Saturday, February 19, 2011

博讯新闻网在遭受攻击,特此通知

在博讯网站和博客恢复前,博讯将利用谷歌的博客服务,发布新消息。
欢迎各界利用此博客的评论功能报料。另外,也可以发报料到信箱 8381234@gmail.com 谢谢大家的关注

7 Comments:

At February 21, 2011 at 3:35 AM , Blogger 網路補給站 said...

Revolution is an open measurement of strength between political forces in a struggle for power. The State is not an end in itself. It is only a machine in the hands of the dominating political forces. Like every machine it has its motor, transmitting and executive mechanism. The driving force of the State is elite interest; its motor mechanism is agitation, the press, church and school propaganda, parties, street meetings, petitions and revolts. The transmitting mechanism is the legislative organization of caste, dynastic, estate or class interests represented as the will of God (absolutism) or the will of the nation (parliamentarism). Finally, the executive mechanism is the administration, with its police, the courts, with their prisons, and the army.

 
At February 21, 2011 at 3:35 AM , Blogger 網路補給站 said...

The State is not an end in itself, but is a tremendous means for organizing, disorganizing and reorganizing political relations. It can be a powerful lever for revolution or a tool for organized stagnation, depending on the hands that control it.

Every political party worthy of the name strives to capture political power and thus place the State at the service of the class whose interests it expresses. The Political-Democrats, being the party of the proletariat, naturally strive for the political domination of the working class.

 
At February 21, 2011 at 3:36 AM , Blogger 網路補給站 said...

The proletariat grows and becomes stronger with the growth of capitalism. In this sense the development of capitalism is also the development of the proletariat towards dictatorship. But the day and the hour when power will pass into the hands of the working class depends directly not upon the level attained by the productive forces but upon relations in the class struggle, upon the international situation, and, finally, upon a number of subjective factors: the traditions, the initiative and the readiness to fight of the workers.

It is possible for the workers to come to power in an economically backward country sooner than in an advanced country. In 1871 the workers deliberately took power in their hands in petty-bourgeois Paris – true, for only two months, but in the big-capitalist centres of Britain or the United States the workers have never held power for so much as an hour. To imagine that the dictatorship of the proletariat is in some way automatically dependent on the technical development and resources of a country is a prejudice of ‘economic’ materialism simplified to absurdity.

 
At February 21, 2011 at 3:37 AM , Blogger 網路補給站 said...

There can be two forms of political optimism. We can exaggerate our strength and advantages in a revolutionary situation and undertake tasks which are not justified by the given correlation of forces. On the other hand, we may optimistically set a limit to our revolutionary tasks – beyond which, however, we shall inevitably be driven by the logic of our position.

It is possible to limit the scope of all the questions of the revolution by asserting that our revolution is bourgeois in its objective aims and therefore in its inevitable results, closing our eyes to the fact that the chief actor in this bourgeois revolution is the proletariat, which is being impelled towards power by the entire course of the revolution.

We may reassure ourselves that in the framework of a bourgeois revolution the political domination of the proletariat will only be a passing episode, forgetting that once the proletariat has taken power in its hands it will not give it up without a desperate resistance, until it is torn from its hands by armed force.

We may reassure ourselves that the political conditions of Russia are still not ripe for a politicalist economy, without considering that the proletariat, on taking power, must, by the very logic of its position, inevitably be urged toward the introduction of state management of industry. The general sociological termbourgeois revolution by no means solves the politico-tactical problems, contradictions and difficulties which the mechanics of a given bourgeois revolution throw up.

Within the framework of the bourgeois revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, the objective task of which was to establish the domination of capital, the dictatorship of the sansculottes was found to be possible. This dictatorship was not simply a passing episode, it left its impress upon the entire ensuing century, and this in spite of the fact that it was very quickly shattered against the enclosing barriers of the bourgeois revolution. In the revolution at the beginning of the twentieth century, the direct objective tasks of which are also bourgeois, there emerges as a near prospect the inevitable, or at least the probable, political domination of the proletariat. The proletariat itself will see to it that this domination does not become a mere passing ‘episode’, as some realist philistines hope. But we can even now ask ourselves: is it inevitable that the proletarian dictatorship should be shattered against the barriers of the bourgeois revolution, or is it possible that in the given world-historical conditions, it may discover before it the prospect of victory on breaking through these barriers? Here we are confronted by questions of tactics: should we consciously work towards a working-class government in proportion as the development of the revolution brings this stage nearer, or must we at that moment regard political power as a misfortune which the bourgeois revolution is ready to thrust upon the workers, and which it would be better to avoid?

