Reform and Revolution

[Lyev]

I'd like to discuss Marxism and it's stance on the implementation of a revolution. I was chatting with a friend the other day about the majority vs. the minority and if, at all, it's justifiable to force your views upon anyone else. Although in the case of a revolution, of course, I see no problem at all with 'forcing your views' on the bourgeoisie; that's what a revolution is.

We got onto the topic of democratic-socialism; and whether this is maybe the only sound path to go down. However in Marx's words 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.' On the other hand, how can you be totally sure that you have an absolute backing by the majority through any other medium than voting? I suppose revolution, but in revolution, quite obviously, no counting takes place of the people involved.

I guess my qualm with a revolution is dragging unknowing occupants of a country into it when they have no allegiance with the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Not everyone fits into these two groups and some people seem happy under capitalism and won't want their lives being disrupted. What I mean is that not every profession involves an exploiter and an exploited.

My friend and I also talked about people getting paid under socialism/capitalism. A kind of relevant question I have that links in with the whole thing, is why should a doctor get paid the same as a bin man? Furthermore, what's to stop the doctor buggering off to somewhere where he'll get payed what he/she wants to get paid after a revolution? Maybe this quite an over-asked question, but I can't find anything to explain it.

So I guess my worry is that Marxism and revolution can drag unwilling people into the struggle. Maybe my worries are nonsensical, but does everyone understand what I'm saying?

[Luisrah]

I guess my qualm with a revolution is dragging unknowing occupants of a country into it when they have no allegiance with the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Not everyone fits into these two groups and some people seem happy under capitalism and won't want their lives being disrupted. What I mean is that not every profession involves an exploiter and an exploited.

My friend and I also talked about people getting paid under socialism/capitalism. A kind of relevant question I have that links in with the whole thing, is why should a doctor get paid the same as a bin man? Furthermore, what's to stop the doctor buggering off to somewhere where he'll get payed what he/she wants to get paid after a revolution? Maybe this quite an over-asked question, but I can't find anything to explain it.


Well, I believe I can say that, a way, every profession involves and exploiter and an exploited since the bourgeoisie holds most of the riches and does the least(less? sp?) work.

Should you gather everyone's money and distribute it by everyone equally, you'd end up with a few guys getting less than what they had before, and almost everyone having more than what they had before.

What I am trying to say is that, eventhough a farmer that works on his own isn't being explored by a boss, he would live a much better life if the bosses that explore workers didn't exist.

As for the ''why should a doctor recieve as much as a bin man'', I'm going to compare it with a construction builder (since I don't know what's a bin man)
A doctor studies a lot to be a doctor, and he saves lives of course. His work is very important. However, he is very protected against any danger at work and a ''good'' doctor most probably has a small schedule and lots of vacations.
A construction builder sweats everyday, consumes much more energy, needs physical preparation, has lousy working conditions, most usually they have a big schedule, they have extra hours of work (some payed and some not) little vacations and he can die any time during work.

You should yourself:
Why shouldn't they get payed as much as doctors?

[Rjevan]

I was chatting with a friend the other day about the majority vs. the minority and if, at all, it's justifiable to force your views upon anyone else. Although in the case of a revolution, of course, I see no problem at all with 'forcing your views' on the bourgeoisie; that's what a revolution is.
Well, you also have to be aware of the fact that the capitalists/the ruling class force not only their views but also their way of life upon everybody else and oppress and exploit you. Take a look at those "10% of population owns 92% of the capital in nation X"-surveys, this illustrates that the bourgeois are an absolute minority who controll the masses.


We got onto the topic of democratic-socialism; and whether this is maybe the only sound path to go down. However in Marx's words 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.' On the other hand, how can you be totally sure that you have an absolute backing by the majority through any other medium than voting? I suppose revolution, but in revolution, quite obviously, no counting takes place of the people involved.
A revolution needs no counting votes, a revolution is not a coup but a mass uprising. Just take the French Revolution, the October Revolution... the masses stood up and united in a struggle against the King/government. And that moment, when a governement has to fight its own people who want to overthrow it it is absolutely clear that you have a majority, fighting against few people of the old regime who cling to their power, influence and capital.

