View Full Version : No Purges second time round?
Universal Struggle
9th June 2010, 16:07
I would consider myself a Marxist Leninist, who would support Maoism in the third world, yet i think we should straight up denounce the unnecesarry purges that took place in the USSR and the PRC.
I am all for the oppression of the overthrown ruling class, i am even for the suppresion of liberals and religeous organisations, but i think in order to avoid the same mistakes,us MLMers should accept the injustices that went on.
I do not think the "Great terror" was anywhere near as bad as the bourgousie says, but the killing of revolutionaries such as Trotskyites and Anarchists was terrible, and partly to blame for the sectarianism today.
I mean i can understand trots being sectarianist towards us, because the history of MLs killing and torturing them is not very confidence inspiring.
We also cheer Ho chi min, sepite him turning in trotskyites to the police for money, i feel we have a responsibility to admit to the wrongdoings in the past, to make a better, more united and revolutionary future.
Peace
The Vegan Marxist
9th June 2010, 17:13
I'm just wondering though, not to try & attack the opposition of those days, but wouldn't have the anarchists try & kill us if they had the chance as well? I mean, they brought themselves in a position where they became enemies to the struggle.
Universal Struggle
9th June 2010, 17:15
That is the same logic white supremacists have, if the thrid world coulod, it would do the same to us etc
I know you are not racist of course, but that sort of rhetoric is wrong IMO.
I think even if they would of done the same, does that make it right we did it to them?
RebelDog
9th June 2010, 17:31
I'm just wondering though, not to try & attack the opposition of those days, but wouldn't have the anarchists try & kill us if they had the chance as well? I mean, they brought themselves in a position where they became enemies to the struggle.
The struggle being the crushing of the free soviets?
I'm just wondering though, not to try & attack the opposition of those days, but wouldn't have the anarchists try & kill us if they had the chance as well? I mean, they brought themselves in a position where they became enemies to the struggle.
Well, anarchism is largely irrelevant in the Third World, so no problem there. As for a revolutionary situation elsewhere, such as Greece, anarchists should be allowed to have their say, as they sometimes have good ideas, and should also obviously be allowed to disagree with the ruling party. However, if their usual prissiness and absolutism leads them to taking up arms or actively working against the newly established state (ie. damaging the means of production or otherwise harming the economy), some purges would be necessary.
I absolutely agree we need to keep purges to a minimum, though.
Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk
9th June 2010, 17:55
Any purges should be initiated democratically, in the interests of revolutionary socialism. After all, the revolution is an act of the working class, therefore the act of purging should be within the interests of the working class and not interests that threaten a bureaucratic state.
That's my semi-utopian view on the matter.
Raúl Duke
9th June 2010, 17:59
Well, anarchism is largely irrelevant in the Third World,Depends on what you call the 3rd world...
In Latin-America, particularly in South-America, there are large anarchist federations.
However, it's arguable that some countries in South America are 3rd world, at least relative to Africa and certain areas in Asia.
As for a revolutionary situation elsewhere, such as Greece, anarchists should be allowed to have their say, as they sometimes have good ideas, and should also obviously be allowed to disagree with the ruling party. However, if their usual prissiness and absolutism leads them to taking up arms or actively working against the newly established state (ie. damaging the means of production or otherwise harming the economy), some purges would be necessary.You're making an assumption that a revolutionary situation in Greece will end up in a socialist state...
It may end up turning into an anarchist society for all we know...
Any purges should be initiated democratically, in the interests of revolutionary socialism. After all, the revolution is an act of the working class, therefore the act of purging should be within the interests of the working class and not interests that threaten a bureaucratic state.
Yeah, this is important, too. Best make sure there aren't any purges that the people don't want.
You're making an assumption that a revolutionary situation in Greece will end up in a socialist state...
It may end up turning into an anarchist society for all we know...
True... after all, that has happened loads of times. It's really 50/50 at this point. :rolleyes:
Red Lion
9th June 2010, 18:44
Sectarianism is not a result of purges. We see groups splinter off into factions even today, in countries where nobody is purging anybody. To blame every single internal cooperative problem on purges is just wrong.
ContrarianLemming
9th June 2010, 18:45
I'm just wondering though, not to try & attack the opposition of those days, but wouldn't have the anarchists try & kill us if they had the chance as well? I mean, they brought themselves in a position where they became enemies to the struggle.
oh god, counterrevolutionary
No Purges second time round?
OK we'll try!
seriously I haven't even read the replies yet but I doubt many of the leninists are agreeing with you much, they have sovietphilia.
ContrarianLemming
9th June 2010, 18:46
Well, anarchism is largely irrelevant in the Third World, so no problem there. As for a revolutionary situation elsewhere, such as Greece, anarchists should be allowed to have their say, as they sometimes have good ideas, and should also obviously be allowed to disagree with the ruling party. However, if their usual prissiness and absolutism leads them to taking up arms or actively working against the newly established state (ie. damaging the means of production or otherwise harming the economy), some purges would be necessary.
I absolutely agree we need to keep purges to a minimum, though.
You must be sarcastic
I hate being right
ContrarianLemming
9th June 2010, 18:47
Any purges should be initiated democratically, in the interests of revolutionary socialism.
sorry, ultraleftist here, go to hell
Raúl Duke
9th June 2010, 18:50
True... after all, that has happened loads of times. It's really 50/50 at this point.Conditions change and differ, using "chance" based on some shaky historical background doesn't really guarantee a confident prediction.
Greece isn't Russia 1912, isn't China, isn't Vietnam, etc.
Universal Struggle
9th June 2010, 18:51
Wow really... sectarianism on a thread about sectarianism, thank you revolutionary left...... we really needed this lol :)
Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk
9th June 2010, 18:54
sorry, ultraleftist here, go to hell
I'm an ultraleftist because I don't believe that purges should be carried out by a bureaucracy?
Forgive me, we the working class will just sit back while a "socialist" government purges willy nilly. They can kill me off too, seeing as I think purges should only be carried out when necessary, in the interests of the working class.
In all seriousness, I don't understand where you are coming from here. Are you defending bureaucratic purges (i.e. the murders of "old bolsheviks)?.
I would consider myself a Marxist Leninist, who would support Maoism in the third world, yet i think we should straight up denounce the unnecesarry purges that took place in the USSR and the PRC.
No disagreement there.
I am all for the oppression of the overthrown ruling class, i am even for the suppresion of liberals and religeous organisations, but i think in order to avoid the same mistakes,us MLMers should accept the injustices that went on.
Why? It is completely unnecessary and undemocratic to suppress anything (besides perhaps fascists and I wouldn't agree with a state-ban on that either). It is directly the opposite of what communists should stand for: the complete freedom for anyone to design how their own lives should look like.
I do not think the "Great terror" was anywhere near as bad as the bourgousie says, but the killing of revolutionaries such as Trotskyites and Anarchists was terrible, and partly to blame for the sectarianism today.
The "Red Terror" was a move in which Trotsky was also involved. It was not primarily designed against anarchists though (in b4 "Kronstadt!!") but against the officer caste of the white army (you know, the ones they were fighting against in the civil war) as far as I'm aware and only after the whites started their all out terror campaign against everyone.
I mean i can understand trots being sectarianist towards us, because the history of MLs killing and torturing them is not very confidence inspiring.
"Sectarianism" means something else than what you're implying here. Anyway, I agree that you do not exactly build a class movement on the basis of terror.
We also cheer Ho chi min, sepite him turning in trotskyites to the police for money, i feel we have a responsibility to admit to the wrongdoings in the past, to make a better, more united and revolutionary future.
Agreed. The question of today, as far as I see it, flows from the conclusion that the idea of socialism has dropped pretty much completely out of the awareness of the working class. Thus communists have a task in focusing on political education. For this we need public discussion and debate amongst the far left - the Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, Anarchists, you name it. Let the working class movement know about our disagreements and learn from them (btw, I should explicitly mention that I'm not implying homogenic blocs here; there are huge differences of opinion in each bloc, basically running down to an individual level as we are all different). From this flows a second task: uniting the far-left and striving for a class movement for which we need to overcome our sectarianism (using the actual meaning of the word, that is to strive for sectoral agenda's. The politics of this or that group. As opposed to the politics of the whole class). This can be done by working on programmatic unity in which we accept but can disagree on the programme, this as opposed to theoretical unity (this vital point also implies full freedom of not only persons but ad hoc or permanent groups inside the party to fight for their ideas publically).
RebelDog
9th June 2010, 19:47
in the interests of the working class.
Basically what you are saying (and what the Bolshevik line at the time was also) is that, what is in the party's interest, is the same as what is in the working class interest. So if the working class engage in libertarian communism then they will be crushed. If they engage in self-management they will be crushed. If they have democratic horizontal control of the soviets they will be crushed. People like you hold the working class in contempt and it is in their interests to ignore your ideology.
Basically what you are saying (and what the Bolshevik line at the time was also) is that, what is in the party's interest, is the same as what is in the working class interest. So if the working class engage in libertarian communism then they will be crushed. If they engage in self-management they will be crushed. If they have democratic horizontal control of the soviets they will be crushed. People like you hold the working class in contempt and it is in their interests to ignore your ideology.
I think you're reading what you want to read in the bit you quoted. My position stems from the Communist Manifesto:
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties. [it should be noted that "parties" has a different meaning here than the one we use today and could therefore cause confusion, let's ignore this part for now]
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk
9th June 2010, 20:01
^ That is my position on this also, in case anybody else wants to call me an ultra-leftist!
Os Cangaceiros
9th June 2010, 20:04
I think that Marx is a little too optimistic, there. Communists also have their own interests at heart, as individuals...to look at them as merely conduits for proletarian interests is naive, and ignores the history of the international socialism. Sometimes their interests overlap with "proletarian interests", and sometimes they don't.
Zanthorus
9th June 2010, 20:04
Basically what you are saying (and what the Bolshevik line at the time was also) is that, what is in the party's interest, is the same as what is in the working class interest. So if the working class engage in libertarian communism then they will be crushed. If they engage in self-management they will be crushed. If they have democratic horizontal control of the soviets they will be crushed. People like you hold the working class in contempt and it is in their interests to ignore your ideology.
Basically what you are saying (and what the Anarchist line has generally been) is that, socialist parties somehow have interests seperate from the class whose revolutionary minority they consist of. So if the party ever takes power it will inevitably end up crushing the workers under a Stalinist beuracracy. People like you are the ones who never read anything into the Marxist support for party organisation other than that we are all members of the intellegentsia looking to control the working class and your ideology promotes needless sectarianism.
But seriously, I haven't got a clue how you read that into his post apart from trying to promote the same sectarianism which he was arguing against.
fredbergen
9th June 2010, 21:06
The original question is moot.
The existing Stalinist, Mao-Stalinist, social-democratic and "Trotskyist" parties worldwide will never make a workers revolution. Thus they will never hold power except, as many of them do now, as ministers in bourgeois governments (for example, the Mandelite "Fourth International" in Brazil, the recently discussed South African Communist Party, etc.) Therefore the kind of repression they will deal to the workers will only be the ordinary everyday bourgeois kind: funding cops and armies, waging war, voting for cutbacks, imprisoning workers like the CWI's Brian Caton... So however some of the unreconstructed Stalinists might dream of administering gulags, they'll have to settle for plain old capitalist prisons and capitalist war crimes.
The bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union was not a result of Bolshevism, or the Soviet system, the most democratic form of government ever achieved. The degeneration was a result of the failure of Bolshevik revolution to spread, the isolation of the Soviet workers state, and the resulting political degeneration of the Bolshevik Party and the Communist International, the abandonment of permanent revolution and the adoption of Stalin's conservative, anti-Marxist dogma of "socialism in one country," which meant betraying the cause of socialism everywhere.
So: Stalinists, "Marxist-Leninists," etc. will never make a revolution, anywhere, ever, because they support the bourgeoisie and are, at their most "radical," reformists with guns looking to shoot their way into Parliament or a cabinet post or two. Stalinism and its crimes when it held power were a product of the isolation and degeneration of the first successful workers revolution. The task is to fight for new October revolutions all over the world, to reforge the Fourth International as a genuine Leninist-Trotskyist party of world proletarian revolution!
Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk
9th June 2010, 21:20
It is not any party's job to "make a revolution". It is the job of the working class to do that. The initial question here is in relation to purges and it is the job of revolutionaries to discuss purges in relation to revolution.
praxis1966
9th June 2010, 21:55
The bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union was not a result of Bolshevism, or the Soviet system, the most democratic form of government ever achieved. The degeneration was a result of the failure of Bolshevik revolution to spread, the isolation of the Soviet workers state, and the resulting political degeneration of the Bolshevik Party and the Communist International, the abandonment of permanent revolution and the adoption of Stalin's conservative, anti-Marxist dogma of "socialism in one country," which meant betraying the cause of socialism everywhere.
Don't look now but your pants have dropped and your lack of historical perspective is showing. The fact of the matter is that though Stalin rhetorically argued the virtues of socialism in one country, the Soviet Union continued to try to exert control over revolutions while he was in power. Just look at the Spanish Civil War, where his government attempted (and succeeded to a large degree) to Bolshevize the various communist factions of the Republican forces.
Anyway, your argument presupposes alot of things. First, it assumes that Leninist-Trotskyism is somehow a correct interpretation of Marxism, which I don't buy given that by orthodox Marxist standards a primitive, largely agrarian capitalist country like pre-revolutionary Russia can't achieve something other than a devolution into state capitalism. Second, it presupposes that the state has some role to play in the liberation of the people, which I don't agree with either but that's just the anarcho-syndicalist in me talking.
At the end of the day, and though I hate to quote a slave-owning capitalist, Thomas Jefferson was right when he talked about "the tyranny of the majority." What I mean by that is, just because the bulk of the people in some arbitrarily designated geographic region support something like purges doesn't mean that it's OK to do it. As Bertrand Russell said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
To circle back to the Spanish Civil War, let's assume hypothetically that the Republican forces had won. By some people's logic here, the CGT would have been purged as long as the Madrid government could con enough people into believing it was a good idea. In this hypothetical, wouldn't it have just been easier to give them Catalunya, which is where they were strongest, complete with national independence and a mutually beneficial trading relationship with the rest of Spain? What's with tendency around here toward ideological force feeding anyhow?
Basically, I will not purge them in a box, I will not purge them with a fox, I will not purge them, Sam I Am. Purges are by their very nature oppressive, whether bureaucratically or democratically decided, large or small. They are, therefore, the quintessence of counterrevolutionary activity.
PS Doesn't this thread really belong in theory?
Blake's Baby
9th June 2010, 22:45
...
The bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Union was not a result of Bolshevism, or the Soviet system, the most democratic form of government ever achieved. The degeneration was a result of the failure of Bolshevik revolution to spread, the isolation of the Soviet workers state, and the resulting political degeneration of the Bolshevik Party and the Communist International, the abandonment of permanent revolution and the adoption of Stalin's conservative, anti-Marxist dogma of "socialism in one country," which meant betraying the cause of socialism everywhere....
Completely agree with every word of that except the description of the 'Bolshevik revolution' (not so much about the 4th international). And as i have constantly argued with dozens of people, if anyone does think that the revolution degenerated because of the policies of the Bolsheviks rather than the failure of world revolution, then they are surrenduring to the idea that socialism in one country is possible, through the application of the correct policy or form of administration.
Failure of the world revolution doomed the Russian Revolution to state capitalist dictatorship, whatever errors the Bolsheviks may have made - and I believe they made a lot; and some of them were massive and horrible - but even so, even if everything had gone swimmingly in Russia, isolated it could never have been anything other than state-capitalist.
Blake's Baby
9th June 2010, 22:49
I'm an ultraleftist because I don't believe that purges should be carried out by a bureaucracy?
Forgive me, we the working class will just sit back while a "socialist" government purges willy nilly. They can kill me off too, seeing as I think purges should only be carried out when necessary, in the interests of the working class.
In all seriousness, I don't understand where you are coming from here. Are you defending bureaucratic purges (i.e. the murders of "old bolsheviks)?.
You've got the wrong end of the wrong stick; he was saying he was an ultraleftist (and therefore you're a rightist) so you can go to hell.
Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk
9th June 2010, 22:51
Okay, my bad.
fredbergen
9th June 2010, 23:21
The USSR was not "state capitalist." The Bureaucracy was not a new ruling class with its own definite class interests. At every serious challenge of proletarian political revolution or capitalist counter-revolution, the bureaucrats in the degenerated USSR and the deformed workers states, and the state apparatus itself, the army and police forces, were paralyzed, split into opposing camps. The state-run industries were not organized for profit, but instead according to the bureaucrats' autocratically decided vision of the "national interest."
When capitalism was restored in the USSR and Eastern Europe, the result was a disaster for the workers. Just because something is "bad" doesn't make it capitalist. Trotskyists defended the Soviet Union to the very end because it belonged to the workers of the world, not the Stalinist bureaucrats. We defended the Soviet Union because the nationalized industries, not subject to the anarchic forces of profit, represented a substantial remaining gain for the workers which could be extended and built upon by restoring soviet democracy through political revolution.
The Russian Revolution was like a strike on a continental scale. No matter how much the union leadership undermined the strike, abused the rank and file and set it up to fail, picket lines mean don't cross and the Trotskyists fought to the end to defend the USSR, just as we stand today for the unconditional defense of China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam deformed workers states.
Universal Struggle
9th June 2010, 23:24
well as che remarked fredbergen
"since when did the russian proletariat eat their food off french porcelin
he scowledwhen a KGB mans wife presented her bourgeois plates.
Blake's Baby
9th June 2010, 23:27
The USSR was not "state capitalist." The Bureaucracy was not a new ruling class with its own definite class interests. At every serious challenge of proletarian political revolution or capitalist counter-revolution, the bureaucrats in the degenerated USSR and the deformed workers states, and the state apparatus itself, the army and police forces, were paralyzed, split into opposing camps. The state-run industries were not organized for profit, but instead according to the bureaucrats' autocratically decided vision of the "national interest."
When capitalism was restored in the USSR and Eastern Europe, the result was a disaster for the workers. Just because something is "bad" doesn't make it capitalist. Trotskyists defended the Soviet Union to the very end because it belonged to the workers of the world, not the Stalinist bureaucrats. We defended the Soviet Union because the nationalized industries, not subject to the anarchic forces of profit, represented a substantial remaining gain for the workers which could be extended and built upon by restoring soviet democracy through political revolution.
The Russian Revolution was like a strike on a continental scale. No matter how much the union leadership undermined the strike, abused the rank and file and set it up to fail, picket lines mean don't cross and the Trotskyists fought to the end to defend the USSR, just as we stand today for the unconditional defense of China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam deformed workers states.
Oh dear. And you were making so much sense before.
praxis1966
10th June 2010, 06:18
The USSR was not "state capitalist." The Bureaucracy was not a new ruling class with its own definite class interests.
:laugh: Hahaha That's the best shit I've heard all day. Go on, tell us another one!
Well, anarchism is largely irrelevant in the Third World, so no problem there.
Anarchism is relevant wherever there are workers, peasants, or both. Your move, dumbass.
pranabjyoti
10th June 2010, 16:35
I would consider myself a Marxist Leninist, who would support Maoism in the third world, yet i think we should straight up denounce the unnecesarry purges that took place in the USSR and the PRC.
I am all for the oppression of the overthrown ruling class, i am even for the suppresion of liberals and religeous organisations, but i think in order to avoid the same mistakes,us MLMers should accept the injustices that went on.
I do not think the "Great terror" was anywhere near as bad as the bourgousie says, but the killing of revolutionaries such as Trotskyites and Anarchists was terrible, and partly to blame for the sectarianism today.
I mean i can understand trots being sectarianist towards us, because the history of MLs killing and torturing them is not very confidence inspiring.
We also cheer Ho chi min, sepite him turning in trotskyites to the police for money, i feel we have a responsibility to admit to the wrongdoings in the past, to make a better, more united and revolutionary future.
Peace
Actually you need to understand "class struggle" after revolution and have to look at the "purges" on this light. Though bourgeoisie may be wiped out, but the petty-bourgeoisie class will still remain. And in them hidden are the seeds of future bourgeoisie. Without the continuation of "class struggle" and defeating them on the every step, you just can not defend the revolution.
Trots and Anarchs are mainly representatives of petty-bourgeoisie class. That class which is "revolutionary before revolution and counterrevolutionary after revolution". Why petty-bourgeoisie is revolutionary before revolution? Because the bourgeoisie stands in the way of itself becoming the bourgeoisie, which the revolution can only eliminate. But after revolution, the revolution and proletariat stands in its way of becoming bourgeoisie, then they slowly began to turn counterrevolutionary. IT'S A VERY BASIC CHARACTERISTIC OF PETTY-BOURGEOISIE CLASS. If you study the writings of our great leaders, you can understand that the party itself is the battleground of class struggle between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. After revolution, defeating and crushing petty-bourgeoisie class is necessary for the protection of revolution.
Kindly try to understand that to get a good harvest, you have to "purge" the weeds ruthlessly. It's a fact that weeds always come back and every farmer still have to "repurge" the weeds. But if we take them as "taken for granted", that will ultimately destroy our harvest and labor.
Petty-bourgeoisie is like weeds and pest that will always reappear. But, we must have to continue our fight against this "pests and weeds" to protect and harvest.
Palingenisis
10th June 2010, 16:40
Trots and Anarchs are mainly representatives of petty-bourgeoisie class. That class which is "revolutionary before revolution and counterrevolutionary after revolution". .
What you say is definitely true of Trots but it hasnt been my experiance with a lot of anarchists or people who call themselves anarchist. I take anarchists pretty much as I find them...Trotskyism I consider a class enemy.
ContrarianLemming
10th June 2010, 16:58
I'm an ultraleftist because I don't believe that purges should be carried out by a bureaucracy?
Forgive me, we the working class will just sit back while a "socialist" government purges willy nilly. They can kill me off too, seeing as I think purges should only be carried out when necessary, in the interests of the working class.
In all seriousness, I don't understand where you are coming from here. Are you defending bureaucratic purges (i.e. the murders of "old bolsheviks)?.
no, it was sarcasm, it joke on how Lenin considered those who are radically democratic "infantile ultraleftists"
praxis1966
10th June 2010, 17:50
Well, anarchism is largely irrelevant in the Third World, so no problem there.
Typical mainstream ignorance. Just ignore whatever facts don't fit into your theories. Ever hear of Angel Capalletti? Francisco Zalacosta? Facon Grande? No? The fact of the matter is that anarchism has been a major force in the Third World, especially in Mexico, Peru, Argentina, and just about anyplace else in Latin America with large indigenous populations. However, the documentation of it's presence has been poor, by and large, by both mainstream and leftist historians because of political bias.
Do us all a favor. Pick up a book or two.
PS Thanks, btw, to Alpha Kappa for picking up on the above quote. It almost escaped my attention.
ContrarianLemming
10th June 2010, 17:53
Typical mainstream ignorance. Just ignore whatever facts don't fit into your theories. Ever hear of Angel Capalletti? Francisco Zalacosta? Facon Grande?
Don't forget Subcommandante Marcos :)
(AKA, Pop eye)
yes Anarchism has had a large affect on the third world, mainly countries with large indigenous populations, Marxism has tended to not deal with this subject, anarchism has, so they identified with it, the same way peasant Spain went with anarchism.
anyone wanna tell me why my spellchecker doesn't lose it colors when I paste?
praxis1966
10th June 2010, 18:04
Don't forget Subcommandante Marcos :)
(AKA, Pop eye)
Well, that's kind of what I was referring to when I listed Mexico. I kinda figured Marcos was so obvious that he didn't need any mention by name, lulz.:)
vampire squid
10th June 2010, 18:07
of course there will be purging. vigorous purging. there are so many gratuitous "tendencies" these days, it's very annoying.
Barry Lyndon
10th June 2010, 18:28
The USSR was not "state capitalist." The Bureaucracy was not a new ruling class with its own definite class interests. At every serious challenge of proletarian political revolution or capitalist counter-revolution, the bureaucrats in the degenerated USSR and the deformed workers states, and the state apparatus itself, the army and police forces, were paralyzed, split into opposing camps. The state-run industries were not organized for profit, but instead according to the bureaucrats' autocratically decided vision of the "national interest."
