How do we repress a resurgence of capitalism?

[Mindtoaster]

Meaning, of course, in a post-revolutionary society.

A lot of people here agree that if someone does not want to work under communism, then they are free to strike out on their own, however they will not receive any material support from the community/state/syndicate etc. But what if this person decides that he does not want to work because he has found a method of construction for say, a widget, and one that is produced better then the collective/state. What if he decides that he wants to profit from this discovery, and he quits working in order to build his own factory to produce these widgets? How should we handle this situation?

Should we leave him be and say "oh, lets not worry about it, this does not have the potential to spawn a new market economy".

Should we use the army/militia to shut down his factory and perhaps throw him in a labor camp?

Should we simply try to incite his workers to revolt and hope they do so?

Should we try and steal his blueprint for the widget manufacturing, and use it in the collective?

Will it even be a problem ? Will we be able to say "If our system works for people then he won't be able to even get workers for his factory"

The above is just an example though. I would just like to hear general opinions on how members here think we should repress capitalism in a socialist society, or if we would even have a problem with it at all.

[Bitter Ashes]

Well, I dont see as much of a threat.
"Come work at my factory. We'll work you harder and treat you worse and as a special reward we'll allow you access to everything that is publicly available anyway"
It's quite laughable really.
If anything, let them try and publish every flaw. In short, if you give them enough rope they'll hang themselves with it.
Making active attempts to repress it will only show fear and arrouse conspiricy theories and other unvalidated suspicon.
So, send the workers on thier way to go work for the capitalists if they want to. I'd give them 2 weeks at most before they get sick of it, see no benefit from it and go home to inform everyone they know not to fall for this scam of capitalism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I don't see how that would last very long. If everybody else is off working collectively and one guy suddenly decides to go off and do his own thing he won't be very successful. Who would be working for him? Probably nobody or at least not enough people to suffice. He would probably eventually give up. If I was stuck in that situation I would probably just give the blueprints for the new technology to the collective. It would be way more efficient that way. More people would benefit, including the creator because his/her technology wouldn't be going to waste.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

In the same way capitalists repress a resurgence of feudalism. If in the early days theres any potential of a coup its not a matter of do we let the ex millitry officers politicians speak but do we let them breath?

Then after everyone who orignaly fought in the revolution has died of old age or whatever and their kids are popping their cogs the capis will be seen as nutters in the same way a "serfdom now!" party would be today.

Also if someone wishes to replicate part of capitlism in a communist area I think theres a simple answer since his work isnt putting any resources into the collectivized economy he wont be get anything out of it either , which means no power , water , food etc.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Then after everyone who orignaly fought in the revolution has died of old age or whatever and their kids are popping their cogs the capis will be seen as nutters in the same way a "serfdom now!" party would be today.

Yes, just like Capitalism is seen as the "normal" thing now. If Communism is around for long enough Capitalism will eventually be viewed as some crazy freak idea.

[The Intransigent Faction]

If this is under Communism, I'd hope that the man would be inclined to share his idea with the community, not for obscene personal profit, but out of a concern developed for his community that would in turn help himself and those he cared about.

Under Socialism, history has shown that there will inevitably be class struggle, and the working class must forcibly restrain bourgeois uprisings. In this case, though, he could just as easily share his idea so that it was introduced en masse. When the community is better off for an idea, he is too.

Failing that, as was said above, workers wouldn't tolerate working for him alone if it meant such worse working conditions.

Just don't ask Anarchists:

"Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary."-Bakunin

[Jack]

Shutup.

I'm sure one thing that one anarchist said dictates policy for the rest of us. But remember, we're not hero-worshipers like many Marxists, which is why we don't call ourselves Bakuninists (unike Stalinists, Trotskyists, Leninists, Hoxhaists, Titoists, Maoists, even the term Marxist).

[The Intransigent Faction]

Shutup.

I'm sure one thing that one anarchist said dictates policy for the rest of us. But remember, we're not hero-worshipers like many Marxists, which is why we don't call ourselves Bakuninists (unike Stalinists, Trotskyists, Leninists, Hoxhaists, Titoists, Maoists, even the term Marxist).

True, I should have made it clear that this doesn't necessarily represent the view of all Anarchists, but it seems testament to the general lack of planning by Anarchists other than "Destroy the state now!", and while they don't 'worship' him, they worship this idea. The problem is that Anarchists don't seem to understand that the working class must take control of the state and use it to suppress counter-revolution.