There is no more clear manifestation of the will of the people than a revolution, elections can be faked (Afghanistan) and held under massive repressions (Russia) and you also have to realize how many people don't vote at all, because they lost all faith in electoral change, can't identify with any major party and know that the small one the favour has no chance at all, or are manipulated by the media.

Here in Germany we had major elections about 3 weeks ago... the conservative CDU got 33.1% and the liberal (capitalist) FDP got 14.7%... makes 47.8% but because of a system which has been declared illegal by our highest court which obviously hasn't urged the governement to take actions against it (they promise they will abolish this system 2011... when no election is around), they rule the country know with not even 50%... a majority? No, but still they rule due to internal tricks.


I guess my qualm with a revolution is dragging unknowing occupants of a country into it when they have no allegiance with the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Not everyone fits into these two groups and some people seem happy under capitalism and won't want their lives being disrupted. What I mean is that not every profession involves an exploiter and an exploited.
I guess you mean a doctor or a lawyer. But they are, as you said, also not part of the exploited and therefore often don't care about them at all. This is egoism and a very capitalist way of thinking but nothing that justifies this state of things. As Marx says, basically everybody stands on one side:

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
...
The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
...
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
(The Communist Manifesto, Chapter I (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007))

And should we let all the exploited workers and poor suffer just because some bourgeois guys live a comfortable and nice life, are happy and "won't want their lives being disrupted"? Well, great for them but who asks the poor and exploited what they want? They definitely don't.


My friend and I also talked about people getting paid under socialism/capitalism. A kind of relevant question I have that links in with the whole thing, is why should a doctor get paid the same as a bin man? Furthermore, what's to stop the doctor buggering off to somewhere where he'll get payed what he/she wants to get paid after a revolution? Maybe this quite an over-asked question, but I can't find anything to explain it.
This question was asked quite a few times here, with exactly the "doctor vs. bin man" example. Here are a few threads about this topic:
- http://www.revleft.com/vb/wages-t54253/index.html?t=54253
- http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-basics-help-t108526/index.html
- http://www.revleft.com/vb/myth-scarcity-wage-t100995/index.html

This one deals with some other interesting questions: http://www.revleft.com/vb/questions-t78961/index.html?t=78961

And here is the search list for "equal", "wages", "doctor" ;):
http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php?searchid=1730938

[Luisrah]

And should we let all the exploited workers and poor suffer just because some bourgeois guys live a comfortable and nice life, are happy and "won't want their lives being disrupted"? Well, great for them but who asks the poor and exploited what they want? They definitely don't.


Exactly.

Go to Africa for example, and talk to the 10 million that die every year because of hunger.
Show them the reality. Show them that the wealth of the world's 7 richest billionaires is enough to end all poverty in the world.

I can only imagine the confusion in their minds.
''Then why can't I atleast have a bit of bread?''

[Lyev]

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

But are there examples of 'the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science' turning 'into... paid wage labourers'? How, where and why does this happen?

Oh and the doctor/bin man thing I think I understand. There are both hard work, just different types of hard work. Although I think I read somewhere else on RevLeft that it's just a bourgeois myth that, under communism, everyone is paid the same.

[Tatarin]

But are there examples of 'the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science' turning 'into... paid wage labourers'? How, where and why does this happen?

Well, they all answer to some authority, whether they sell their scientific research, preaching, poetry and so on. Of course, these could be in the category of "self made men" (like inventors), I'd say poets could fit there too. But again, an inventor won't replicate his own design by himself, thus he must sell his idea to a business. The poet needs someone to publish his works, and the scientist also needs publishing and replication of his or her various findings.

Of course, the "self made man" could do all this, but that would require him or her to be the capitalist.


Although I think I read somewhere else on RevLeft that it's just a bourgeois myth that, under communism, everyone is paid the same.

It is a lie because you don't get paid by anyone, neither does anyone else. In socialism, the amount of work will depend on what you get, but the differences wouldn't be as they are now between rich and poor. In communism, this whole concept is eliminated and people, in short, simply help each other. You develop medicine, I grow the food. With time, many of these things will be automated by robotics.

[red cat]

A kind of relevant question I have that links in with the whole thing, is why should a doctor get paid the same as a bin man? Furthermore, what's to stop the doctor buggering off to somewhere where he'll get payed what he/she wants to get paid after a revolution? Maybe this quite an over-asked question, but I can't find anything to explain it.



