Society will always move leftward on a large enough scale

[Cynical Observer]

Despite momentary set backs (fascism) society has usually followed this course: extreme oppression by an extreme minority -->revolution --> Slightly less oppressive oppression by a larger minority ---> Revolution --> split between oppressive areas and areas that are simply unequal in class. if we follow this pattern then an egalitarian society is the next logical step in history making communism inevitable.

(sorry for not providing quotes and references but i used this argument in my world history class and so i didn't need to reference much and i'm too lazy to do so now, but a basic knowledge of history illustrates my point)

feel free to poke holes in my theory, that's why i posted it:D

[LOLseph Stalin]

I would have to say this is interesting, but I don't think you've brought in the Fascism factor if you were using this in history class. Fascism seems to gain popularity in times of economic hardship(1930's) which could be considered a time when people are opressed since the Bourgeoisie would be pushing harder to make more money. Sure there were leftist movements that rose during the depression and the time prior, but Fascism still became the dominant force. It could be because of charismatic leaders though. I don't know.

[Cynical Observer]

Since i'm trying to view this pattern on a grander scale i consider a fascism a minor rightist blip in the larger scheme of things, other than a short-lived fascist movement society has slowly granted more and more freedom to larger and larger groups

[Led Zeppelin]

If you want to draw the line a bit further, you'll see that after a revolution, historically, there has always been a reaction which put society back again.

I think that there's a correlation between revolutions based on insufficient material conditions (insufficient for the aims of the revolution) and their subsequent retrogression. The French revolution was not based on sufficiently developed material conditions to be able to support a modern bourgeois-democratic republic, which is why it had to resort to "terror", though inevitably it failed anyway. The social-system that arose did remain capitalist, but that was because the material level of society had advanced towards capitalism and it was able to firmly take root.

In the USSR it was impossible for a socialist mode of production to take root because the material conditions had not advanced towards such a level yet, so naturally it inevitably reverted back to capitalism, though a capitalism on a higher developmental level than it had before so in that respect there was some advancement, I suppose.

[LOLseph Stalin]

In the USSR it was impossible for a socialist mode of production to take root because the material conditions had not advanced towards such a level yet, so naturally it inevitably reverted back to capitalism, though a capitalism on a higher developmental level than it had before so in that respect there was some advancement, I suppose.

This of course always bring up the question of whether or not Socialism would have survived if the revolution had begun in a different more developed country. Marx did state this afterall that revolution would occur in a place like Britain, France, or Germany.

[Led Zeppelin]

Marx didn't state that a revolution could or would only occur in a place like Britain, France or Germany. He actually said that it could also occur in Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm), ironically.

But it's not really an either/or question. Socialism can never survive in a single country, it can only survive when it is a global. The question then is not whether socialism could have survived if it started in another more advanced country, but if it could survive if the revolution was able to spread to other more advanced countries.

The betrayal of the Second International prevented it from spreading, in the words of a famous revolutionary:


If in 1918 the Social-Democrats of Germany had employed the power imposed upon them by the workers for a socialist revolution, and not for the rescue of capitalism, it is easy to see on the basis of the Russian experience what unconquerable economic power would be possessed today by a socialist bloc of Central and Eastern Europe and a considerable part of Asia. The peoples of the world will pay for the historic crime of reformism with new wars and revolutions.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch01.htm)

[Vincent]

I agree with Raskolnikov on the points that a) it has thus far been impossible for a socialist mode of production to become established because the material conditions in countries that have had revolutions have not advanced to a sufficient level, and that b) it's not a question of picking a developed country and saying that socialism would work there - it needs to be global to work on a scale that has any significance.

But I would agree that, as far as revolution goes, there is historically a tendency towards the advancement of more liberal/progressive ideals in welfare and state structures. Whether this liberal tendency will carry over into economic structures is what we don't know.

Some Scandanvian countries are working towards more socialist-looking economies, without revolution and without the downfall of capitalism, which suggests to me that perhaps its not as simple as 'oppression+material circumstances+revolution=socialism' - can socialism take root from within existing structures to a sufficient level that those structures are comprehensivly altered themselves?

