Immediate plans following proletarian revolution in the US

[Shokaract]

I'd like to request assistance in fleshing out some of the immediate policies that would/should be implemented at the beginning of the socialist transitional stage. The examples I provided for him which included eliminating private ownership of property and providing education for all for bridging the gap between the intelligentsia and the laborers.

My neoliberal libertarian (political science major) suitemate asserted that I had "all these great, grand ideas" while claiming that the socialist world I had been arguing for was "utopian". He nitpicked, "Where are you going to get the money? Education is expensive! Teachers need to be paid." Somehow, it didn't dawn on him that a fraction of overseas military spending would be enough to solve the "budget crisis in education". Education is also necessary to provide the masses the tools to be brought into political life and to be able to grapple with the contradictions of that will be faced while building socialism (the direction of the economy and society, through systems of local committees and the like).

He brought up the terribly flawed assertion that "Communism always leads to a dictatorship, like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot". Clearly, Lenin was not a "dictator". And Pol Pot was someone who co-opted Communist goals for a somewhat right-wing political agenda based on ethnic cleansing. Despite failing to put state power directly in the hands of the oppressed workers and failing to address rights and eliminating the wage system, I still believe Stalin mobilized the workers of the Soviet Union through a flawed, top-down socialism which was integral to ending Nazi imperialism.

More experienced Marxists have no doubt had to refute these arguments more than a few times. Comrades, feel free to correct any of my own misconceptions as I am here to learn.

His criticisms included the often-repeated argument of "greed [being] human nature", "It's biological! People want to be better than others! The cavemen competed for food, for women! It's just the way it is. Communism is impossible because no one will want to go along with it." I countered that the argument that just because something is natural it is good is fallacious as it is unnatural for humans to live in metropolitan cities, to walk on concrete, to use medical technology, and so on. How is the goal of socialist equality of opportunity through the elimination of entrenched bourgeoisie through inheritance not something to strive for? The "Oh, that would be too difficult" attitude is what allows those in power to perpetuate a system composed of oppressor/oppressed relations.
In the past, I've had to listen to him defending the ruling that political campaign donations = free speech and the idea of legalized, unregulated prostitution being good, that people aren't driven into prostitution primarily due to economic circumstances and that the prostitution is not degrading or dehumanizing. ("They make good money!") He went back to the ol' "The free market will regulate itself" argument when I brought up the obvious issue of sex trafficking and the violation of human rights that are part and parcel with unregulated prostitution. He's often relied on reductio ad Hitlerum when arguing against all abortions and against feminism ("feminazis!"). I apologize for this being somewhat off-topic but I believe it establishes context.

"Poor people would exist under any system." He and his roommate asked about how the disparity between the third world and the first would be dealt with, who would be "forced" to develop the third world nations industrially.

He also kept criticizing my use of the word exploitation to characterize relations between the capitalist class and proletariat, where the capitalists are awarded the surplus value of the work/product provided by labor of the proletariat. He argued that the fringe cases where people like Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak succeeded due to their abilities and not through exploitation in an attempt to counter the assertion that exploitation is systemic to the capitalist system, that a system based on the need for growth and profit does not help those who generate the profit and create the growth.

Could someone describe a relatively concrete hypothetical plan for socialist economic/societal/political restructuring?

[Psy]

I'd like to request assistance in fleshing out some of the immediate policies that would/should be implemented at the beginning of the socialist transitional stage. The examples I provided for him which included eliminating private ownership of property and providing education for all for bridging the gap between the intelligentsia and the laborers.

My neoliberal libertarian (political science major) suitemate asserted that I had "all these great, grand ideas" while claiming that the socialist world I had been arguing for was "utopian". He nitpicked, "Where are you going to get the money? Education is expensive! Teachers need to be paid." Somehow, it didn't dawn on him that a fraction of overseas military spending would be enough to solve the "budget crisis in education". Education is also necessary to provide the masses the tools to be brought into political life and to be able to grapple with the contradictions of that will be faced while building socialism (the direction of the economy and society, through systems of local committees and the like).

That assumes that the primary bourgeois role of education is to educate, that the bulk of teachers time is actually to teach students, when the bulk of a teachers time under capitalism is spent indoctrinating the student with a grade system that mostly measures how good the student is at conformity for example even if a student can convince a teacher they have a point with their answer that is beside the point, the point is to parrot what is taught in the curriculum. For example if the curriculum says World War One was caused because Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, the student's ability to parrot that is how they will be graded and if they instead answer WWI was a intra-imperialistic struggle over strategic markets, the student would not be conforming to the propaganda of the ruling class thus "stupid" thus get low marks for not being able to recite the official ruling class line. This is why Americans have poor understanding of global events and history, because the educational system system focuses on teaching the official propaganda of the ruling class, it is even worse for economics.

