'Worse before it gets better' ??

[Che a chara]

For many to become class conscious is it necessary for society as a whole and for people to suffer personally some sort of economic collapse that further deteriorates the situation ? Is this manageable or do we oppose such a drastic change in our lives as it may be morally wrong and cause suffering ? ..... And is calling for more rights and 'reforms' not tightening the grip of capitalism to a more seemingly democratic and humane system ?

How should we stand on this ?

[Bud Struggle]

One would have thought that class consciousness might come with education--it clearly does not. The most educated countries are less class interested than the least educated. America where the stardard of living for the most part is quite high has a low level of class consciousness (we are all middle class, remember?)

I just don't see there being any trend in that direction right now, so yea I think it would take a major economic catastrophe for there to be any change in any Revolutionary sense.

I do also think that reform and rights hurt the revolutionary movement and strengthen Capitalism. If a person has let say 85% of what they want they will be less interested in risking everything in a revolution than they will if they have nothing.

If Capitalism gradually keeps increasing prosperity in the third world even if its just marginal there never will be a revolution--ever.

[RGacky3]

America where the stardard of living for the most part is quite high has a low level of class consciousness (we are all middle class, remember?)

You know this how?

Im my experience most Americans are pretty class conscious.


I just don't see there being any trend in that direction right now, so yea I think it would take a major economic catastrophe for there to be any change in any Revolutionary sense.


I don't think so, I think what needs to happen is for people to realize that the electoral process is broken (due to corporate influence), and for them to stop trying to vote their problems away and instead take them in their own hands.


I do also think that reform and rights hurt the revolutionary movement and strengthen Capitalism. If a person has let say 85% of what they want they will be less interested in risking everything in a revolution than they will if they have nothing.

Depends how you look at it, it can be arguedd that if the ruling class gives into public pressure, the public might realize that it has a huge amount of power and try and use it. This is a HUGE reason why union busting is so important to the buisiness class, not nessesarily because of loss of profits, its the empowering effect solidarity has.


If Capitalism gradually keeps increasing prosperity in the third world even if its just marginal there never will be a revolution--ever.

Which is not gonna happen, its the nature of Capitalism

[Jimmie Higgins]

For many to become class conscious is it necessary for society as a whole and for people to suffer personally some sort of economic collapse that further deteriorates the situation ? Is this manageable or do we oppose such a drastic change in our lives as it may be morally wrong and cause suffering ? ..... And is calling for more rights and 'reforms' not tightening the grip of capitalism to a more seemingly democratic and humane system ?

How should we stand on this ?

Sometimes things get so bad that people have no choice but to take some kind of action. But desperate times also hurt solidarity and cause people to take defensive rather than offensive (revolutionary) stances. In the US, I think the last 30 years of losses for workers has caused some conservativism (not necessarily conservative politics, but conservative about demands). Basically people are beat down and the bosses have been on the offense and so people don't have high expectations. We see how this is playing out now in the US - people actually get mad at unions and say "well they should be happy they have any job at all".

Radicalism I think comes out of working class confidence. Reforms for civil rights did not make people less radical, it made them demand more and not settle just for integrated pools and buses but fair treatment at work, stopping police harassment and violence, services for the poor and so on. In the 1930s, the worst part of the depression 1932 was a low point in labor actions and workers lost struggles until about 1936. When there were massive general strikes (3 in 3 months) and then sit-down strikes as well as a more pro-worker new deal agenda in the later 30s, the communist party grew and the number of strikes grew and demands by workers got more radical.

[LeftSideDown]

Marx's historical materialism contradicts any prescriptive program or notion of revolution. If historical materialism were assumed as a premise, then Marx cannot propose revolution without contradicting himself. If communism is an inevitable future stage of history, then there would be no point in proactively proposing steps to get there. If communism requires prescriptive measures along the road, then it cannot be the outcome of nothing but material forces playing themselves out irrespective of human influence. This is just a variation of the dillema between fatalism and ethics. I'm suggesting that Marx internally exemplifies the dillema.

There is of course another gross contradiction between Marxist theory and praxis (or ends and means), namely, that the praxis of the dictatorship of the proletariet doesn't lead to the outcome described in his theory of communism, that it is impossible to obtain a "stateless, classless society" through the means of state-takeovers and central planning. This fact is obviously vindicated by the actual history that took place after Marx, as well as any comparatively sensible notion of the nature of state power (such as that of Weber and others).

[Dean]

Marx's historical materialism contradicts any prescriptive program or notion of revolution. If historical materialism were assumed as a premise, then Marx cannot propose revolution without contradicting himself. If communism is an inevitable future stage of history, then there would be no point in proactively proposing steps to get there. If communism requires prescriptive measures along the road, then it cannot be the outcome of nothing but material forces playing themselves out irrespective of human influence. This is just a variation of the dillema between fatalism and ethics. I'm suggesting that Marx internally exemplifies the dillema.
Actually, Marx's revolution was described as a consequence of material conditions. It's hardly self-contradictory.


There is of course another gross contradiction between Marxist theory and praxis (or ends and means), namely, that the praxis of the dictatorship of the proletariet doesn't lead to the outcome described in his theory of communism, that it is impossible to obtain a "stateless, classless society" through the means of state-takeovers and central planning. This fact is obviously vindicated by the actual history that took place after Marx, as well as any comparatively sensible notion of the nature of state power (such as that of Weber and others).

Why do you think state power's history is a justifiable means by which to contradict Marxist theory, and yet capitalist power's history is somehow not justifiable in terms of contradicting capitalist free-marketeerism? The dust bowl is one of many examples of capitalist power devouring itself, and the constituency which relies on it.

In any case, Marxist theory directly opposes the organization of both state and capitalist structures. Contrarily, it posits direct control over the means of production by those who produce and consume its fruits, as well as a social organization directly responsive to the interests of all involved.

In communist society, the power rests squarely on the shoulders of the widespread community, not security firms, not states, and not capitalist entities interested in very narrowly beneficial profit systems.