When capitalism was restored in the USSR and Eastern Europe, the result was a disaster for the workers. Just because something is "bad" doesn't make it capitalist. Trotskyists defended the Soviet Union to the very end because it belonged to the workers of the world, not the Stalinist bureaucrats. We defended the Soviet Union because the nationalized industries, not subject to the anarchic forces of profit, represented a substantial remaining gain for the workers which could be extended and built upon by restoring soviet democracy through political revolution.
The Russian Revolution was like a strike on a continental scale. No matter how much the union leadership undermined the strike, abused the rank and file and set it up to fail, picket lines mean don't cross and the Trotskyists fought to the end to defend the USSR, just as we stand today for the unconditional defense of China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam deformed workers states.
Except China has not been socialist at least since the capitalist reforms of the early 1980's. Glad your defending sweatshop labor. But that would be consistent with your positions. I mean, you have already defended the sexual exploitation of children, so why not the economic exploitation as well?
pranabjyoti
11th June 2010, 02:38
What you say is definitely true of Trots but it hasnt been my experiance with a lot of anarchists or people who call themselves anarchist. I take anarchists pretty much as I find them...Trotskyism I consider a class enemy.
Anarchy too is a petty-bourgeoisie ideology. As per Anarchist ideology, it's not the class, but the state is the enemy, whoever may be in power. This clearly comes from a petty-bourgeoisie point of view. The historical problem with petty-bourgeoisie class is that IT CAN NEVER BE A RULING CLASS. Why? Because the petty-bourgeoisie itself isn't a stable class. IT ALWAYS TRIES TO UPGRADE ITSELF TO BOURGEOISIE LEVEL BUT REALITY PUSHES IT DOWN TOWARDS PROLETARIAT. Loyalty to the class is NOT in the character of this class and their selected leaders always betray the class. Therefore, instead of the ruling class that governed the state, the state itself become the enemy. Trotskyism is nothing but a refined form of anarchy.
Anarchy too is a petty-bourgeoisie ideology. As per Anarchist ideology, it's not the class, but the state is the enemy, whoever may be in power. This clearly comes from a petty-bourgeoisie point of view. The historical problem with petty-bourgeoisie class is that IT CAN NEVER BE A RULING CLASS. Why? Because the petty-bourgeoisie itself isn't a stable class. IT ALWAYS TRIES TO UPGRADE ITSELF TO BOURGEOISIE LEVEL BUT REALITY PUSHES IT DOWN TOWARDS PROLETARIAT. Loyalty to the class is NOT in the character of this class and their selected leaders always betray the class. Therefore, instead of the ruling class that governed the state, the state itself become the enemy. Trotskyism is nothing but a refined form of anarchy.
LOL. You are one sad, sad troll.
Whilst I agree with you that the petit-bourgeoisie can never become the ruling class, you really fucked up on some other points. I don't know about all other anarchists (which disproves your point, too, because you don't know their individual beliefs) but I always consider the ruling class to be the greatest enemy - and I consider the state to be merely the manifestation of class rule. Alot of other anarchists think this way, too. That being said, alot of anarchists are just stupid teenagers who want to rebel and smash the state, but this is not an accurate generalisation of anarchists, anarchist ideology or the anarchist movement.
I, for one, cannot see how anarchism is inherently petit-bourgeois - especially when, in the early 20th century, anarchism was one of the most dominant sections of the labour movement.
As for Trotskyism/Bolshevism-Leninism being a refined form of anarchy: you are so stupid on this matter it is fucking unbelievable. Last I remember, Trotskyists favoured a transitional period of state socialism. Yet, you throw in this crap about Trotskyists being anarchists.
praxis1966
11th June 2010, 07:24
Anarchy too is a petty-bourgeoisie ideology. As per Anarchist ideology, it's not the class, but the state is the enemy, whoever may be in power. This clearly comes from a petty-bourgeoisie point of view. The historical problem with petty-bourgeoisie class is that IT CAN NEVER BE A RULING CLASS. Why? Because the petty-bourgeoisie itself isn't a stable class. IT ALWAYS TRIES TO UPGRADE ITSELF TO BOURGEOISIE LEVEL BUT REALITY PUSHES IT DOWN TOWARDS PROLETARIAT. Loyalty to the class is NOT in the character of this class and their selected leaders always betray the class. Therefore, instead of the ruling class that governed the state, the state itself become the enemy. Trotskyism is nothing but a refined form of anarchy.
See, you'd be right if everything you just said wasn't wrong. Just. Fucking. Stop. In all honesty, if I didn't know any better I'd say you were some cappie troll here just to wind us all up. I mean, the obvious lack of understanding of either Trotskyism or anarchism you display in the above quote is so far from reality it almost sounds like you're doing it on purpose.
pranabjyoti
11th June 2010, 15:09
LOL. You are one sad, sad troll.
Whilst I agree with you that the petit-bourgeoisie can never become the ruling class, you really fucked up on some other points. I don't know about all other anarchists (which disproves your point, too, because you don't know their individual beliefs) but I always consider the ruling class to be the greatest enemy - and I consider the state to be merely the manifestation of class rule. Alot of other anarchists think this way, too. That being said, alot of anarchists are just stupid teenagers who want to rebel and smash the state, but this is not an accurate generalisation of anarchists, anarchist ideology or the anarchist movement.
LOL, personnel attack can not justify your arguments. If what you have said above is true, then kindly inform me about the Anarchist programme after revolution to coup with petty-bourgeoisie and WHAT IS YOUR IDEA ABOUT DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT. DO YOU BELIEVE IN DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT? BY the word "anarchy", I want to mean ideology formulated by Bakunin, which well criticized by Marx and Engels. If what you have stated above is true, then certainly you are drawing away from Bakunin.
I, for one, cannot see how anarchism is inherently petit-bourgeois - especially when, in the early 20th century, anarchism was one of the most dominant sections of the labour movement.
In the later half of the 20th century, dominant part of the labor movement was under either revisionist or petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie oriented organizations. Does that mean those were the ideology of proletariat? Even in Russia, during 1917 a large section of workers was under the influence of Socialist Revolutionaries, a petty-bourgeoisie party. Does that mean Socialist Revolutionaries were party of Russian proletariat?
As for Trotskyism/Bolshevism-Leninism being a refined form of anarchy: you are so stupid on this matter it is fucking unbelievable. Last I remember, Trotskyists favoured a transitional period of state socialism. Yet, you throw in this crap about Trotskyists being anarchists.
I HAVE SAID THAT TROTSKYISM IS A REFINED FORM OF ANARCHY. Trotsky's theory of "European revolution", without which, as per him, the Russian revolution can not survive. He clearly denied the possibility of revolution in a single country. But, later surprisingly during the industrialization period, he and his disciples demanded "privatization" of state industries that are running in "loss". A very clear example of dubious character, a trademark of petty-bourgeoisie.
chegitz guevara
11th June 2010, 17:14
Trotskyism I consider a class enemy.
Attitudes like that are what keep us from winning.
Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures
11th June 2010, 17:18
http://www.cheatengine.org/forum/files/trollface_hd_523.jpg
fix'd
Palingenisis
11th June 2010, 17:28
fix'd
What do you mean by that?
I dont entirely agree with the comrade but hes onto something.
Not all anarchism is the same though..For instance anarcho-syndicalism is an idealolgy of the Labour Aristocracy.
Some anarchists in the occupied six counties have talked about how they would like to kill Republican Socialists...
Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures
11th June 2010, 17:34
What do you mean by that?
I corrected his post.
manic expression
11th June 2010, 17:47
The general inability of anarchists to maturely defend themselves on this thread is most interesting. Pranabjyoti brings up a few points critical of anarchism, and look what happens: anarchists use empty personal taunts instead of argumentation. Quite childish, really.
I don't know about all other anarchists (which disproves your point, too, because you don't know their individual beliefs) but I always consider the ruling class to be the greatest enemy - and I consider the state to be merely the manifestation of class rule.
First, the fact that anarchists don't all agree does not prove anything, it's simply wishful thinking to claim as much. Second, let's assume that the workers establish a state to promote their interests, judging from your words, you would then inherently consider the workers to be the enemy. Whatever class holds state power, according to you, is the greatest enemy. Is this true or not? Would you support a working-class state?
Raúl Duke
11th June 2010, 17:55
Pranabjyoti brings up a few points critical of anarchism, and look what happens: anarchists use empty personal taunts instead of argumentation.Because what was brought up is a strawman, why should we entertain strawmen?
But since you asked
Anarchy too is a petty-bourgeoisie ideology. As per Anarchist ideology, it's not the class, but the state is the enemy, whoever may be in power.This is incorrect. Modern anarchism has adopted a class perspective and in some cases even borrowed Marxian perspectives. Anarchists view the state as an instrument of minority class rule against a majority.
We also usually take a Marxian/sociological/Foucault view on what happens when people become state leadership: Since it's (i.e. position of leaderships) have a different power relation to society/means of production/etc than the rest of the population than obviously, despite the original class blackground of the participants, the people who take bureaucratic/state leadership roles will be part of a different class separate from the rest and thus develop a separate class perspective looking out for their own interests (as a class, not individually) against the rest. Being precedes essence, "social/material conditions determine consciousness" (to paraphase Marx).
The rest of the argument is an inconvulated rant that hangs from this initial statement and than using Glenn Beck styled logic ties it to Trotskyism.
This clearly comes from a petty-bourgeoisie point of view. The historical problem with petty-bourgeoisie class is that IT CAN NEVER BE A RULING CLASS. Why? Because the petty-bourgeoisie itself isn't a stable class. IT ALWAYS TRIES TO UPGRADE ITSELF TO BOURGEOISIE LEVEL BUT REALITY PUSHES IT DOWN TOWARDS PROLETARIAT. Loyalty to the class is NOT in the character of this class and their selected leaders always betray the class. Therefore, instead of the ruling class that governed the state, the state itself become the enemy. Trotskyism is nothing but a refined form of anarchy.
ComradeOm
11th June 2010, 18:03
Why? It is completely unnecessary and undemocratic to suppress anything (besides perhaps fascists and I wouldn't agree with a state-ban on that either). It is directly the opposite of what communists should stand for: the complete freedom for anyone to design how their own lives should look likeI think you're confusing communists with liberals here. A democratic and egalitarian society, not untrammelled personal freedom, is what the former desire
manic expression
11th June 2010, 18:15
This is incorrect. Modern anarchism has adopted a class perspective and in some cases even borrowed Marxian perspectives. Anarchists view the state as an instrument of minority class rule against a majority.So if it's a majority that controls the state, it's no longer a state, then? How does that follow? Why not be rid of all these philosophical gymnastics and admit that Marx had it right all along?
We also usually take a Marxian/sociological/Foucault view on what happens when people become state leadership: Since it's (i.e. position of leaderships) have a different power relation to society/means of production/etc than the rest of the population than obviously, despite the original class blackground of the participants, the people who take bureaucratic/state leadership roles will be part of a different class separate from the rest and thus develop a separate class perspective looking out for their own interests (as a class, not individually) against the rest. Being precedes essence, "social/material conditions determine consciousness" (to paraphase Marx).But that falls into the mindset that pranabjyoti critiqued. It's "power" and "state leadership" that determines consciousness, not class. This would make the state, any state, even a state of the majority, an enemy, would it not?
Zanthorus
11th June 2010, 18:30
Being precedes essence, "social/material conditions determine consciousness" (to paraphase Marx).
I believe the phrase you're looking for is:
It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.