[Raúl Duke]

Immediate plans following proletarian revolution in the USInitially, we might have to re-build/re-activated our industrial sector. The industrial sector will allow us to make consumer goods (and defense armaments/etc) for ourselves (instead of relying on exploitative 3rd world labor products sold to us by capitalist corporations). We have to work towards providing mass employment for all who want a job and preferably in a job they would like or are ok with (if the job they like is not available at the moment, etc).

After the revolution (which I assume worker's are in control of society) we might have to think of defense and draw out a defensive plan and make an efficient rotational militia system. One suggestion is that a part of the militia will actually be part of a rotational active service (i.e. a "standing army" of sorts) while I guess many who sign up will not be activated (instead they do training/exercises when they want/in a time best for them) unless in the case of an attack/invasion in which they're activated. The people who declined or cannot join the militia, in the case of war, might end up, if they wish to contribute to the effort, in factories/etc that deal with the war effort. Each militia is accountable to their commune (i.e. the Commune of Brooklyn, the Commune of Tampa, etc) but it's possible to form a "federation" of sorts for the defense of the free territories in the U.S. which could coordinate in some fashion the defense.

This is an idea...it might not happen this way. The issue is that the people, the workers, will hold power and they ultimately have say on how things will be run in their communities.

[Shokaract]

Thanks for the input, guys.
So, not only must education be available/accessible for all but the proletariat must revamp the system to engender an in-depth understanding of subjects, such as global events and economics, rather than maintaining the current curriculum set by the ruling class, designed to produce tools that best serve corporate/capitalist interests. Another issue I see is that among students the current motivation for pursuing higher education which is to "get ahead".

Rául Duke, one of the immediate concerns would indeed be building a system of defense that would be needed to prevent external capitalist-imperialist threats from reasserting themselves. Aside from ending our complicity in the inherent exploitation of capitalist-controlled third world production, localized production would also help reduce the human rights violations common in sweatshops. Getting rid of our reliance on overseas production that pays people as little as possible would provide employment opportunities for many of our unemployed.

[Raúl Duke]

Aside from ending our complicity in the inherent exploitation of capitalist-controlled third world production, localized production would also help reduce the human rights violations common in sweatshops. Getting rid of our reliance on overseas production that pays people as little as possible would provide employment opportunities for many of our unemployed.

True, but there's so many reasons and it is to me a necessity to revive the industrial sector. First, some/many service sector jobs would be eliminated (telemarketers, stock brokers and the like) plus capitalist corporations will probably not do business with us and if they did it would not work out (they will sell goods for a profit, etc). However, one thing I forgot to mention is that we may need a job training program instituted where people can gain skills in some industrial crafts.

One great thing about revitalizing the industrial sector is that potentially we may have the ability to produce a great great great amount of stuff due to manufacturing technology that is available in the U.S. (but not used in sweatshops, etc) and the 1st world in comparison to other nations under capitalism since profit motive will no longer be of concern to us (i.e. we won't have an incentive to keep supply low which capitalism does) in production.

[Raúl Duke]

However, if civil war was to strike we might have to do this as quickly as the revolution begins.

[AK]

For example if the curriculum says World War One was caused because Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, the student's ability to parrot that is how they will be graded and if they instead answer WWI was a intra-imperialistic struggle over strategic markets, the student would not be conforming to the propaganda of the ruling class thus "stupid" thus get low marks for not being able to recite the official ruling class line.
Strangely enough, my school taught me both of these theories and the majority of my class understands war in it's current form to be an armed struggle between two states for economic dominance. Seems my class isn't as fucking stupid as I once thought it was ^^

[manic expression]

Of course it will depend very much on the specific conditions that are encountered after a successful revolution. How much industry is still intact? Where? What transportation is available from industrial centers to population centers? What relations does the new worker state have with neighboring countries? What are the relations between the various nations of the United States? What internal and/or external threats to the revolution still remain? How many pro-revolution parties are active, and is there a need for a merger?