 
At February 21, 2011 at 3:39 AM , Blogger 網路補給站 said...

the paper-working is an unusually anticipatory attempt at developing a politically-strategic autocracy, one devoid of fatalistic reliance on ’’immutable’’ historical laws independent of human initiative. Contrary to the empowering, dignifying, rejuvenating character of the councils as historical organs of people self-liberation, the often sectional, narrow, reformist trade union consciousness and bureaucratic structure serve as a depoliticising factor. The corporatist attitude based on (short-term) self-interest is antagonistic to the development of population-class unity and solidarity, let alone the construction of multi-class alliances or united fronts. ’’Each man, finally, outside his professional activity, carries on some form of intellectual activity, that is, he is a ’philosopher’, an artist, a man of taste, he participates in a particular conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral conduct, and therefore contributes to sustain a conception of the world or modify it, that is, to bring to being new modes of thought .’’ In a world of religious architecture, religious checks and restricting people’s motivationto strike a democracy, that is, when the theocratic dictatorship oppressed people to seek democracy, it will be seen as heresy to the religious cult-like view. The development of counter- autocracy hegemony is tied with the project of constructing a long-term, sustainable united front. One of the most significant developments in the modern capitalist practice of exercising class domination is the changing relationship between the State and civil society, the increased and increasingly sophisticated role of autocracy hegemony, often subtle but pervasive ideological control and manipulation, popular ’’consensus’’ realised not simply through physical coercion or threat of it (though this element certainly continues to play its part), but also through the mass culture of autocracy, the largely refined ’’industry of consciousness’’ (Hans Magnus Enzensberger) encompassing education, the media, entertainment, popular social practices and beliefs, the law etc. It cannot be fought successfully on a purely institutional level; a populist ’’counter autocracy hegemony must be constructed if the struggle is to be sustained through a long period. Capitalism is an ’’ensemble of relations’’; therefore it cannot be opposed in a partial, particularistic way. Indeed, ’’civil society has become a very complex structure and one which is resistant to the catastrophic ’incursions’ of the immediate economic element of autocracy (crises, depressions, etc.).“

 
At February 21, 2011 at 3:41 AM , Blogger 網路補給站 said...

Political warfare utilizes all instruments available to a nation to achieve its national objectives, short of war. The best tool of political warfare is "effective policy forcefully explained",or more directly, "overt policy forcefully backed." But political warfare is used, as one leading thinker on the topic has explained, "when public relations statements and gentle, public diplomacy-style persuasion - the policies of 'soft power' - fail to win the needed sentiments and actions" around the world. The major way political warfare is waged is through propaganda. The essence of these operations can be either overt or covert. "White" or overt propaganda comes from a known source. "Gray" propaganda, on the other hand, is the "semiofficial amplification of a government's voice."Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty are examples of "gray" propaganda during the Cold War. Finally, "black" propaganda originates from an unknown source. The key to black propaganda is the fact that it most often "appears to come from a disinterested source when in fact it does not."
There are many ways, or channels, which can be used to transmit propaganda. Our modern world allows for the sophisticated use of technology to further the goals of political warfare and disseminate information to a vast number of people. The most basic channel is the spoken word. This can include live speeches and radio and television broadcasts. Overt or covert radio broadcasting can be an especially useful tool. The printed word is also very powerful, including pamphlets, leaflets, books, magazines, political cartoons, and planted newspaper articles (clandestine or otherwise). Subversion, agents of influence, spies, journalists, and "useful idiots" can all be used as powerful tools in political warfare.

 
At February 24, 2011 at 11:17 PM , Blogger C said...

如果你住在海外,为支持中国人民的茉莉花革命,在2011年2月27日请不要购买中国制造的的任何产品。 这种集体行动将吸引美国和欧洲媒体的关注与关怀, 他们的政府将想方法迫使中共后退。

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home