Or:
life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life
However it should be noted that first of all the initial phrase that "life/existence is determined by consciousness" is a Left-Hegelian phrase which Marx is turning on it's head. Also note in the Preface quote that it is not simply turned around so that "existence" determines "consciousness" but that social existence determines consciousness. What Marx is doing is denying the Left-Hegelian idea that "consciousness" stands outside life determining it in the same manner as the Hegelian Geist and instead trying to assert that consciousness is a part of life. Instead of starting with some abstract cartesian ego which shapes the world "the starting point... is real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness". "Social existence determines consciousness" is a tautology because social existence includes consciousness. Now if we were to turn the phrase completely around and postulate that the contents of someone's mind are determined completely by their social surroundings and that they are merely passive agents enslaved to their own social conditions then we would commit exactly the same error of having to suppose a seperation between life and consciousness, one of which "determines" the other:
The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
Marx's idea of class is based on the social organisation of labour, the "anatomy" of civil society which is analysed via political economy. For leaders of some kind to constitute a "class" they'd have to take positions above regular workers in the social organisation of labour. In fact personally I think the anarchist idea that leaders will inherently become a corrupt beuracracy reeks of elite theory.
Raúl Duke
11th June 2010, 18:33
Let's get to the heart of the matter, the typical socialist state
What was the position towards the means of production of the politburo, the bureaucrats, etc? Who controlled the means of production? Did the common laborer in the factory controlled it? No, it was the bureaucrats.
No matter what class position the Politburo/etc leaders and bureaucrats where initially, the fact that they now hold a position of power, and in this case one of control of the means of production, over the working class puts them separate from the working class; thus rendering such as state not a socialist state, not a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
In practice, we see it in the cases of USSR, China, etc.
Os Cangaceiros
11th June 2010, 18:41
then kindly inform me about the Anarchist programme after revolution to coup with petty-bourgeoisie
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
and WHAT IS YOUR IDEA ABOUT DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT.
This may come as an absolute shock to you, but some class-struggle anarchists (especially left-comm sympathisers) support the dictatorship of the proletariat. What they don't support is the use of the entity known as the modern state (which historically developed in tandem with capitalism) to facilitate that dictatorship. What they endorse instead of a centralized bureaucracy is a federated network that's grounded in a strong respect for localized control and decision-making, based on the situations communities/communes face. You can disagree with that if you want (personally I don't care, and I'm not particularly interested in debating the theoretical minutiae of what is and isn't a state at this juncture), but please don't misrepresent an ideology that you're not familiar with.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT?
WHY IS THIS WRITTEN ENTIRELY WITH CAPITAL LETTERS?
BY the word "anarchy", I want to mean ideology formulated by Bakunin
Anarchism as an ideology has evolved since Bakunin. Anarchists realize that we don't have "all the answers", and our theory and praxis evolves as material and social conditions evolve. Anarchism is not stuck in 1870.
which well criticized by Marx and Engels.
We're all familiar with the strawmen. Every Marxist-Leninist organization has some dusty old tome written by Marx or Lenin, in which libertarian ideas attempt to be discredited. My personal favorite is "if anarchists are opposed to all authority, how do they expect to make a revolution, as revolutions are inherently authoritative?" Man, that one gets me every time!
I'm of the opinion that much of the animosity between Marx and Bakunin was based on shared misunderstanding. Bakunin to his credit realized the intelligence and insight that Kapital had, and in regards to The Poverty of Philosophy said that "there was a good deal of truth in the merciless critique that he (Marx) heaped upon Proudhon." I think there's more common ground between anarchism and Marxism than some people realize, historically speaking.
If what you have stated above is true, then certainly you are drawing away from Bakunin.
Guess what? Anarchists don't worship the ground that Bakunin walked on. We don't punctuate our tendencies title with his name. Nor do we quote his work as if it's Holy Writ.
In the later half of the 20th century, dominant part of the labor movement was under either revisionist or petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie oriented organizations.
It's interesting that you bring this point up, as the only period that revolutionary syndicalism had real primacy over the international organized labor movement was in the early part of the 20th century, and a bit of the end of the 19th. You should read Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism...it talks about this quite a bit in that book.
Even in Russia, during 1917 a large section of workers was under the influence of Socialist Revolutionaries, a petty-bourgeoisie party. Does that mean Socialist Revolutionaries were party of Russian proletariat?
LOL, will the real ideology of the proletariat please stand up?
And I suppose that you know what the "real" ideology of the proletariat is? You and the Communist Parties, who have been busy selling the working class up the river for the last fifty years?
I HAVE SAID THAT TROTSKYISM IS A REFINED FORM OF ANARCHY.
Anarcho Trots! It all becomes clear now!
Trotsky's theory of "European revolution", without which, as per him, the Russian revolution can not survive. He clearly denied the possibility of revolution in a single country.
You mean permanent revolution? That says that revolution needs to spread to other nations in order for socialism to be maintained and thrive (a point that I agree with), it doesn't say anything about revolution not being possible in a country.
But, later surprisingly during the industrialization period, he and his disciples demanded "privatization" of state industries that are running in "loss". A very clear example of dubious character, a trademark of petty-bourgeoisie.
Goddamn Anarcho Trots! :mad:
Zanthorus
11th June 2010, 18:49
What was the position towards the means of production of the politburo, the bureaucrats, etc? Who controlled the means of production? Did the common laborer in the factory controlled it? No, it was the bureaucrats.
But this has nothing to do with "power" or your crude materialist idea that people are conditioned entirely by their social surroundings. The fact that they constituted different classes was because they held different positions within the social organisation of labour.
Zanthorus
11th June 2010, 18:58
We're all familiar with the strawmen. Every Marxist-Leninist organization has some dusty old tome written by Marx or Lenin, in which libertarian ideas attempt to be discredited. My personal favorite is "if anarchists are opposed to all authority, how do they expect to make a revolution, as revolutions are inherently authoritative?" Man, that one gets me every time!
That was actually Engels.
I'm of the opinion that much of the animosity between Marx and Bakunin was based on shared misunderstanding.
Well when Marx first encountered Bakunin, Bakunin was a religious ("And therefore we call to our deluded brothers: Repent, repent, the Kingdom of the Lord is at hand!" - The Reaction in Germany) slavic nationalist who championed dictatorship. When Marx encountered Bakunin for the second time in the IWMA he was relieved that Bakunin had advanced so much politically in the time since he last encountered him:
Bakunin sends his regards. He left today for Italy where he is living (Florence). I saw him yesterday for the first time in 16 years. I must say I liked him very much, more so than previously. With regard to the Polish movement, he said the Russian government had needed the movement to keep Russia itself quiet, but had not counted on anything like an 18-month struggle. They had thus provoked the affair in Poland. Poland had been defeated by two things, the influence of Bonaparte and, secondly, the hesitation of the Polish aristocracy in openly and unambiguously proclaiming peasant socialism from the outset. From now on — after the collapse of the Polish affair — he (Bakunin) will only involve himself in the socialist movement.
On the whole, he is one of the few people whom after 16 years I find to have moved forwards and not backwards.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/letters/64_11_04.htm
Most of the later hostility was based on the fact that Bakunin was organising secret societies in the international. The other stated reason for kicking Bakunin out was his links with Nechayev and because he'd allowed his name to be put on some crazy insurrectionary pamphlet that Nechayev had written. Apparently Bakunin was also fond of blaming everything that happened within the SPD on Marx and Engels. The personal organisational conflict then spilled over into a political one.
i am even for the suppresion of liberals and religeous organisations
so much for 'no purges'...
We also cheer Ho chi min, sepite him turning in trotskyites to the police for money, i feel we have a responsibility to admit to the wrongdoings in the past, to make a better, more united and revolutionary future.
By repeating the very things you claim to lament and suppressing those with differing views?
infraxotl
11th June 2010, 20:07
In an ideal world purges wouldn't be necessary because it would be impossible to lie your reactionary ass into the party. Unfortunately for anarchists and other liberal utopian leftists, reality is a cruel mistress.
First, the fact that anarchists don't all agree does not prove anything, it's simply wishful thinking to claim as much. Second, let's assume that the workers establish a state to promote their interests, judging from your words, you would then inherently consider the workers to be the enemy. Whatever class holds state power, according to you, is the greatest enemy. Is this true or not? Would you support a working-class state?
If a genuine workers' state arises, of course I'd support it. Simply for the fact that the existence of a police force and military that are hierarchial in structure is nearly always a tell-tale sign of a ruling class - same with state ownership of the means of production. If these manage to be overcome, I'm all for it when it happens. Until then, I'm an anarcho-communist.
Sir Comradical
12th June 2010, 01:09
I can tell you know that if say a revolution were to take place in India or Indonesia. Yes it would be necessary to imprison/execute at least 100,000 fuckers.
But yes there's a difference between this, and simply shooting comrades in your own party because you disagree on something.
Jazzhands
12th June 2010, 01:22
This sectarian shit is EXACTLY why purges should NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. This thread has completely degenerated into basically what happened the last time. Complete misuse and downright overuse of class analysis, accusations of "petit-bourgeois" ness or revisionism or whatever the hell you want to call it whenever anyone disagrees with you.
If the people in this thread EVER had their way, communism would be set back another 100 years like it was during the 20th Century, mainly because we killed all our friends, but also because we killed people for their political opinions in general.
I tried to rep you for that post, commisarusa, but it says
You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.
though I've not repped you for it yet
:confused:
I tried to rep you for that post, commisarusa, but it says
You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.
though I've not repped you for it yet
:confused:
Thanking a post adds reputation to that poster. If you want to beat this, give them rep first and then thank the post.
Steve_j
12th June 2010, 01:37
Hmm i just tried that with you, told me i need to spread the rep around before giving it to you again. But then it let me thank you?
EDIT: Nevermind, I am stupid and can't read.
McCroskey
12th June 2010, 01:57
Just for the sake of accuracy,
I mean i can understand trots being sectarianist towards us, because the history of MLs killing
Trotskysts are Marxist-Leninists as well.
let's assume hypothetically that the Republican forces had won. By some people's logic here, the CGT would have been purged
The CGT didn´t exist back then. It is a modern split from the CNT, which was the anarcho-syndicalist union back in the civil war times.
Trotskysts are Marxist-Leninists as well.
Not if you ask Trotskyists or Marxist-Leninists.
Hmm i just tried that with you, told me i need to spread the rep around before giving it to you again. But then it let me thank you?
It will let you thank as much as you want (which still does add rep), but it stops you from directly giving rep if you've thanked or given rep too much.
pranabjyoti
12th June 2010, 03:41
This sectarian shit is EXACTLY why purges should NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. This thread has completely degenerated into basically what happened the last time. Complete misuse and downright overuse of class analysis, accusations of "petit-bourgeois" ness or revisionism or whatever the hell you want to call it whenever anyone disagrees with you.
If the people in this thread EVER had their way, communism would be set back another 100 years like it was during the 20th Century, mainly because we killed all our friends, but also because we killed people for their political opinions in general.
"Different political opinion" is actually expression of different class and WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENT CLASSES, THERE IS CLASS STRUGGLE. During the 20th century, it's the petty-bourgeoisie elements like Khrushchev, Deng, which are responsible for the incidents of later part of 20th century. From your post, it seems that petty-bourgeoisie is always a "friendly class" while the reality is quite opposite.
Kindly tell us what do you mean by "killing friends". As I have already said that petty-bourgeoisie was friend before revolution and enemy after revolution and clearly stated the reason. My assessment of petty-bourgeoisie class is based on thoughts of Marx to Mao. That's one of the most common element in their thoughts. What destroyed the communist parties worldwide is stopping of fighting against petty-bourgeoisie elements and all the downfall of the party started from here.
Some claimed "anarchists" said that they support dictatorship of proletariat. But dictatorship means rule over all other classes INCLUDING PETTY-BOURGEOISIE I.E. "GENERAL PUBLIC" IN GENERAL. Purge is nothing but means of suppressing petty-bourgeoisie class. How can rule over a class without suppressing them?
I think you're confusing communists with liberals here. A democratic and egalitarian society, not untrammelled personal freedom, is what the former desire
Oh noes, I'm confusing liberalism with communism. The shock! The horror!
Let me start with a nice provoking stance here: all communists are liberals by very definition.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the liberal freedoms that we ought to defend, the gains of bourgeois democracy: freedom of expression, freedom of gathering, freedom of press, etc, etc. Indeed, we defend these freedoms where the bourgeoisie is more than prepared to trash them in order to keep their rule (recent "anti-terrorism" laws spring to mind).
In fact we defend these freedoms and go beyond them, fighting for ever more freedoms and democracy. Building communism without these freedoms is not communism, but some kind of dystopia. Yes, we would all be equal in such a form of "communism", because no one had the right to differ!