[Nwoye]

so how do you explain the original transition from primitive communism to despotic monarchies under this theory?

[Cynical Observer]

so how do you explain the original transition from primitive communism to despotic monarchies under this theory?

primitive communist societies typically don't fit the definition of civilizations if you're talking of neolithic age communities, so this kinda disqualifies them for me, and as for ones that continued for exist into later periods i believe the majority of them were conquered by outside nations.

but it was just a general observation on a trend , it's going to a have a few exceptions

[Nwoye]

but it was just a general observation on a trend , it's going to a have a few exceptions
well that's the problem with this observation though (as it's generally used to argue for an anarchist or communist "endstate"). this observation as a theory is completely unfalsifiable. any contradiction is just disregarded and ignored.

[Cynical Observer]

no, it's just a general trend, not conclusive proof for an inevitable communist society or a natural law.

[Comrade Anarchist]

true as we evolve we develop better ideas and think more logically and obviously the left is logical

[Coggeh]

true as we evolve we develop better ideas and think more logically and obviously the left is logical
Not necessarily , on a social scale of politics progression has been the outright winner (through it has still a way to go) .

However with the advancement of modern capitalism , the splitting of the left , the apathy of many workers movements , I don't think you can even theorize about this being a linear pattern .

[TrueLeninist]

Hello, your analysis is right on the money. I agree 100% with you, I am an absolute Hegelian and i think that what you said about political systems moving from ancient fascist systems toward more democratic systems is so true. I don't understand how can many people think that the world will always be republican-capitalist, herarchical, classists with vertical top-down relations. When most countries of this world are turning to the left.


TrueLeninist




Despite momentary set backs (fascism) society has usually followed this course: extreme oppression by an extreme minority -->revolution --> Slightly less oppressive oppression by a larger minority ---> Revolution --> split between oppressive areas and areas that are simply unequal in class. if we follow this pattern then an egalitarian society is the next logical step in history making communism inevitable.

(sorry for not providing quotes and references but i used this argument in my world history class and so i didn't need to reference much and i'm too lazy to do so now, but a basic knowledge of history illustrates my point)

feel free to poke holes in my theory, that's why i posted it:D

[9]

Your theory seems to ring somewhat true in the 'social' sense - which is to say a degree of social liberalism seems to be slowly increasing in prevalence over time. However, I'm not seeing a leftward progression at all in the arena of economics, which is where it is most necessary in my opinion. Can you provide any examples of economies (those of considerable power in particular) moving leftward? The trend, from my perspective, seems to be that governments increasingly embrace social liberalism and economies increasingly embrace economic neoliberalism, but that's hardly evidence of leftward progression considering that economic neoliberalism is actually right-wing in nature. This is certainly the way it seems to me, anyhow.

[Cynical Observer]

Your theory seems to ring somewhat true in the 'social' sense - which is to say a degree of social liberalism seems to be slowly increasing in prevalence over time. However, I'm not seeing a leftward progression at all in the arena of economics, which is where it is most necessary in my opinion. Can you provide any examples of economies (those of considerable power in particular) moving leftward? The trend, from my perspective, seems to be that governments increasingly embrace social liberalism and economies increasingly embrace economic neoliberalism, but that's hardly evidence of leftward progression considering that economic neoliberalism is actually right-wing in nature. This is certainly the way it seems to me, anyhow.
(note i'm drunk so this will be alittle jumbled) the economic progression hasn't advance recently but on a much larger scale we are becoming freer slowly but surely.

[9]

(note i'm drunk so this will be alittle jumbled) the economic progression hasn't advance recently but on a much larger scale we are becoming freer slowly but surely.

Haha, well perhaps when you've sobered up a bit you will elaborate on that because its definitely not what I see when I look at economic progression (and its certainly possible that I'm overlooking something significant). Perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement on what measures would constitute society becoming "freer", though I wouldn't expect this to be the case, assuming you are - like most here - of the persuasion that capitalism is antithetical to freedom. So frankly, I'm a bit baffled. Again, just to clarify, I agree that societies (particularly Western industrialized societies) have become increasingly socially liberal and presumably will continue to slowly progress in that aspect. But with respect to economic policies, what do you see that constitutes leftward progression?

