Political Panaceas

[Ol' Dirty]

I think that most people would agree that "leftists" in general are all trying to find the most socio-economically equitable solutions in their political climate. Whether you are an anarchist, a communist, a socialist or whatever, you'll probably agree that the way society is devided is grossly unfair and should be changed. The problem is, we can never really agree how to get to that point, which is why we infight so much. :blushing: A big part of the problem is our notion that a single system can cure all or most of the problems that a society has. In real life, though, all politics are syncretic: they are the sum total of people with different interests clamoring to get what they want. Even people in the same economic class disagree about things: people have their own individual interests, and that's politics.

A lot of people I've talked to have surprisingly been very sympathetic to anarchism, communism, socialism, whatever. The problem is, they see it as mental masturbation. They would love equity and fairness, but they think of anarchists, communists, socialists, as snake-oil salesmen (and not necessarily in a malevolent way). They think that we're offering them a cure for all their ills, and they would love that, but they don't neccessarily have time to devote to reading the Monthly Review so we can live in a more just way.

Leftists have a problem: we love revolutions. They're romantic. They're liberating. But once we get into power, we realize that we didn't plan things out as an explicit political program. Think about it: the ten charachteristics of a socialist transition was about as explicit as Marx and Engels got. Why? Because they really didn't know what it was going to look like. People can see that we're unsure of exactly what an equal society will look like, and they are afraid. At least liberals, conservatives and reactionaries have a pretty explicit political program. We don't really know what progress will look like because... well, it's new. It's the future. People like to have their security blanket, even if it's infected with smallpox.

It's late at night, and I'm rambling, but please respond to this.

[Proletarian Ultra]

you'll probably agree that the way society is devided is grossly unfair and should be changed...Leftists have a problem: we love revolutions. They're romantic. They're liberating...People can see that we're unsure of exactly what an equal society will look like, and they are afraid.

It's not so much we're "against" class society because it's grossly unfair. It's just that IT'S FUCKING DOOMED.

I think sometimes socialists do get too caught up in the romance of revolution. The fact is class struggle is going on every day and everything that happens in a society is the result of class struggle. Even the things we think of as reformist bullshit are the fruit of hard, violent class conflict. You don't, for example, get a black man with a history of openly Marxist friends elected president just by asking nicely. You get it because the ruling class are jittery as fuck and willing to try anything, even if it means throwing some of their most effective taglines out the door.

Revolution is just a concentration and coordination of the class struggle that is always already going on around you.

So yeah, I don't know what a finished socialist revolution will look like. But I know it will come (or alternatively, everyone will die) because capitalism is slowly and triumphantly winding its way toward ignominious death.

[Ol' Dirty]

I agree, but to recap, I'm trying to warn against "end of history" theories that humanity will achieve a state of communistic social production and that will end all struggles. If all history is composed of class struggles, can you really have a society that solves the class problem? Is there an end to history?

[CartCollector]

If all history is composed of class struggles, can you really have a society that solves the class problem? Is there an end to history?
Actually according to Marx, there was a time when there were no classes, and that was when there was no surplus value produced. Everyone did the same basic work to survive and they had nothing left over to trade once they were done. In other words, hunter/gatherers. Now since everyone had equal access to the means of production, and since there was no surplus and therefore no ruling class to control it, there were no classes.
Marx thought a classless society will arrive again once we can produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs. The necessity for economics is based on scarcity (not having enough to satisfy everyone's needs), and since everyone's needs will be satisfied, there will be no need for an economy. With the economy gone, there will be no need for a government either, since governments are just used to enforce the rules that the economy needs and to clean up the problems that the economy creates. There will be no scarcity, nor economics, nor government. And what is history all about? Conflicts between different classes created by the economy and conflicts between governments. With those gone, there will be no history.

And yes a post scarcity society could be possible in the future. One possibility would be that most, if not all, production is handled automatically (by robots for example). Another is that humans would have their brains hooked up to computers and would exist in a purely virtual world. However I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, and it certainly couldn't be done today.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I think that most people would agree that "leftists" in general are all trying to find the most socio-economically equitable solutions in their political climate. Whether you are an anarchist, a communist, a socialist or whatever, you'll probably agree that the way society is devided is grossly unfair and should be changed. The problem is, we can never really agree how to get to that point, which is why we infight so much. :blushing: A big part of the problem is our notion that a single system can cure all or most of the problems that a society has. In real life, though, all politics are syncretic: they are the sum total of people with different interests clamoring to get what they want. Even people in the same economic class disagree about things: people have their own individual interests, and that's politics.

A lot of people I've talked to have surprisingly been very sympathetic to anarchism, communism, socialism, whatever. The problem is, they see it as mental masturbation. They would love equity and fairness, but they think of anarchists, communists, socialists, as snake-oil salesmen (and not necessarily in a malevolent way). They think that we're offering them a cure for all their ills, and they would love that, but they don't neccessarily have time to devote to reading the Monthly Review so we can live in a more just way.

Leftists have a problem: we love revolutions. They're romantic. They're liberating. But once we get into power, we realize that we didn't plan things out as an explicit political program. Think about it: the ten charachteristics of a socialist transition was about as explicit as Marx and Engels got. Why? Because they really didn't know what it was going to look like. People can see that we're unsure of exactly what an equal society will look like, and they are afraid. At least liberals, conservatives and reactionaries have a pretty explicit political program. We don't really know what progress will look like because... well, it's new. It's the future. People like to have their security blanket, even if it's infected with smallpox.

It's late at night, and I'm rambling, but please respond to this.

Well, that's why I'm both a Technocrat & a Marxist. I believe in the Marxist ideals in gaining Communism. But I also look at things like the Technocrats & things like The Venus Project by Jacque Fresco as a model we should look at & get more informed in to help us know what to do when we finally come to power.

[Ol' Dirty]

Wow, excellent analysis Cart and Vegan. I had always seen Marxist revolution meant people in flat caps and kerchiefs marching against a fat man in a top hat, not a series of revolutions leading to a post-scarcity society. Very observant. I suppose that a science fictional explanation would make sense to me. :lol: Thank you for the observations.