These are just a few cursory things to get people thinking. I've also found this cable by Lenin (sent to the Bavarian Soviet Republic) to be very helpful when thinking about these issues:

We thank you for your message of greetings, and on our part whole heartedly greet the Soviet Republic of Bavaria. We ask you insistently to give us more frequent, definite information on the following. What measures have you taken to fight the bourgeois executioners, the Scheidernanns and Co.; have councils of workers and servants been formed in the different sections of the city; have the workers been armed; have the bourgeoisie been disarmed; has use been made of the stocks of clothing and other items for immediate and extensive aid to the workers, and especially to the farm labourers and small peasants; have the capitalist factories and wealth in Munich and the capitalist farms in its environs been confiscated; have mortgage and rent payments by small peasants been cancelled; have the wages of farm labourers and unskilled workers been doubled or trebled; have all paper stocks and all printing-presses been confis-cated so as to enable popular leaflets and newspapers to be printed for the masses; has the six-hour working day with two or three-hour instruction in state administration been introduced; have the bourgeoisie in Munich been made to give up surplus housing so that workers may be immediately moved into comfortable flats; have you taken over all the banks; have you taken hostages from the ranks of the bourgeoisie; have you introduced higher rations for the workers than for the bourgeoisie; have all the workers been mobilised for defence and for ideological propaganda in the neighbouring villages? The most urgent and most extensive implementation of these and similar measures, coupled with the initiative of workers’, farm labourers’ and— ;acting apart from them— ;small peasants’ councils, should strengthen your position. An emergency tax must be levied on the bourgeoisie, and an actual improvement effected in the condition of the workers, farm labourers and small peasants at once and at all costs.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/apr/27.htm

Venceremos, comrades.

[Shokaract]

I see your point. The elimination of those redundant/obsolete jobs (such as advertising and investment banking) would temporarily increase unemployment, and the establishment of some sort of widespread occupational training program would serve well to alleviate this stress. We also have the technology and the ideology to ensure that our new industrial sector will not be inhumane and grueling unlike those of the past (and present).

Rebuilding the industrial sector would be a necessary step in breaking free from the global capitalist system, assuming only a few socialist nations (which is more than now) are in existence at the time. And since the United States has a significant portion of the world's arable land, I think it'd also be a good idea to put it to use.



...
Venceremos, comrades.

Thank ye. Lenin's message and concerns are indeed helpful. In our context, I guess we would place control of (formerly) corporate media in the hands of the people. But how would we determine the allocation/organization of media accessibility/operations as to avoid a chaotic and unproductive overload of information like Twitter?

Interesting that he also brings up the need for spreading ideological propaganda to more remote areas of the country, in spite of the negative connotation that the word "propaganda" carries. This must be supplemented with a practical and critical (dialectical materialism?) means of grappling with the contradictions of the time. The issue is of course implementation.

Of course, it would be folly to make solid plans when conditions are always changing, but working out possible scenarios might be beneficial for when the time comes to act.
It is likely that neighboring states will still be capitalist and hostile, in fear of the workers' state fomenting revolution in theirs.

[The Red]

You may as well prepare for pigs flying.

[Raúl Duke]

Of course, it would be folly to make solid plans when conditions are always changing, but working out possible scenarios might be beneficial for when the time comes to act.

This. QFT

While these exercises in possible scenario may or may not be helpful...we must keep in mind that we don't really know what to expect in a revolution at the 21st century; specifically one in the "first world." We have to be flexible, open to changes and selective experimentation, etc. If we stay rigid, etc we my end up losing.

[LeninistKing]

Hello my friends: great analysis !!!! Indeed, i have been personally harassed so much by banks, by companies and treated like shit by Wal Mart, by AIG, that i would work for free in deffending the American-Socialist-Government against the former ruling class (monopoly-capitalists and its political supporters, Obama, Bush, Palin etc).

Beem up scotty !!

.


Initially, we might have to re-build/re-activated our industrial sector. The industrial sector will allow us to make consumer goods (and defense armaments/etc) for ourselves (instead of relying on exploitative 3rd world labor products sold to us by capitalist corporations). We have to work towards providing mass employment for all who want a job and preferably in a job they would like or are ok with (if the job they like is not available at the moment, etc).

After the revolution (which I assume worker's are in control of society) we might have to think of defense and draw out a defensive plan and make an efficient rotational militia system. One suggestion is that a part of the militia will actually be part of a rotational active service (i.e. a "standing army" of sorts) while I guess many who sign up will not be activated (instead they do training/exercises when they want/in a time best for them) unless in the case of an attack/invasion in which they're activated. The people who declined or cannot join the militia, in the case of war, might end up, if they wish to contribute to the effort, in factories/etc that deal with the war effort. Each militia is accountable to their commune (i.e. the Commune of Brooklyn, the Commune of Tampa, etc) but it's possible to form a "federation" of sorts for the defense of the free territories in the U.S. which could coordinate in some fashion the defense.