[MarxSchmarx]

But with respect to economic policies, what do you see that constitutes leftward progression?

Industrialization and interlinking of the global economy on a scale not seen before. As long as there are agrarian feudal shitholes, leftward progression is impossible.

[Led Zeppelin]

Industrialization and interlinking of the global economy on a scale not seen before. As long as there are agrarian feudal shitholes, leftward progression is impossible.

A higher level of economic development and technique doesn't necessarily mean a higher level of "left-wing progression".

There are other factors that play into that as well, such as relations in the class struggle, the international situation, and, finally, a number of subjective factors: the traditions, the initiative and the readiness to fight of the workers. 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.

A country can be very advanced economically and have one of the most right-wing nationalistic working-classes of them all, capitalist Britain of the 19th century for example, due to the rise of the labour aristocracy and the "buying off" of the upper section of the working-class, which has to be kept in mind, because the more advanced a capitalist society is the more means it has to pervert and distort the will of the workers.

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.

I'm not implying that you were saying this, but that's directed to the stageists.

EDIT: Oh, and I used italics for the parts that are quotes. :)

[Cynical Observer]

Haha, well perhaps when you've sobered up a bit you will elaborate on that because its definitely not what I see when I look at economic progression (and its certainly possible that I'm overlooking something significant). Perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement on what measures would constitute society becoming "freer", though I wouldn't expect this to be the case, assuming you are - like most here - of the persuasion that capitalism is antithetical to freedom. So frankly, I'm a bit baffled. Again, just to clarify, I agree that societies (particularly Western industrialized societies) have become increasingly socially liberal and presumably will continue to slowly progress in that aspect. But with respect to economic policies, what do you see that constitutes leftward progression?
sorry what i meant to say is that we've gone from feudal warlords, to monarchies that had civilized society including people who sympathized with the peasants, then with the american and more importantly the french revolution we created the declaration of the rights of man, and while this also created capitalism it is freer than a monarchy, then we had a go at socialism and failed for awhile, now we've got countries (like america) with no strong labor movement who are still interested in moving more towards "social democracy", and economically i can point towards the labor movements in the 910's and 1920's that helped to create labor laws that won some freedom and power for workers (albeit it was really just appeasement) but the point is: it won popular support from the most capitalist nation in the world. Now currently the situation hasn't progressed as far in the third world, but there are more and more groups springing up opposing multinational corporation's exploitation of the 3rd world and that didn't exist too long ago.

SO yes we have move forward economically (if u think capitalism with regulation is better than feudalism) but mainly i was pointing towards a social trend, and this belief of mine is why i think a revolution will rise again.

[MarxSchmarx]

A higher level of economic development and technique doesn't necessarily mean a higher level of "left-wing progression".
...

A country can be very advanced economically and have one of the most right-wing nationalistic working-classes of them all, capitalist Britain of the 19th century for example, due to the rise of the labour aristocracy and the "buying off" of the upper section of the working-class, which has to be kept in mind, because the more advanced a capitalist society is the more means it has to pervert and distort the will of the workers.


But then again it was capitalist Britain that laid the groundwork for the proletarization of the peasantry and artisanal workers. That's progress, in the sense that it is socializing production. Ultimately worker's rebellions failed in places like France or Italy because they were so agrarian that a rural reaction could squash any uprisings in the city.

The test isn't how radical a small group of industrial workers were. The test really is can a socialist society be sustained. So far, the record for largely agrarian societies like China and Spain is rather discouraging.



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.

I'm not implying that you were saying this, but that's directed to the stageists.


Sure, I think historical materialism can be caricatured and applied way to crudely. And I think you're broader point about other intangibles is well taken. But ceteris paribusthe more industrialized (and hence proleterized) an economy, the easier it should be to implement socialism.