Still, I apologize for that.

Oh, and we don't call ourselves "Stalinists" either.

[Jack]

If you read The Conquest of Bread It lays out what we plan to do, excluding the middle class teenage "post leftists".

I've heard 2 people describe themselves as Stalinists, but I included Leninist.

[The Intransigent Faction]

If you read The Conquest of Bread It lays out what we plan to do, excluding the middle class teenage "post leftists".

I've heard 2 people describe themselves as Stalinists, but I included Leninist.

Yeah, some do jokingly, or because they're posers, but it's like how onbe of his supporters wouldn't seriously refer to himself as a "Trotskyite".
As for The Conquest of Bread, I'll check that out.

[Catbus]

...But it seems testament to the general lack of planning by Anarchists other than "Destroy the state now!"

Anarchists don't solely aim to destroy the state, and I think that is a common misconception that a lot of people have. Just as all other socialists aim to create socialism after capitalism is abolished, anarchists aim to create socialism after a revolution as well.



...The problem is that Anarchists don't seem to understand that the working class must take control of the state and use it to suppress counter-revolution.

Why must the working class control the state in order to supress capitalistic resurgences? Why won't communal workers militias suffice?


And as for OP's question, I don't really see a motivation to go work for some random capitalist when I can live in an egalitarian community. Also, where would said capitalist acquire the materials to create a factory? Let alone his more advanced widgets.

[Pogue]

Obviosuly ina revolutionary period we have to be vigilant. But thats what a revolution is, destroying capitalism and making sure it doesn't come back. We do it by taking away their ability to do it, i.e. by making the 'armed forces' democratic and made up of and run by the people, taking away the state immediately, because it is heirachy and breeds hierachial ideas like capitalism, and generally structuring society in a manner (collective, democratic) so that its impossible for capitalism to return.

I think alot of people miss the point when they see the resurgence of capitalism as a physical threat from outside. Its internal too. For example, if you consolidate power in a 'socialist' state, you haven't done away with the power structures inherent in capitalism and all that goes along with it, and so the irony is a 'socialist state' ends up destroying the revolution, as it did in Russia.

[Cumannach]

Workers militias are not sufficient to defend against bourgeois reaction. The workers need to organize themselves into one solid unified organization and create a regular army to defeat the regular armies of the bourgeoisie. In order to be sufficiently effective in repressing the enormous, vicious resistance of the bourgeoisie, of their armies and police and agents, the workers must create an efficiently organized, strictly disciplined, centrally directed organization for repressing the bourgeoisie and abolishing bourgeois production relations. This organization is a state. If the workers do not give themselves the best possible chance, by creating the most efficient, most effective, most ruthless instrument of their liberation, of their security and of their dictatorship over capital, all of their hopes and plans will come to nothing and the bourgeoisie, who will never give up before they are destroyed, will win, and the workers will be back to square one.

[Bitter Ashes]

Workers militias are not sufficient to defend against bourgeois reaction. The workers need to organize themselves into one solid unified organization and create a regular army to defeat the regular armies of the bourgeoisie. In order to be sufficiently effective in repressing the enormous, vicious resistance of the bourgeoisie, of their armies and police and agents, the workers must create an efficiently organized, strictly disciplined, centrally directed organization for repressing the bourgeoisie and abolishing bourgeois production relations. This organization is a state. If the workers do not give themselves the best possible chance, by creating the most efficient, most effective, most ruthless instrument of their liberation, of their security and of their dictatorship over capital, all of their hopes and plans will come to nothing and the bourgeoisie, who will never give up before they are destroyed, will win, and the workers will be back to square one.
I'm somewhat confused. Do you mean that if capitalism continues to exist in other societies, at the same time as this socialist society and you're talking about countering an international treat? If you mean it taking place from within though, I'm not sure how big a threat they could possibly be. I really cant imagine Bill Gates, Fred Goodwin and Rupert Murdoch fighting on the front lines and seeing as though they'll never get workers to fight for them again, that's the only way they'd have.