There is a notion of the contradiction between physical and intellecual labour terminating in communism. So this whole concept of an intellectual being superior to a common worker will disappear culturally. Also, the fact that most people now are forced to choose within the two(and in most cases there is only one option due to uneven competition) will remain no longer under communism. A person could have parallel careers, switching between being a doctor and a bin-man.

[hefty_lefty]

The borders of socialist states have been closed before, and partly just for that reason, to keep those educated professionals from straying.
Closed borders aren't much fun, but perhaps an acceptable means to an end.

I do not like good people suffering, and even good people suffer through revolution, it's inevitable.
But, I am quickly realizing that reform moves too slowly, and revolution may be the best avenue, and some good people will suffer in its wake.

With that in mind, the revolution we need involves the majority of the world, and not just a country.
Technology has set it up for us, we are all in touch, these forums being a great example.

One thing to remember though, only after the revolution does the real struggle begin.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The borders of socialist states have been closed before, and partly just for that reason, to keep those educated professionals from straying.
Closed borders aren't much fun, but perhaps an acceptable means to an end.

No closed borders aren't acceptable. When we accept closed borders we substitute our revolutionary ideology for a mutant authoritarian, repressive and ultimately bourgeois regime. Revolution must be international to avoid such things.

[Lyev]

Why shouldn't they get payed as much as doctors?

I realise that this is not the question that needs asking now; there is no reason why everyone shouldn't get paid the same. Even if revolution was international though, what if doctors/lawyers/professors/architects etc. refused to work?



It is a lie because you don't get paid by anyone, neither does anyone else. In socialism, the amount of work will depend on what you get, but the differences wouldn't be as they are now between rich and poor. In communism, this whole concept is eliminated and people, in short, simply help each other. You develop medicine, I grow the food. With time, many of these things will be automated by robotics.

So people stop buying things and 'develop medicine' and 'grow the food' for each other? What if people don't want to do that? Surely it's not that simple? And what you're saying is people 'don't get paid by anyone'? Is that really true? I must of missed that in the Manifesto.


There is a notion of the contradiction between physical and intellecual labour terminating in communism. So this whole concept of an intellectual being superior to a common worker will disappear culturally. Also, the fact that most people now are forced to choose within the two(and in most cases there is only one option due to uneven competition) will remain no longer under communism. A person could have parallel careers, switching between being a doctor and a bin-man.

I understand; every job is a contribution to society and therefore there's no reason why people shouldn't get paid the same. Although could someone really swap between doctor and bin-man? What about qualifications?

Oh and also, I don't believe borders should be shut off. The whole of ethos of communism/freedom is compromised when you instigate such authoritarian measures.

Thanks for all replies, by the way.

[Luisrah]

I realise that this is not the question that needs asking now; there is no reason why everyone shouldn't get paid the same. Even if revolution was international though, what if doctors/lawyers/professors/architects etc. refused to work?

So people stop buying things and 'develop medicine' and 'grow the food' for each other? What if people don't want to do that? Surely it's not that simple? And what you're saying is people 'don't get paid by anyone'? Is that really true? I must of missed that in the Manifesto.

I understand; every job is a contribution to society and therefore there's no reason why people shouldn't get paid the same. Although could someone really swap between doctor and bin-man? What about qualifications?


Heh they wouldn't refuse to work. Why would they refuse to work in better conditions and less hours than before?
Even if some did, not all would, and I'm sure that lots of nowadays workers would love to take their positions, and stop being bin men, construction workers, to start being something that they find more pleasing.

Of course that all of it would take time and education.
If suddenly you had the means to satisfact everyone's needs in the world, you wouldn't have communism.
The population doesn't know what it is, and isn't used to that idea.
An average person today most probably thinks that the current system is normal and is the end of the story.

The doesn't get ''payed by anyone'' part is exactly the most known phrase anyone around here knows (I don't really know it, but it's the -from each their abilities, and to each their needs- or something)
Imagine a large family in a house that survives without any help from the exterior.
One has medical skills, another is a farmer, another knows about technology and electricity etc...
Each does an important role in the family, and if one of them stopped existing, the family would crumble sooner or later.
If the doctor in the family disappeared, what would happen to the others when they got sick?
Or how would they watch TV, use the computer, or have light at night if the electric system stopped working and there was no electricist (sp?) to fix it?