EDIT: Oh, and I used italics for the parts that are quotes. :)

Thanks, because about this:


but in the big-capitalist centres of Britain or the United States the workers have never held power for so much as an hour.


What moron made this claim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_General_Strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Workers_Council_Strike
actually there's quite a few in the "anglo-saxon" countries where workers are supposedly the most docile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Strike

[Led Zeppelin]

But then again it was capitalist Britain that laid the groundwork for the proletarization of the peasantry and artisanal workers. That's progress, in the sense that it is socializing production. Ultimately worker's rebellions failed in places like France or Italy because they were so agrarian that a rural reaction could squash any uprisings in the city.

Capitalist Britain didn't lay the groundwork for the proletarization of the peasantry and artisans in isolation, that process took place throughout the most advanced pre-capitalist nations while capitalism was developing "in embryo". So not only in pre-capitalist Britain was this process taking place, but also in pre-capitalist France, Netherlands, etc.

The only difference was that it happened much faster in Britain, and therefore the economic level of it was higher. Did that have any determining influence on revolutionary consciousness of the working-class there? Did that ensure the level of class struggle there to be high?

No, and that's because other factors play into that as well, not just the level of material development.

Actually, the height of capitalist development of Britain, which gave it the chance to take in massive amounts due to exploitation from their huge empire in the form of super-profits, also gave it the ability to buy off a large section of their proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_10_07.htm), thereby hampering their revolutionary consciousness.

There's always other factors to consider when analyzing social relations, many of which are interrelated to the economic question.

So yes, you are right when you say that the low level of development of France had certain negative implications for the revolutionary process there, but the high level of development of Britain had certain negative implications for the revolutionary process there as well. On the issue of peasantry though, the only reason the bourgeois was able to use it to smash the proletarian uprisings in the towns was because the bourgeois had shown itself as the liberators of the peasantry, as the class which freed them of feudal shackles and serfdom, and therefore had them on their side. In Russia the opposite happened; the workers were the ones who liberated them and thereby gained their support for the time. Russia was behind France at that time, in terms of historic development (ruled by an absolute monarchy, with semi-feudal conditions in the countryside).


The test isn't how radical a small group of industrial workers were. The test really is can a socialist society be sustained. So far, the record for largely agrarian societies like China and Spain is rather discouraging.

The test isn't that either, though, because a socialist society can also not be sustained or created in any advanced capitalist nation taken in isolation.

The test is whether the revolution spreads to other nations and turns global as soon as possible, before the initial nation which went through a socialist revolution collapses under the weight of history and foreign pressure.


Sure, I think historical materialism can be caricatured and applied way to crudely. And I think you're broader point about other intangibles is well taken. But ceteris paribusthe more industrialized (and hence proleterized) an economy, the easier it should be to implement socialism.

There is definitely truth in that. But an easier transition to socialism does not necessarily mean that it is easier for that transition to begin to take place, that is, for a revolution to take place. I'm not denying that it is an absolute necessity for several of the most advanced capitalist nations to become socialist as soon as possible as well, or even better that it begins there, but I'm just saying that that might not be a possibility because it doesn't only depends on the economic conditions.


Thanks, because about this:

What moron made this claim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_General_Strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Workers_Council_Strike

This factual observation was made by Trotsky....in 1906, before either of those events had happened. The latter of which has nothing in common with workers holding power in the same way the Commune did, I might add, because a general strike does not equal setting up a counter-government (going by what that link says, maybe they did? If so any sources would be appreciated). And what happened in Seattle was on a much lower level and intensity than the Paris Commune, where the workers didn't have their leading organs quit or give up, but fought and died for the rights they had just conquered (and that happened over half a century before, in a city and nation that was much less economically developed). If it is true that economic development strengthens the ability and resolve of the working-class to take and hold power, it would logically follow that the Seattle and Ulster events would be of a greater magnitude than the Paris Commune, not of a lesser.