The thought of seeing the Walmart family tooled up with rifles and grenades and a bandana tickles me though

[Jimmie Higgins]

It depends on the circumstances of the revolution. If say, Brazil, had a worker's revolution alone, then it would be very difficult to keep people from falling back to capitalistic ways because the US and Colombia and so one would actively be trying the undermine the revolution.

If the US suddenly had a revolution and the workers paralyzed the US military, then there would be more space for the revolution and if pro-capitalists wanted to go live in utah and set up a black market, then fuck them, they can't do anything to us without the military. As the working class solidified their rule, this island of capitalism would wither away (especially because where would they get the surplus labor if surrounded by a successful worker run society?).

Imagine a commune of capitalists after the revolution - they'd all want to be the boss! If they had to be a worker, what would they say: "I don't like you squeezing profit from my labor, but I'll suffer because I agree with you ideologically".

[Killfacer]

"Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary."-Bakunin

Bakunin said that? I'm with him on that one.

Just take his bloody blueprint by force. No one needs to get hurt, everyone can have the widget.

[Revy]

Repressing a resurgence of capitalism would not be necessary if people got to see real socialism.

If people only to get to experience a Stalinist hellhole, which is state-capitalist, they will grow disillusioned of socialist ideas.

But if they see real socialism, there won't be major problems. No matter how ideologically hateful they are, most detractors will join the new society.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Workers militias are not sufficient to defend against bourgeois reaction. The workers need to organize themselves into one solid unified organization and create a regular army to defeat the regular armies of the bourgeoisie. In order to be sufficiently effective in repressing the enormous, vicious resistance of the bourgeoisie, of their armies and police and agents, the workers must create an efficiently organized, strictly disciplined, centrally directed organization for repressing the bourgeoisie and abolishing bourgeois production relations. This organization is a state.

Sorry this is pure and utter wank fantasizing I strong suspect you only typed this with one hand. Do you really think that in todays world that a revolutionary working class can defeat a imperlist army by getting shit loads of tanks and acting like a normal bourgeoisie army? Sorry the Bougisise would be cleaning our blood off the pavement for months!

The best way to fight against any invading army is though a decentralized insurgency creating no go areas for invading armies because there would be an ambush every five meters this way the enemy can be whittled down until theres none left.

[Bitter Ashes]

Pretty much, spot on, Joe.

One thing about modern armies is that thier training and equipment is heavily leaned towards fighting large scale battles like The Kursk, or even the Somme, believe it or not. In order to do this, they have become heavily dependant upon thier supply lines. These days, in the advent of automatic weapons for every soldier and large, quick to reload magazine, a single platoon of infantry can consume several thousands of rounds of ammunition in 24 hours. The increase in dependance upon mechanisation and close air support also means that a collosal ammount of fuel needs to be supplied at all time, especially with armoured vehicles getting heavier and heavier making them thirsty beasts to keep running. Whittling down those supply lines is very important and can halt any advance to a grinding halt giving the mother country of the invaders chance to rise up themselves. It really is a case that something as minor as a single molotov can wreck havoc on any careful plans that the invading commanders might have and force them to dig in. So, dont think that they're unbeatable.

However, by attempting to fight them with large standing armies in large scale battles you're throwing yourself at the mercy of thier greatest strength. If you managed to get even a couple of companies in one place they'd show up on satalite mighty quick. They'd just bomb it in a way that you couldnt retaliate. Depleted uranium rounds and burrowing charges mean that no fortification on earth can stand up to even a single hit. Morale would be devestated, casulties would be high, defences sundered, lines of communication severed and then and only then, the ground forces would show up. You wouldnt see them coming either until they're within about 800 metres and by then it's far too late. They'll probably cover thier advance with mortars and general purpose machine guns and probably cannons on the AFVs too, until they can get the infantry within grenade range to mop up the surviors. Any big guns you might have had would have been caught in the bombing for certain, so you'd have to resort to trying to hold them off with what will have become a disorganised rabble armed with rifles that they cant find ammo for and possibly a few shoulder fired rockets that wouldnt have even dented those AFV's front armour at close range, let alone at 800 metres. I'd be suprised if they took a single casulty for destroying your little regiment. This is exactly the sort of battle that you cannot win.

I'd advise reading Sun Tzu Cummannach. It goes into this sort of idea quite a bit about ensuring that you exploit the enemy's weaknesses and avoid thier strengths. It can apply to a lot of things in life too.