no matter what they might be. So, if he is ordered to apprehend a random sniper on a killing spree, he works as hard as he can to do that. If he is ordered to round up the jews to be executed, he works as hard as he can to do that, too. To him, it’s all in a day’s work.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