This was not the case, so we must draw lessons from this and one of those lessons is that economic development isn't the sole or necessarily the most important factor influencing class-consciousness. When we analyze these events, we shouldn't just look at the economics of it, or the level of economic development, but at the totality of the event. Which factors played a part in it? Which of these factors were most important? How can we affect a change in these factors? etc.


actually there's quite a few in the "anglo-saxon" countries where workers are supposedly the most docile:

The point of that quote (and what I said) wasn't that "workers are the most docile in Anglo-Saxon countries". The point is that an advanced capitalist system does not necessarily equate to an advanced level of class struggle. That is a fact and those two observations are examples that reinforce that fact. Why? Because France, Paris specifically, was more "backward" economically than the big-capitalist centers in the UK and US of the same time-period. If class struggle was solely or even mainly based on economic advancement, then it wouldn't make any sense that the workers would take power there and hold it for two months while the workers had never done the same in more advanced capitalist centers. It wouldn't make sense that they did so over half a century earlier either.

That's the point.

[ckaihatsu]

Since i'm trying to view this pattern on a grander scale i consider a fascism a minor rightist blip in the larger scheme of things, other than a short-lived fascist movement society has slowly granted more and more freedom to larger and larger groups





If you want to draw the line a bit further, you'll see that after a revolution, historically, there has always been a reaction which put society back again.

I think that there's a correlation between revolutions based on insufficient material conditions (insufficient for the aims of the revolution) and their subsequent retrogression. The French revolution was not based on sufficiently developed material conditions to be able to support a modern bourgeois-democratic republic, which is why it had to resort to "terror", though inevitably it failed anyway. The social-system that arose did remain capitalist, but that was because the material level of society had advanced towards capitalism and it was able to firmly take root.

In the USSR it was impossible for a socialist mode of production to take root because the material conditions had not advanced towards such a level yet, so naturally it inevitably reverted back to capitalism, though a capitalism on a higher developmental level than it had before so in that respect there was some advancement, I suppose.


Couldn't have said it better myself -- I don't think the global system is going to be as susceptible to petty nationalist fascist groupings as it was when the world's productive abilities were far less, but we do still have the problems of runaway imperialism and official neglect -- I subscribe to the theory of neofeudalism as a description of the current state of things.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofeudalism

So, by extension, what we really need is an international storming of the Bastille to politically assert our autonomy and agency as the largest, broadest lumpenized and proletarianized international population, ever, in history...!


Chris





--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[MarxSchmarx]

The test isn't that either, though, because a socialist society can also not be sustained or created in any advanced capitalist nation taken in isolation.

The test is whether the revolution spreads to other nations and turns global as soon as possible, before the initial nation which went through a socialist revolution collapses under the weight of history and foreign pressure.


I agree that there has to be an internationalization; but the problem is that all these "initial nations" were either relatively underdeveloped for the time (Paris/Russia/Venezuela(?)). Underdevelopment, arguably, hindered the expansion of that leftist internationalization.


But an easier transition to socialism does not necessarily mean that it is easier for that transition to begin to take place, that is, for a revolution to take place. I'm not denying that it is an absolute necessity for several of the most advanced capitalist nations to become socialist as soon as possible as well, or even better that it begins there, but I'm just saying that that might not be a possibility because it doesn't only depends on the economic conditions.

I agree. But the point is that without advanced capitalist development, it is hard to see how socialism will take on on a global scale. The more countries that experience advanced capitalist development (even of the non "Anglo-Saxon" variety, e.g., Taiwan), the easier the transition will be. That's all I really meant. The rest is well, basically details.

[BIG BROTHER]

Despite momentary set backs (fascism) society has usually followed this course: extreme oppression by an extreme minority -->revolution --> Slightly less oppressive oppression by a larger minority ---> Revolution --> split between oppressive areas and areas that are simply unequal in class. if we follow this pattern then an egalitarian society is the next logical step in history making communism inevitable.

(sorry for not providing quotes and references but i used this argument in my world history class and so i didn't need to reference much and i'm too lazy to do so now, but a basic knowledge of history illustrates my point)

feel free to poke holes in my theory, that's why i posted it:D

You are basically talking about the Dialectic of history where society moves toward a more egalitarian "better" society.