This is an idea...it might not happen this way. The issue is that the people, the workers, will hold power and they ultimately have say on how things will be run in their communities.

[LeninistKing]

hmm, i forgot to nationalize Golds Gyms, and Optimum Nutrition Protein Powders.

.

[LeninistKing]

Raul: You are so right, this country and many other countries have the infracstructure and equipment to make so many things, for example i am into exercising, weight-training and low-carb diets. USA has the necessary tools to provide real health, and fast-weight loss to the 60% of US population which is obese, providing whey protein powders, and high protein, low calorie, low carbohydrate foods at a much lower price than the present, because under a socialist-state for instance the whey protein powders we see at GNCs and Wal Marts would either be subsidized or sold at a non-profit or lower-profit rate, than the super-expensive supplements sold at stores.

And many, many, many more things like super-modern cars, super-moder transportation system.

Socialist-transportation like super-modern buses, more building of subyway-trains in rural USA

And because it would also be humane and socialist to export food for free to Haiti, Africa, export socialism to those countries, in order to kill hunger and save the millions of poor people dying of hunger today



True, but there's so many reasons and it is to me a necessity to revive the industrial sector. First, some/many service sector jobs would be eliminated (telemarketers, stock brokers and the like) plus capitalist corporations will probably not do business with us and if they did it would not work out (they will sell goods for a profit, etc). However, one thing I forgot to mention is that we may need a job training program instituted where people can gain skills in some industrial crafts.

One great thing about revitalizing the industrial sector is that potentially we may have the ability to produce a great great great amount of stuff due to manufacturing technology that is available in the U.S. (but not used in sweatshops, etc) and the 1st world in comparison to other nations under capitalism since profit motive will no longer be of concern to us (i.e. we won't have an incentive to keep supply low which capitalism does) in production.

[Raúl Duke]

I want to ask a question...

Let's assume we do have a successful revolution in the U.S. and we dispose of the old state/government of the bourgeoisie...

What about its previous deficit/debts? Would China 'ask' the new government to take the burden of the old government's debt/deficit? What do you think we should do in that case? (Personally I say we tell them, anyone/everyone who wants something that the old state owed them, to fuck themselves, tell them they're being imperialist to our revolution by demanding us, a nascent socialist society, to pay a crippling debt, and pay not a single thing over the debts incurred by the vanquished U.S. state.)

[LeninistKing]

Raul: Remember that a socialist-government in USA has to be humane, anti-hatred, anti-nationalist, anti-patriot. So it cant behave like Bush, but like Hugo Chavez. I think that it is the task of USA to pay its former debt and reparations to the countries and societies that USA destroyed economically, sociologically, and militarily. So i think that it would be good for USA to pay its debt with other nations and banks

.


I want to ask a question...

Let's assume we do have a successful revolution in the U.S. and we dispose of the old state/government of the bourgeoisie...

What about its previous deficit/debts? Would China 'ask' the new government to take the burden of the old government's debt/deficit? What do you think we should do in that case? (Personally I say we tell them, anyone/everyone who wants something that the old state owed them, to fuck themselves, tell them they're being imperialist to our revolution by demanding us, a nascent socialist society, to pay a crippling debt, and pay not a single thing over the debts incurred by the vanquished U.S. state.)

[Raúl Duke]

I think that it is the task of USA to pay its former debt and reparations to the countries and societies that USA destroyed economically, sociologically, and militarily. So i think that it would be good for USA to pay its debt with other nations and banks
I think we should repudiate those debts, specifically speaking of those to imperialist/bourgeois nations (which would be all; China in particular). I'm asking for a more hard-line stance than that of Hugo Chavez. The U.S. has no debt to nations it has ruined (since they're likely not in a position to loan the U.S. any money) but if it did to these nations we would pledge to pay them back (most likely in goods, like manufactured goods).

I don't think we would be in a position at the time (immediate after successful revolution) to pay off any reparation (or the previously mentioned debts). The least we can do is to forgive (debt forgiveness) the loans to other nations that were made by the previous state. (i.e. many nations would than not have to pay back or continue paying back the previous U.S. loans; it becomes 'free money')

[southernmissfan]

I think it's unlikely to see a proletarian revolution in the US without widespread uprising and revolution throughout the world.