Each contributes to the group, and the ''pay'' they get is whatever they need. Plus, each does what they like doing.
When one is hungry, he gets some food that was grown by the farmer, when one is sick, they ask the doctor how to get better.

Could someone swap between bin man and doctor?
I suppose so. You just need to have qualifications to be a doctor, since I suppose you don't need to know much to be a bin man.
As long as you have the minimums for each, why couldn't someone be a doctor by day, and a bin man at night?

[Tatarin]

Even if revolution was international though, what if doctors/lawyers/professors/architects etc. refused to work?

It's not that if they want or don't want to do things. The old system is gone, why wouldn't they? Remember, the old economic system is gone, the many millions people have in banks are worthless.

Secondly, I think it is unrealistic to think that all doctors or professors would stop working. They chose what they have chosen because they like it (well, I guess most of them have), and sure, while they won't receive as much as they did before, they would have shorter workdays, safe housing and food for all the family, and so on.

I mean, we have volunteers going to all kinds of countries to help people through their skills. And remember that these people have worked in all kinds of societies, societies which were much more harsh than the ones we have today (at least in the western world).


So people stop buying things and 'develop medicine' and 'grow the food' for each other? What if people don't want to do that?

That would be quite strange since most of those people would have been involved in the revolution. It's the peoples' revolution, not ours. They are the ones who must want a radical change of society, no one can make them. We simply point out which way is the best to take, so to speak.


And what you're saying is people 'don't get paid by anyone'? Is that really true? I must of missed that in the Manifesto.

The Manifesto is the outline of this current society and how a ruling class exploits the other classes. But in essence, yes, there wouldn't be money because there is no use for them.

[Lyev]

It's not that if they want or don't want to dothings. The old system is gone, why wouldn't they? Remember, the old economic system is gone, the many millions people have in banks are worthless.

Secondly, I think it is unrealistic to think that all doctors or professors would stop working. They chose what they have chosen because they like it (well, I guess most of them have), and sure, while they won't receive as much as they did before, they would have shorter workdays, safe housing and food for all the family, and so on.

I mean, we have volunteers going to all kinds of countries to help people through their skills. And remember that these people have worked in all kinds of societies, societies which were much more harsh than the ones we have today (at least in the western world).

That would be quite strange since most of those people would have been involved in the revolution. It's the peoples' revolution, not ours. They are the ones who must want a radical change of society, no one can make them. We simply point out which way is the best to take, so to speak.

The Manifesto is the outline of this current society and how a ruling class exploits the other classes. But in essence, yes, there wouldn't be money because there is no use for them.

Thanks for clearing things up; sometimes I think I question too much.

I don't think all doctors/lawyers would stop working though. I assume that most doctors and lawyers are probably quite intelligent so it won't be hard to show them that socialism is the way forward.

'Remember, the old economic system is gone, the many millions people have in banks are worthless.' What are we going to do with the millions that people have? Is it as simple as taking it off of them and giving it to the poor? If so, how?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

'Remember, the old economic system is gone, the many millions people have in banks are worthless.' What are we going to do with the millions that people have? Is it as simple as taking it off of them and giving it to the poor? If so, how?

No it is a case of that system becoming non-existent and their money becoming obsolete. It is a case of giving each person equal access to the fruits of labour.

[Lyev]

No it is a case of that system becoming non-existent and their money becoming obsolete. It is a case of giving each person equal access to the fruits of labour.

Pardon me if I seem a bit stupid, but could you elaborate on that? What system becomes non-existent? How does money simply become 'obsolete'? Thanks.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Pardon me if I seem a bit stupid, but could you elaborate on that? What system becomes non-existent? How does money simply become 'obsolete'? Thanks.

The Capitalist system. Money becomes useless because our society will be ran on the basis of a gift ecomony where each person contributes to the production of goods as they wish and each person has equal access to these goods.

[Invincible Summer]

Thanks for clearing things up; sometimes I think I question too much.


Questions are how people learn and how new ideas are created - never stop asking questions.