Perhaps the term ultra-liberal would apply better, but as the term liberal is heavily contaminated by ruling class ideology we avoid using the word and rightly so. But accusing someone of being a liberal because he defends the democratic gains where people are free to design their own lives is quite absurd. The implication would be that capitalism enables people to be free in how they live their lives and communism would be the opposite. If that was communism then I'm not a communist.
Communism should be all about the fight for radical democracy, which is essentially nothing more or less than a say in how we live our lives.
So yes, I'm an ultra-liberal. The question is: What are you?
pranabjyoti
12th June 2010, 10:02
Oh noes, I'm confusing liberalism with communism. The shock! The horror!
Let me start with a nice provoking stance here: all communists are liberals by very definition.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the liberal freedoms that we ought to defend, the gains of bourgeois democracy: freedom of expression, freedom of gathering, freedom of press, etc, etc. Indeed, we defend these freedoms where the bourgeoisie is more than prepared to trash them in order to keep their rule (recent "anti-terrorism" laws spring to mind).
In fact we defend these freedoms and go beyond them, fighting for ever more freedoms and democracy. Building communism without these freedoms is not communism, but some kind of dystopia. Yes, we would all be equal in such a form of "communism", because no one had the right to differ!
Perhaps the term ultra-liberal would apply better, but as the term liberal is heavily contaminated by ruling class ideology we avoid using the word and rightly so. But accusing someone of being a liberal because he defends the democratic gains where people are free to design their own lives is quite absurd. The implication would be that capitalism enables people to be free in how they live their lives and communism would be the opposite. If that was communism then I'm not a communist.
Communism should be all about the fight for radical democracy, which is essentially nothing more or less than a say in how we live our lives.
So yes, I'm an ultra-liberal. The question is: What are you?
At least I want to be a communist, not liberal-communist. AND I DON'T WANT TO TOLERATE ENEMY CLASS IDEOLOGY IN THE THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY.
What you people are unable to understand that this "freedoms" are nothing but hoax to make people fool and the ultimate form of freedom is "classless society". If we encourage petty-bourgeoisie by giving them sufficient freedom, instead of oppressing them, we will just been overflowed with them in the long or not-so-long run.
manic expression
12th June 2010, 10:51
Let's get to the heart of the matter, the typical socialist state
What was the position towards the means of production of the politburo, the bureaucrats, etc? Who controlled the means of production? Did the common laborer in the factory controlled it? No, it was the bureaucrats.
No matter what class position the Politburo/etc leaders and bureaucrats where initially, the fact that they now hold a position of power, and in this case one of control of the means of production, over the working class puts them separate from the working class; thus rendering such as state not a socialist state, not a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
In practice, we see it in the cases of USSR, China, etc.
OK, yes, there is a group of people with immediate control over the means of production, over society, but that is a matter of necessity, not one of oppression. Full-on democracy, the practice of having everyone decide everything, is simply impractical in the present day with all the threats against socialism. In order for a state to be streamlined, a certain group must be empowered by the majority to make decisions. This does not subvert the will of the majority, and indeed it better promotes it, for a crushed state due to indecisiveness does not promote the rights of the majority at all, while a streamlined state with a leadership that represents and works for the majority will defend these rights with far more vigor and purpose.
So it's not a question of sticking to one form of government on principle, it's a question of how effectively we can promote the cause of the workers. This can be answered many ways, I'll get to this later.
And yes, the USSR put the party as the deciding body in government, but let's not beat around the bush: this didn't change the social relationships other than the fact that you had to go through the party instead of through the state apparatus. Sure, not all socialist systems are the same (Cuba today is far more of a democratic state than the Soviet Union ever really was), but the interests that are defended, from my point of view, remain the same, and that is most important if we take the perspective of class. Much of this hinges on whether you deem the ruling party a party of the working class in the USSR and PRC, but it would nevertheless be difficult to deny that working-class rights improved. The shortcomings of the governmental processes of the USSR and the PRC are just that: shortcomings. They demand constructive criticism from fellow comrades, not condemnation. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And to be honest, that (constructive criticism from a comrade) is an attitude I should take with anarchists who expropriated capitalists as revolutionaries (Spain). That is something I should work on.
If a genuine workers' state arises, of course I'd support it. Simply for the fact that the existence of a police force and military that are hierarchial in structure is nearly always a tell-tale sign of a ruling class - same with state ownership of the means of production. If these manage to be overcome, I'm all for it when it happens. Until then, I'm an anarcho-communist.
Understood. However, let's analyze this briefly. Does a military mean working-class power cannot exist? Why can't the workers organize a military, or else a disciplined modern military? Further, if they cannot, then how can we possibly hope to defend the gains of the workers from imperialism?
Also, if we assume that the workers control the state, then what is the problem with state ownership of production? Logically the workers, through their state, would control production.
Would you consider the Paris Commune a genuine worker state? What about the anarchist takeover of areas of Catalonia? Lastly, would you agree that worker states can vary in appearance and specific organization?
At least I want to be a communist, not liberal-communist. AND I DON'T WANT TO TOLERATE ENEMY CLASS IDEOLOGY IN THE THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY.
What you people are unable to understand that this "freedoms" are nothing but hoax to make people fool and the ultimate form of freedom is "classless society". If we encourage petty-bourgeoisie by giving them sufficient freedom, instead of oppressing them, we will just been overflowed with them in the long or not-so-long run.
By Marx you're thick (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2072/3540861791_e114342a52.jpg).
Understood. However, let's analyze this briefly. Does a military mean working-class power cannot exist? Why can't the workers organize a military, or else a disciplined modern military? Further, if they cannot, then how can we possibly hope to defend the gains of the workers from imperialism?
Also, if we assume that the workers control the state, then what is the problem with state ownership of production? Logically the workers, through their state, would control production.
Would you consider the Paris Commune a genuine worker state? What about the anarchist takeover of areas of Catalonia? Lastly, would you agree that worker states can vary in appearance and specific organization?
The state is the hierarchical entity which uses force to enforce the will of the ruling class, to maintain existing social relationships and enforce property rights. If this criteria isn't met, you probably don't have a state.
As an anarchist, I have a different class analysis to you (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB7.html). This means that individuals with great political or economic power or influence are members of the ruling class. I can't see state ownership existing under a system of direct democracy, so that scenario's out of the picture. State ownership (presumably with central planning - as is the only use for state ownership) always requires a bureaucracy. This is a hierarchical top-down system; with those at the top holding the greatest economic power and influence. Coincidentally, you have forged a new ruling class.
The state is necessary to enforce these property relationships (although that sentence might seem redundant as the state owns the means of production in that scenario, anyway, so the state would be necessary in the first place. The state always works for a few; the masses and the state have always been two separate entities.
Workers themselves can never exercise control of the means of production through the state. If workers exercised control of the means of production via similar means, but without a bureaucracy, then you probably wouldn't have a state. State ownership and workers' control are two contrasting terms.
Who needs a military to ward off foreign aggressors? They should be met with stiff resistance by the people on the ground. Workers could capture mobile armour and aircraft, and produce more if need be.
I wouldn't call the Paris Commune a workers' state. The concept of a workers' state is one massive contradiction. Unless the workers manage to distance themselves from peasants and become a minority ruling class (in which case the usage of the term "state" would be correct), there will be no state in a genuine worker and peasant controlled society.
Jolly Red Giant
12th June 2010, 11:36
Attitudes like that are what keep us from winning.
No they don't - the odd off-the-wall internet warrior like Palin has zero influence on anyone or anything.
Palingenisis
12th June 2010, 11:39
By Marx you're thick (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2072/3540861791_e114342a52.jpg).
You do realise that English isnt his first language?
Do you really think proving how intelligent you are or proving how stupid someone else is going to advance the cause?
You do realise that English isnt his first language?
Do you really think proving how intelligent you are or proving how stupid someone else is going to advance the cause?
It's not that his English is bad, but what he's saying that makes me crawl. Everyone who claims communism is not about fighting for more freedom and attacks it as being "liberal" just doesn't get it and quite frankly I wonder why these people (he/she's far from alone, another bright example here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fidel-castro-true-t136833/index.html?p=1772093#post1772093)) call themselves communist at all.
And yes, that last post of mine was not that constructive. I apologize for it.
manic expression
12th June 2010, 14:31
The state is the hierarchical entity which uses force to enforce the will of the ruling class, to maintain existing social relationships and enforce property rights. If this criteria isn't met, you probably don't have a state.
The workers, too, can be a ruling class. The workers, too, must maintain certain social relationships and enforce certain property rights. So yes, the workers can establish a state by that criteria.
As an anarchist, I have a different class analysis to you (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB7.html). This means that individuals with great political or economic power or influence are members of the ruling class. I can't see state ownership existing under a system of direct democracy, so that scenario's out of the picture. State ownership (presumably with central planning - as is the only use for state ownership) always requires a bureaucracy. This is a hierarchical top-down system; with those at the top holding the greatest economic power and influence. Coincidentally, you have forged a new ruling class.
First, why do you dismiss state ownership with genuine democracy? It makes no sense: if the state is controlled by the majority, then state ownership of property would go hand-in-hand with that system. Second, you act like bureaucracy is always an evil. How do you propose to operate an embassy (much less a system of embassies) without some sort of bureaucracy? Third, if you oppose all hierarchy, then you must oppose revolution, for revolution inherently involves a new hierarchy over the old.
The state is necessary to enforce these property relationships (although that sentence might seem redundant as the state owns the means of production in that scenario, anyway, so the state would be necessary in the first place. The state always works for a few; the masses and the state have always been two separate entities.
Workers themselves can never exercise control of the means of production through the state. If workers exercised control of the means of production via similar means, but without a bureaucracy, then you probably wouldn't have a state. State ownership and workers' control are two contrasting terms.
These are unjustified assumptions. If we make a definition of the state based on how large its ruling class is, then it's a useless definition, because an entity is determined by its function, not by its aim. A state, you say, ceases to be a state once a certain group takes control of it. Then what, exactly, does it become? A would-be state? No, it's a state, just because the majority controls it doesn't change what it is.
What you're proposing would lead us to say that working-class ideology is not ideology, or that working-class force is not force, or that working-class ideas are not ideas. A working-class state only differs from a capitalist state in the class that controls is; everything else springs from this. To concoct an entirely new label for the thing is to deny what it is, and thus what its place in history is.
Who needs a military to ward off foreign aggressors? They should be met with stiff resistance by the people on the ground. Workers could capture mobile armour and aircraft, and produce more if need be.
Look, I'm no brigadier general, but the idea that you can just give a worker an APC or a fighter jet and have him/her operate it effectively and in cohesion with others is insane, period. Is there a single episode in military history that tells you this could feasibly work? You seem to think untrained workers could cohesively operate and direct artillery, armour and aircraft (!) off the bat.
How do you organize the stiffest resistance possible? A disciplined military, that's how. Again, I don't know that much about military history, but I know a bit, and what you're proposing runs contrary to every inch of sense on the issue.
I wouldn't call the Paris Commune a workers' state. The concept of a workers' state is one massive contradiction. Unless the workers manage to distance themselves from peasants and become a minority ruling class (in which case the usage of the term "state" would be correct), there will be no state in a genuine worker and peasant controlled society.
Once again, it's only a contradiction because of the philosophical gymnastics that anarchist assumptions force you to do. If you indeed think class to be class (based on relationship to the means of production), then a worker state is not a contradiction. If you want to say that class is determined by relationship to the state, then we must then say that the bulk of capitalists (like Rupert Murdoch) are not members of the ruling class, for they hold no positions within the state. Either class is about relationship to production, and Murdoch is a member of the ruling class, or class is about relationship to state power, in which case Murdoch is just as disenfranchised as the rest of us non-office-holders.
Raúl Duke
12th June 2010, 16:20
"Different political opinion" is actually expression of different class and WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENT CLASSES, THERE IS CLASS STRUGGLE.
How can you be certain that your opinion is the definite proletarian opinion?
The workers, too, can be a ruling class. The workers, too, must maintain certain social relationships and enforce certain property rights. So yes, the workers can establish a state by that criteria.