[LeninistKing]

Raul: This is a bit off topic from this specific topic. What i mean is that i think that to see a rise of a socialist-party to government-power in USA, we still have to wait for more socialist-movies, socialist-propaganda, and for socialist-ideology to become more mainstream, to rise to mainstream-status in America, either thru more pro-socialism movies like Michael Moores documentaries and movies, along with a deeper and stronger economic-crisis in America. So that americans would reject capitalism voluntarily and call for socialism to rescue and save americans from poverty, from hopelessness and toward a real change we can all believe in.

.


I think we should repudiate those debts, specifically speaking of those to imperialist/bourgeois nations (which would be all; China in particular). I'm asking for a more hard-line stance than that of Hugo Chavez. The U.S. has no debt to nations it has ruined (since they're likely not in a position to loan the U.S. any money) but if it did to these nations we would pledge to pay them back (most likely in goods, like manufactured goods).

I don't think we would be in a position at the time (immediate after successful revolution) to pay off any reparation (or the previously mentioned debts). The least we can do is to forgive (debt forgiveness) the loans to other nations that were made by the previous state. (i.e. many nations would than not have to pay back or continue paying back the previous U.S. loans; it becomes 'free money')

[Shokaract]

Raul: This is a bit off topic from this specific topic. What i mean is that i think that to see a rise of a socialist-party to government-power in USA, we still have to wait for more socialist-movies, socialist-propaganda, and for socialist-ideology to become more mainstream, to rise to mainstream-status in America, either thru more pro-socialism movies like Michael Moores documentaries and movies, along with a deeper and stronger economic-crisis in America. So that americans would reject capitalism voluntarily and call for socialism to rescue and save americans from poverty, from hopelessness and toward a real change we can all believe in.

.
One issue, aside from the fact that Moore is a bourgeois entertainer, is that at the end of Capitalism: A Love Story Moore concludes that what we need instead of capitalism is democracy. I have to thank him for teaching me about this new economic system called democracy. Of course democracy is essential to socialism, but what he proposed was nonsensical. Oh, instead of capitalism, we need monarchy!

I agree with you that there needs to be a more intense economic crisis that affects the standard of living of a significant portion of the population in order for a revolutionary movement to be successful. Indeed, Lenin did say that a "revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation".

However, the problem with waiting is that the system has been able to make adjustments and reforms (New Deal) to minimize the impact on in our way of life. And through neocolonial economic domination, the whole of our population is lifted up at the expense of the third world so it is more difficult for the average American to feel and to realize the exploitation inherent to the system.

[Raúl Duke]

I agree with you that there needs to be a more intense economic crisis that affects the standard of living of a significant portion of the population in order for a revolutionary movement to be successful. Indeed, Lenin did say that a "revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation".That depends...the wave of radical actions in Italy and France around 1968 came in a time of relative prosperous for those countries. However, the Russian, French, and (failed) German revolutions came during times of crisis. The Nazi party and fascism also came during times of relative instability and/or crisis.

Perhaps there's more factors at play in terms of success than just having economic crisis.

[LeninistKing]

I think that the general living standards of most americans is really low really. What i mean is that the economic system of USA can only offer food to most americans. And even The Bible says that man cannot live by bread alone. If you think about it, a large portion of the US population can only pay basic utility services, food and gas, and nothing else, and self-realized human life with high happiness-levels and spiritual and emotional wellb-being doesnt only mean food and electricity, but also access to social-contact, pleasures like vacation cruises, gyms, spas, University learning, and Full College Degrees, access to dental heath services, access to doctors and eye care, and many many other things that humans need but that the capitalist system is failing to provide to americans for their pursuit of liberty and happiness.

So i think that a great factor of why many americans are not angry revolting against the system is conformism. Because like i said, many americans can have food, but a life of food and nothing else is a life with low happiness and living standards and not worth living.

So conformism, is a major cause of why many americans (who are real poor and living in painful condtions) are not rebelling



One issue, aside from the fact that Moore is a bourgeois entertainer, is that at the end of Capitalism: A Love Story Moore concludes that what we need instead of capitalism is democracy. I have to thank him for teaching me about this new economic system called democracy. Of course democracy is essential to socialism, but what he proposed was nonsensical. Oh, instead of capitalism, we need monarchy!

I agree with you that there needs to be a more intense economic crisis that affects the standard of living of a significant portion of the population in order for a revolutionary movement to be successful. Indeed, Lenin did say that a "revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation".

However, the problem with waiting is that the system has been able to make adjustments and reforms (New Deal) to minimize the impact on in our way of life. And through neocolonial economic domination, the whole of our population is lifted up at the expense of the third world so it is more difficult for the average American to feel and to realize the exploitation inherent to the system.