A ruling class? To rule over whom? The aim is to erase conflicting classes, not create a new class system.
First, why do you dismiss state ownership with genuine democracy? It makes no sense: if the state is controlled by the majority, then state ownership of property would go hand-in-hand with that system. Second, you act like bureaucracy is always an evil. How do you propose to operate an embassy (much less a system of embassies) without some sort of bureaucracy? Third, if you oppose all hierarchy, then you must oppose revolution, for revolution inherently involves a new hierarchy over the old.
What new hierarchy is this? The workers and peasants over the capitalists? Oh wait, soon we'll have removed their class from from society.
And, as an anarchist, what's the use in an embassy? For co-operating with the bourgeois states?
These are unjustified assumptions. If we make a definition of the state based on how large its ruling class is, then it's a useless definition, because an entity is determined by its function, not by its aim. A state, you say, ceases to be a state once a certain group takes control of it. Then what, exactly, does it become? A would-be state? No, it's a state, just because the majority controls it doesn't change what it is.
What you're proposing would lead us to say that working-class ideology is not ideology, or that working-class force is not force, or that working-class ideas are not ideas. A working-class state only differs from a capitalist state in the class that controls is; everything else springs from this. To concoct an entirely new label for the thing is to deny what it is, and thus what its place in history is.
Alright then, it's a state. Just not really in any sense anyone has ever seen. Let's drop that argument, I know I've lost it.
Look, I'm no brigadier general, but the idea that you can just give a worker an APC or a fighter jet and have him/her operate it effectively and in cohesion with others is insane, period. Is there a single episode in military history that tells you this could feasibly work? You seem to think untrained workers could cohesively operate and direct artillery, armour and aircraft (!) off the bat.
How do you organize the stiffest resistance possible? A disciplined military, that's how. Again, I don't know that much about military history, but I know a bit, and what you're proposing runs contrary to every inch of sense on the issue.
Of course, workers would have to learn and train from those who are knowledgeable. Did I ever say otherwise?
Once again, it's only a contradiction because of the philosophical gymnastics that anarchist assumptions force you to do. If you indeed think class to be class (based on relationship to the means of production), then a worker state is not a contradiction. If you want to say that class is determined by relationship to the state, then we must then say that the bulk of capitalists (like Rupert Murdoch) are not members of the ruling class, for they hold no positions within the state. Either class is about relationship to production, and Murdoch is a member of the ruling class, or class is about relationship to state power, in which case Murdoch is just as disenfranchised as the rest of us non-office-holders.
Did you read the differing class analysis I have? This is a strawman.
manic expression
13th June 2010, 05:44
A ruling class? To rule over whom? The aim is to erase conflicting classes, not create a new class system.
This is exactly the point: we want to create a new class system that is based on the political supremacy of the workers over the capitalists.
What new hierarchy is this? The workers and peasants over the capitalists? Oh wait, soon we'll have removed their class from from society.
Yes, but they will not go without a fight. All overthrown classes have a tendency of pushing for their restitution, and they are not ineffective in this. Most importantly, the fact that revolutions do not and in all likelihood will not happen all around the world at the same time shows us that we must adopt measures to cope with the fact that capitalists will likely hold power just across a border here or there.
And, as an anarchist, what's the use in an embassy? For co-operating with the bourgeois states?
For disputes or disagreements between governments, representing the revolutionary government's case to the local population, immigration/emigration, tourism...just to name a few.
Of course, workers would have to learn and train from those who are knowledgeable. Did I ever say otherwise?
No, you didn't say otherwise, but it's difficult to train someone how to use a fighter jet unless there's a modern military in place (with hierarchical rank). Plus, how do we expect to fuel, re-arm, clean, re-paint, re-calibrate and provide air traffic for (along with a ton of other stuff I can't comprehend) that fighter without a military organized on modern standards?
Did you read the differing class analysis I have? This is a strawman.
I read it, but I didn't find it 100% clear on this point, and now that I revisited it it complicates things. If we take the early modern era, with the progressive bourgeoisie conflicting with the old feudal order, we have trouble using these definitions. If the ruling class is based on both oppression and exploitation, then we have two ruling classes at the same time in the same countries. The nascent bourgeoisie used exploitation of labor (albeit not to the extent seen later) and the old feudal classes used state power to oppress the rest of society. As we see from various wars and upheavals in this society, though, the two classes were definitely at odds and control over society was not shared. How do you explain this?
incogweedo
13th June 2010, 06:16
"I am all for the oppression of the overthrown ruling class, i am even for the suppresion of liberals and religeous organisations"
your all for oppression and suppression? doing that is just as bad as what the ruling class and religious organizations are doing to us today. Oppression is wrong, Suppression is wrong, and Purging is wrong, bottom line and no exceptions. and for a leftist, who is supposed to be for the people, to support oppression and suppression makes me sick.
pranabjyoti
13th June 2010, 06:26
How can you be certain that your opinion is the definite proletarian opinion?
This is NOT MY OPINION. This is at least I can say that one of the very basic learning of dialectic materialism.
pranabjyoti
13th June 2010, 06:28
The problem with trots and anarchos is that, they call themselves Marxist and they are CHAMPIONS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. But, they just act opposite when they are ideologically attacked. Instead of replying with facts and logic, they just resort to personal attack and WHICH IS AN EXAMPLE THAT HOW FAR THEY ARE AWAY FROM DIALECTIC MATERIALISM.
NoOneIsIllegal
13th June 2010, 07:13
My first attempt at such a meme:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/ixivtwo/communism1.jpg
The problem with trots and anarchos is that, they call themselves Marxist and they are CHAMPIONS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. But, they just act opposite when they are ideologically attacked. Instead of replying with facts and logic, they just resort to personal attack and WHICH IS AN EXAMPLE THAT HOW FAR THEY ARE AWAY FROM DIALECTIC MATERIALISM.
The reason why we don't reply with "facts and logic" is because you're not making much sense in the first place.
NoOneIsIllegal: Don't spam pictures.
This is exactly the point: we want to create a new class system that is based on the political supremacy of the workers over the capitalists.
You are making it sound like there will be bourgeoisie in a socialist society. Abolish classes almost immediately, I say.
Yes, but they will not go without a fight. All overthrown classes have a tendency of pushing for their restitution, and they are not ineffective in this. Most importantly, the fact that revolutions do not and in all likelihood will not happen all around the world at the same time shows us that we must adopt measures to cope with the fact that capitalists will likely hold power just across a border here or there.
No, you didn't say otherwise, but it's difficult to train someone how to use a fighter jet unless there's a modern military in place (with hierarchical rank). Plus, how do we expect to fuel, re-arm, clean, re-paint, re-calibrate and provide air traffic for (along with a ton of other stuff I can't comprehend) that fighter without a military organized on modern standards?
Whoever said we couldn't be organised in our self-defence? I, myself, still question the existence or non-existence of ranks in a post-revolutionary militia or the like. It's best to drop this particular argument for the moment.
I read it, but I didn't find it 100% clear on this point, and now that I revisited it it complicates things. If we take the early modern era, with the progressive bourgeoisie conflicting with the old feudal order, we have trouble using these definitions. If the ruling class is based on both oppression and exploitation, then we have two ruling classes at the same time in the same countries. The nascent bourgeoisie used exploitation of labor (albeit not to the extent seen later) and the old feudal classes used state power to oppress the rest of society. As we see from various wars and upheavals in this society, though, the two classes were definitely at odds and control over society was not shared. How do you explain this?
But in late feudal times, the bourgeoisie were not the ruling class. They were a middle class. This is shown in the fact they did not hold much political power, only economic power.
Class can be objectively defined: the relationship between an individual and the sources of power within society determines his or her class.
^ That was the actual class analysis, not the oppression and exploitation thing.
manic expression
13th June 2010, 07:45
You are making it sound like there will be bourgeoisie in a socialist society. Abolish classes almost immediately, I say.
It's not really up to us. History has shown that revolutions don't happen throughout the whole world simultaneously, so we're going to have to deal with a bourgeoisie one way or the other. Plus, if they persist in pushing for restitution internally, then that's another thing we'll have to deal with. The abolition of classes has to come through a process of making them historically outdated, and that doesn't happen through any decree.
But in late feudal times, the bourgeoisie were not the ruling class. They were a middle class. This is shown in the fact they did not hold much political power, only economic power.
^ That was the actual class analysis, not the oppression and exploitation thing.
OK, good clarification. With that in mind, it is possible to be a member of the ruling class without holding direct state power, no? That would mean you can have a state with representatives (and bureaucrats) and still genuinely promote the interests of the workers.
pranabjyoti
13th June 2010, 07:49
The reason why we don't reply with "facts and logic" is because you're not making much sense in the first place.
NoOneIsIllegal: Don't spam pictures.
REALLY? Then which craps make REAL SENSES? Actually what I have said is teachings of our great teachers, from Marx to Mao. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you need some proper understanding of dialectic materialism.
REALLY? Then which craps make REAL SENSES? Actually what I have said is teachings of our great teachers, from Marx to Mao. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you need some proper understanding of dialectic materialism.
I wouldn't thought I'd ever say this but... you need some serious spanking from Rosa. Your ramblings on dialectical materialism are completely nonsensical.
It's not really up to us. History has shown that revolutions don't happen throughout the whole world simultaneously, so we're going to have to deal with a bourgeoisie one way or the other. Plus, if they persist in pushing for restitution internally, then that's another thing we'll have to deal with. The abolition of classes has to come through a process of making them historically outdated, and that doesn't happen through any decree.
We take away their capital and their seats in government. Voila. No more bourgeoisie.
OK, good clarification. With that in mind, it is possible to be a member of the ruling class without holding direct state power, no? That would mean you can have a state with representatives (and bureaucrats) and still genuinely promote the interests of the workers.
Of course it's possible to be a member of the ruling class without direct state power. Capitalists hold great economic and political power, but are not in direct control of the state.
Represent the workers; highly doubtful and improbable. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why I argue for direct democracy.
I wouldn't thought I'd ever say this but... you need some serious spanking from Rosa. Your ramblings on dialectical materialism are completely nonsensical.
Kinky.
manic expression
13th June 2010, 08:34
We take away their capital and their seats in government. Voila. No more bourgeoisie.
That's what happened to many feudal aristocracies that were able to make comebacks. They will persist in one form or another, perhaps beyond the borders of the revolutionary body...what then?
Of course it's possible to be a member of the ruling class without direct state power. Capitalists hold great economic and political power, but are not in direct control of the state.
Represent the workers; highly doubtful and improbable. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why I argue for direct democracy.
The above two paragraphs are in contradiction. First, it is possible to be a full member of the ruling class (and thus have your interests represented and promoted by the state) without holding direct state power. OK. But then, all power corrupts, so it's "highly doubtful and improbable" for anything other than direct democracy to represent people who aren't office-holders. Either you can have your interests promoted by a state you don't hold power in, or you can't.
pranabjyoti
13th June 2010, 08:39
I wouldn't thought I'd ever say this but... you need some serious spanking from Rosa. Your ramblings on dialectical materialism are completely nonsensical.
You and your partner need some understanding of the teachings of our great teachers is addition to your SPANKING SKILL.
That's what happened to many feudal aristocracies that were able to make comebacks. They will persist in one form or another, perhaps beyond the borders of the revolutionary body...what then?
We'll have a small few disgruntled workers on our hands - so what?
The above two paragraphs are in contradiction. First, it is possible to be a full member of the ruling class (and thus have your interests represented and promoted by the state) without holding direct state power. OK. But then, all power corrupts, so it's "highly doubtful and improbable" for anything other than direct democracy to represent people who aren't office-holders. Either you can have your interests promoted by a state you don't hold power in, or you can't.
The man who originally quoted that wasn't very specific, it should really be saying something about how having more power than somebody else will corrupt. However, this is sort of covered in the second part of the quote; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And are you not familiar with someone having less power and influence than somebody else? This is how the middle layers of the bureaucracy work - both in government and business.
manic expression
13th June 2010, 09:15
We'll have a small few disgruntled workers on our hands - so what?
No, we'll have powerful and angry emigres, we'll have disinformation campaigns, sabotage, terrorism and probably invasions, we'll have rightist domestic groups being funded by imperialist powers.
The man who originally quoted that wasn't very specific, it should really be saying something about how having more power than somebody else will corrupt. However, this is sort of covered in the second part of the quote; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And are you not familiar with someone having less power and influence than somebody else? This is how the middle layers of the bureaucracy work - both in government and business.
If the capitalists can create a type of state that doesn't "corrupt absolutely" (that is, doesn't lead to a new state ruling class over the sections of the bourgeoisie who don't hold state power), why couldn't the workers? Simply put, if a capitalist can be a member of the ruling class without holding state power, then why can't a worker be a member of the ruling class of a worker state without holding state power?
I am familiar with someone having less power and influence than someone else. It's unavoidable. If there's a militant revolutionary who is seriously listened to by her co-workers whenever she speaks, someone else has less power and influence than she does. Unless you're morally opposed to leadership and responsibility, that is not a bad thing.
No, we'll have powerful and angry emigres, we'll have disinformation campaigns, sabotage, terrorism and probably invasions, we'll have rightist domestic groups being funded by imperialist powers.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the individual capitalists themselves.
If the capitalists can create a type of state that doesn't "corrupt absolutely" (that is, doesn't lead to a new state ruling class over the sections of the bourgeoisie who don't hold state power), why couldn't the workers? Simply put, if a capitalist can be a member of the ruling class without holding state power, then why can't a worker be a member of the ruling class of a worker state without holding state power?
Because the capitalist holds economic power and the worker does not.
I'm not sure, but I think I already went over this.
I am familiar with someone having less power and influence than someone else. It's unavoidable. If there's a militant revolutionary who is seriously listened to by her co-workers whenever she speaks, someone else has less power and influence than she does. Unless you're morally opposed to leadership and responsibility, that is not a bad thing.
But she does not control a source of political or economic power. All she does is inspire people.
manic expression
13th June 2010, 09:56
Because the capitalist holds economic power and the worker does not.
I'm not sure, but I think I already went over this.
Workers hold economic power as well, but that's not the point. You were talking about state power corrupting...so why don't we see a similar corruption in bourgeois states? It doesn't follow that this factor, one you view as so essential, is suddenly nullified as soon as a contemporary has economic power; it would be at work regardless.
But she does not control a source of political or economic power. All she does is inspire people.
Inspiring people is certainly a source of political power.
Workers hold economic power as well, but that's not the point. You were talking about state power corrupting...so why don't we see a similar corruption in bourgeois states? It doesn't follow that this factor, one you view as so essential, is suddenly nullified as soon as a contemporary has economic power; it would be at work regardless.
Workers individually would have to hold great power to be higher up the social hierarchy. All great power - political and economic - corrupts. You would be mad to think that those in power today are not corrupt. Politicians and capitalists all abuse the system in ways that deliver to themselves great economic or financial privileges and benefits.
Inspiring people is certainly a source of political power.
Does a revolutionary leader have the power to control or influence the everyday running of a relatively stable society? No.
ComradeOm
13th June 2010, 11:29
So yes, I'm an ultra-liberal. The question is: What are you?A communist
That is one who does not seek to defend the 'freedoms' of private property and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. These are, except in the most vulgar of analyses, fundamental components of liberalism. It is political freedom, and rationed at that, in lieu of economic or social freedom. And we both know that this is not freedom at all. What distinguishes communists from liberals, of any stripe, is not a desire to simply 'further' bourgeois freedoms but to effect a social transformation of society and turn the bourgeois, liberal, world on its head. Our muse is not some abstract set of 'universal laws' and nor do we fetishise the individual and his rights. In communist thought the ideal of 'liberty' - of complete personal freedom - is secondary at best and completely alien to any class conception of society
There was an excellent piece by Marx where he dealt, in an excellently reasoned way, with the contradiction between liberty and equality post-revolution but unfortunately I can't recall which work it appears in
Incidentally you sound not like an "ultra-liberal" but a real radical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_(historical))
That is one who does not seek to defend the 'freedoms' of private property and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Where have I defended these?
Given that you also talk of political freedoms, I'm unsure what triggered your previous post about me "mixing up" communist ideas with liberal ideas.
ComradeOm
13th June 2010, 12:12
Where have I defended these?*Shrugs* You are the one who claimed to be a liberal. These are integral aspects of liberalism and always have been. They are inseparable from the truncated political freedoms that the bourgeoisie is so proud of. To ignore them is to cook up your own sanitised definition of liberalism. Why else would you support the right to free speech and not the right to own property?
In contrast, rights for communists do not derive from abstract political ideals but from the workings of class society. Its part of what makes communism so different from liberalism. The two have common Enlightenment roots to be sure but it is the former, and only the former, that stresses the need for an egalitarian society and views the creation of this from the standpoint of class analysis*. Its why communists talk of a revolution in social relations first and only then the maintenance of 'bourgeois freedoms'. The second follow on from the first and only if compatible. So communism is not a simple progression from liberalism, but a major departure from it
*It goes without saying that class analysis is incompatible with those universal 'bourgeois freedoms'
manic expression
13th June 2010, 12:16
Workers individually would have to hold great power to be higher up the social hierarchy. All great power - political and economic - corrupts. You would be mad to think that those in power today are not corrupt. Politicians and capitalists all abuse the system in ways that deliver to themselves great economic or financial privileges and benefits.
Many capitalist politicians do not "abuse the system", they do just the opposite in defending the system, fending off any and all opposition against the system. If they did abuse the system, it would be a wonder that the system exists at all. All of them, however, abuse the workers through following the system. The whole point of the system is to protect capitalism and exploit workers...so there's no need to try to wiggle their way around the system when it is streamlined for them.
This all begs the question: why not set up a similar system to do the same for workers, against the capitalists? The equation of the state is an effective one, so let's just flip it around so it works for the majority.
Does a revolutionary leader have the power to control or influence the everyday running of a relatively stable society? No.
The post-revolution revolutionary leader is charged by history with exactly that. In fact, the power of the revolutionary leader must grow through the process of revolution, and in particular after its immediate victory. This is the only way the revolution can be furthered. Unless you think that once the local businessmen are expropriated, we should all go home.
*Shrugs* You are the one who claimed to be a liberal.
Only after you introduced the term, hence my question.
In contrast, rights for communists do not derive from abstract political ideals but from the workings of class society. Its part of what makes communism so different from liberalism. The two have common Enlightenment roots to be sure but it is the former, and only the former, that stresses the need for an egalitarian society and views the creation of this from the standpoint of class analysis*. Its why communists talk of a revolution in social relations first and only then the maintenance of 'bourgeois freedoms'. The second follow on from the first and only if compatible. So communism is not a simple progression from liberalism, but a major departure from it
*It goes without saying that class analysis is incompatible with those universal 'bourgeois freedoms'
I agree with the first part, until the *, my original reply to you had the same drive I would argue.
I just take issue, not only at you as there are many more on the board, when freedom of speech, freedom of gathering and other political freedoms are dissed as "well, that's just liberal", implying as if defending these freedoms and fighting for more is somehow wrong and not part of the working class' historical mission to liberate itself.
Many capitalist politicians do not "abuse the system", they do just the opposite in defending the system, fending off any and all opposition against the system. If they did abuse the system, it would be a wonder that the system exists at all. All of them, however, abuse the workers through following the system. The whole point of the system is to protect capitalism and exploit workers...so there's no need to try to wiggle their way around the system when it is streamlined for them.
This all begs the question: why not set up a similar system to do the same for workers, against the capitalists? The equation of the state is an effective one, so let's just flip it around so it works for the majority.
This is stupid. We are not here to make revenge attacks against the capitalists. Why would we bring ourselves down to the level of the ruling class? Post-revolution, they have two choices: actually earn the fruits of their own labour, or starve and die. After revolution, what's done is done.
The post-revolution revolutionary leader is charged by history with exactly that. In fact, the power of the revolutionary leader must grow through the process of revolution, and in particular after its immediate victory. This is the only way the revolution can be furthered. Unless you think that once the local businessmen are expropriated, we should all go home.
No leaders post revolution. That's final. We are not here to rid ourselves of one oppressor and let another one take their place.
And why were you even talking about post-revolutionary leaders when I was talking about a revolutionary leader; i.e., one that leads the revolution - not what comes after, but the revolution itself?
ComradeOm
13th June 2010, 13:01
Only after you introduced the term, hence my questionHold on a second, you devoted a whole post to how you are a liberal (well, 'ultra-liberal'). Is this no longer the case?
I'm aware of the tendency of some on this board to dismiss as 'liberals' all those who object to mass coercion in the name of socialism. My post was not in that spirit and that's something that I definitely do not believe in. Nonetheless I similarly do not agree with the idea that unlimited personal freedom is necessarily a feature of any post-revolution society or that this should be the onus of any socialist programme. Like I say, this is the difference between liberalism and communism
...implying as if defending these freedoms and fighting for more is somehow wrong and not part of the working class' historical mission to liberate itself.Supporting bourgeois rights does not necessarily lead to the liberation of the working class. Indeed, as I've mentioned, many bourgeois 'rights' are designed precisely to oppose this. Which is why the emphasis must be on social revolution, and whatever rights derive from this, as opposed to universal and abstract 'bourgeois freedoms'
Zanthorus
13th June 2010, 13:20
There was an excellent piece by Marx where he dealt, in an excellently reasoned way, with the contradiction between liberty and equality post-revolution but unfortunately I can't recall which work it appears in.
I think you might be thinking of On the Jewish Question where he explores the difference between the purely political emancipation of liberalism and the "general human emancipation" of communism.
This is stupid. We are not here to make revenge attacks against the capitalists. Why would we bring ourselves down to the level of the ruling class? Post-revolution, they have two choices: actually earn the fruits of their own labour, or starve and die. After revolution, what's done is done.
The revolution will not happen immediately in all countries at the same time. During Mai 68 when the De Gaul government was collapsing the ruling-classes were making plans to flee to nearby west germany. What do you think they would've done then? Just sat back and let the French working class run the place for themselves?
You know during the Russian Revolution the white army was aided by the British and Americans?
No leaders post revolution. That's final. We are not here to rid ourselves of one oppressor and let another one take their place.
What is "opressive" about leadership? You know anarchists historically had leadership right? Or maybe you think Mahkno and Durruti somehow weren't "leaders". What you are peddling is another version of "elite theory". The idea that somehow strong leaders through their resourcefulness will always end up in control of the ignorant masses. If it is true that any kind of leadership will lead to opression then I guess socialism is nothing but a utopia considering how advanced industrial societies practically require some form of leadership and co-ordination.
The irony of course is that your position can only be sustained by a disdain for the capabilities of the workers. People don't just get to control people through sheer force of will. For leadership to end up in oppression you would need the people being led to be blind sheep who did nothing but follow orders.
Funny how that works out actually. The evil Leninists with their trust in the workers not to be duped by "great men" and the purest of pure anarchists complaining about how the workers are sheep who will always be manipulated by those in control.
The revolution will not happen immediately in all countries at the same time. During Mai 68 when the De Gaul government was collapsing the ruling-classes were making plans to flee to nearby west germany. What do you think they would've done then? Just sat back and let the French working class run the place for themselves?
You know during the Russian Revolution the white army was aided by the British and Americans?
That is exactly why we put all our energy into raising class consciousness everywhere.
What is "opressive" about leadership? You know anarchists historically had leadership right? Or maybe you think Mahkno and Durruti somehow weren't "leaders". What you are peddling is another version of "elite theory". The idea that somehow strong leaders through their resourcefulness will always end up in control of the ignorant masses. If it is true that any kind of leadership will lead to opression then I guess socialism is nothing but a utopia considering how advanced industrial societies practically require some form of leadership and co-ordination.
The irony of course is that your position can only be sustained by a disdain for the capabilities of the workers. People don't just get to control people through sheer force of will. For leadership to end up in oppression you would need the people being led to be blind sheep who did nothing but follow orders.
Funny how that works out actually. The evil Leninists with their trust in the workers not to be duped by "great men" and the purest of pure anarchists complaining about how the workers are sheep who will always be manipulated by those in control.
I'm talking about an opposition to rulers, not "lead"ers, as such. There can be co-operation without rulers, unless, of course, you doubt the working class. But I could be wrong. Maybe we all need to be sheep.
And I think no-one should rule over anyone else? What the hell is wrong with that?
Kléber
13th June 2010, 14:01
If I can't purge, I don't want to be part of your revolution.
Zanthorus
13th June 2010, 14:29
That is exactly why we put all our energy into raising class consciousness everywhere.
And how is that going to lead to instantaneous revolution everywhere? Conditions are different in different countries and capitalism will not fall all at once. It will probably take months or even a few years for socialism to start spreading out from where it initially takes hold.
I'm talking about an opposition to rulers, not "lead"ers, as such.
I'm assuming this is the old anarchist dichotomy between a "ruler" who forces himself on others and a "leader" who everyone follows of their own free will.
Well Mahkno was a "ruler". The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine conscripted people to fight for it. Even the anarchist historican Peter Arshinov admitted that.
Under anarchism there would still be rulers. It's disingenous to claim otherwise. Even someone elected directed by a workers council is a "ruler" in some sense because they only represent the views of the majority. The minority would still be being "ruled". Unless of course you believe that democracy is "tyranny of the majority" in which case you can take your place in OI with "Comrade" Anarchist.
There can be co-operation without rulers
Only in primitivistic tribal societies.
And I think no-one should rule over anyone else? What the hell is wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is that it's completely utopian.
chegitz guevara
13th June 2010, 15:53
"Different political opinion" is actually expression of different class
No, it isn't. This is an excuse to have to keep from considering what your comrades are saying. You just label your opinion "the proletarian" ideology, (even though you support a petty bourgeois class, the peasantry, while opposing the working classes both in the Third World and the imperialist countries) and the other side a petty-bourgeois or even bourgeois ideology, and then you don't even have to examine whether or not it is true. You just disengage. You stop thinking. You become a mindless follower, a zombie.
chegitz guevara
13th June 2010, 15:54
And how is that going to lead to instantaneous revolution everywhere?
You're forgetting to add water.
Palingenisis
13th June 2010, 16:45
No, it isn't. This is an excuse to have to keep from considering what your comrades are saying. You just label your opinion "the proletarian" ideology, (even though you support a petty bourgeois class, the peasantry, while opposing the working classes both in the Third World and the imperialist countries) and the other side a petty-bourgeois or even bourgeois ideology, and then you don't even have to examine whether or not it is true. You just disengage. You stop thinking. You become a mindless follower, a zombie.
Where exactly is he doing this?
Also I think that people like him and Red Cat actually bring a refreshing attitude to here and one that is proletarian (being born also of struggle).
The Ben G
13th June 2010, 16:46
I absolutely agree we need to keep purges to a minimum, though.
How about to none (at least with our comrades)? We should try Diplomacy before brute force (When dealing with dissidents).
Raúl Duke
13th June 2010, 16:55
one that is proletarian (being born also of struggle)
A lot of people have different opinions born out of struggle...there's no one "proletarian" opinion. All this talk about "one true proletarian opinion" is as chegitz said, just some label to throw around so you can shut your ears to any criticism and imply that the people who disagree with you are petit-bourgeois or whatever. I mean, as I said, how exactly do you determine that there's one "proletarian opinion" and what said opinion is?
Palingenisis
13th June 2010, 17:01
A lot of people have different opinions born out of struggle...there's no one "proletarian" opinion. All this talk about "one true proletarian opinion" is as chegitz said, just some label to throw around so you can shut your ears to any criticism and imply that the people who disagree with you are petit-bourgeois or whatever. I mean, as I said, how exactly do you determine that there's one "proletarian opinion" and what said opinion is?
Maybe anarchists dont believe this and I know that the RCP has abandoned this to some extent but Marxists see ideas as reflecting the social position of the class that they emerge from. Just because a factory worker holds an idealogy such as libertarianism or what have you doesnt make libertarianism a proletarian world view.
Zanthorus
13th June 2010, 17:12
This is also probably a phenomenon of forgetting the history of communism, which has traditionally been about a peasant-worker alliance. Most of the writings of Lenin advocate this alliance.
Yes, that was probably Lenin's biggest mistake.
Zanthorus
13th June 2010, 17:22
Why?
Because it's only applicable to countries with a significant peasant population like Russia in 1917. You couldn't form a worker-peasant alliance in, for example, modern day england, simply because there are no peasants to ally with. This is one of the points that Gorter brings up in his Open Letter to Comrade Lenin. In advanced capitalism the working class stands alone as the revolutionary class.
chegitz guevara
13th June 2010, 17:24
Is anyone advocating a purely peasant-led rebellion without a class alliance with the working class? I don't think so.
Yes, the Naxalites and their dogmatic supporters. I've had the discussion with pranabjyoti on this subject for over a year now.
ComradeOm
13th June 2010, 17:25
Why?Because it doesn't work. The Russian peasantry ultimately strangled the emerging workers state
Palingenisis
13th June 2010, 17:27
Yes, the Naxalites and their dogmatic supporters. I've had the discussion with pranabjyoti on this subject for over a year now.
-
Do the Naxalites officially say that?
Do you have a source for that?
chegitz guevara
13th June 2010, 17:33
Also there are no peasants in Western Europe or North America, but many Third World countries are peasant-majority countries, hence the complete befuddlement on the part of majority of westerners when they see things like "peasant-worker alliance". This is also probably a phenomenon of forgetting the history of communism, which has traditionally been about a peasant-worker alliance. Most of the writings of Lenin advocate this alliance.
The problem is not in Westerners not understanding the worker-peasant alliance, but the fact that, by and large, Maoists subordinate the proletariat to the peasantry, the most extreme example of this type of thinking is the view that first world workers are part of the bourgeoisie and need to be suppressed by the "real" proletariat, i.e., 3rd world peasantry.
We can see this mentality in Naxalite movement, which I support, in its view that India is a colonial-feudal country, despite the fact that three hundred million people live in the cities, engaging in capitalist relations of production. Untold hundreds of millions engage in capitalist agriculture outside the cities. India is not only a capitalist country, it is rapidly becoming an imperialist one as well. But, the Indian Maoists cannot wrap their heads around this, and continue to wage a war in the jungles, when the revolution will most likely be built in the cities.
When you ask them or their supporters about it, they argue that organizing in the cities should be done in support of the "real" struggle in the jungles. That may be a worker peasant alliance, but it's not Marxism, nor Leninism. It's certainly not a proletarian truth.
edit:
That said, we should also note that many Maoists do not engage in this kind of thinking, especially in the 1st world. If we look at the Maobadi in Nepal, they rejected subordinating the urban proletariat to the peasantry, made an armistice, and began organizing in the cities. They are now, without a doubt, the most powerful political force in Nepal and very likely on the verge of making the revolution. The Naxalites, however, because the UCPN(M) has changed tactics, have labeled them revisionists.
manic expression
13th June 2010, 17:35
This is stupid. We are not here to make revenge attacks against the capitalists. Why would we bring ourselves down to the level of the ruling class? Post-revolution, they have two choices: actually earn the fruits of their own labour, or starve and die. After revolution, what's done is done.
There are many, many other options left open to the capitalists beyond those two. That's simply the reality of the thing: what are you going to do in response?
No leaders post revolution. That's final. We are not here to rid ourselves of one oppressor and let another one take their place.
And why were you even talking about post-revolutionary leaders when I was talking about a revolutionary leader; i.e., one that leads the revolution - not what comes after, but the revolution itself?
Leaders who lead us to liberation are not our oppressors. That's quite clear-cut.
The revolutionary leader has the responsibility of leading a "relatively stable society" after the revolution, so what you oppose is part of the job description.
ComradeOm
13th June 2010, 17:43
Only the Maoist slogan of 'Land to the tiller' can resolve this contradictionSounds suspiciously like 'Land to those who work it' and other peasant slogans from Russia 1917. Didn't work out too well
Palingenisis
13th June 2010, 17:56
That said, we should also note that many Maoists do not engage in this kind of thinking, especially in the 1st world. If we look at the Maobadi in Nepal, they rejected subordinating the urban proletariat to the peasantry, made an armistice, and began organizing in the cities. They are now, without a doubt, the most powerful political force in Nepal and very likely on the verge of making the revolution. The Naxalites, however, because the UCPN(M) has changed tactics, have labeled them revisionists.
Have the Naxalites actually labelled the Nepalese revisionists? My understanding is that they came very close to saying that but didnt actually say it for which Monkey Smashes Heaven criticized them for. The PCF-MLM has though come out along with the Peru People's Movement and labeled the Nepalese as revisionist...There is a lot to be concerned about with whats happening there.
chegitz guevara
13th June 2010, 18:16
I agree there is much with which to be concerned, but also much with which to be excited. Let's be honest, we pretty much made a muck of all previous attempts at socialism, with the possible exception of Cuba.
I don't know if the Naxalites themselves have openly labeled the UCPN(M) as revisionist, but their supporters certainly seem to have. It's definitely the sense one gets when reading what the Indian comrades have to say about the Nepalese.
Raúl Duke
13th June 2010, 19:41
Maybe anarchists dont believe this and I know that the RCP has abandoned this to some extent but Marxists see ideas as reflecting the social position of the class that they emerge from. Just because a factory worker holds an idealogy such as libertarianism or what have you doesnt make libertarianism a proletarian world view.
Libertarianism didn't emerge from the working class...and to a degree neither did many leftist ideologies initially (Marx was a professional, university educated. Was a journalist and studied law,etc. Engels was the son of a factory owner. Lenin came from a family of professionals and went to university. Kropotkin was a prince, etc. Not many were factory workers or something similar). Hmm...conundrum.
I think what Marx is saying was probably more in-line with "who (which class) benefits" from said ideas, perhaps. Usually, the capitalist class make up ideas that benefit them in some way of course.
Palingenisis
13th June 2010, 21:13
Because it doesn't work. The Russian peasantry ultimately strangled the emerging workers state
How on earth do you make that out?
Zanthorus
13th June 2010, 21:16
Libertarianism didn't emerge from the working class...and to a degree neither did many leftist ideologies initially (Marx was a professional, university educated. Was a journalist and studied law,etc. Engels was the son of a factory owner. Lenin came from a family of professionals and went to university. Kropotkin was a prince, etc. Not many were factory workers or something similar). Hmm...conundrum.
Marx's ideas really began to take shape as he started to look into the growing European workers movement at the time. It was Engels The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 which really convinced Marx to devote himself to furthering the workers movement. The League of the Just which joined the Communist Correspondence Committee of Bruxelles to form the Communist League was a utopian socialist group of working and artisan class people who followed the ideas of Wilhelm Weitling, a utopian socialit theoretician who worked twelve hours a day as a tailor. Other utopian socialists like Proudhon had also come from working class and poor backgrounds. In fact, Lenin notes this in What is to be Done? after quoting Kautsky approvingly on the bourgeois origins of socialism in his polemic against economism:
This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm#fwV05P384F01
Marxism didn't spring fully formed from Marx's brain. It was an attempt to import a scientific understanding into the already existing workers movement in Europe.
Palingenisis
13th June 2010, 21:21
Indeed the demand for communism arises out of the class struggle of the working class against its enemies.
And how is that going to lead to instantaneous revolution everywhere? Conditions are different in different countries and capitalism will not fall all at once. It will probably take months or even a few years for socialism to start spreading out from where it initially takes hold.
Which is exactly why you need a strong base of support all over the world.
I'm assuming this is the old anarchist dichotomy between a "ruler" who forces himself on others and a "leader" who everyone follows of their own free will.
Well Mahkno was a "ruler". The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine conscripted people to fight for it. Even the anarchist historican Peter Arshinov admitted that.
Am I a Makhnovist? No. Do I seek to conscript peasants? No.
Under anarchism there would still be rulers. It's disingenous to claim otherwise. Even someone elected directed by a workers council is a "ruler" in some sense because they only represent the views of the majority. The minority would still be being "ruled".
I propose delegates, not representatives. I make it a point to distinguish between the two. Delegates are essentially instantly revocable messengers which must express the views and act according to the concerns of those who elected them.
Unless of course you believe that democracy is "tyranny of the majority" in which case you can take your place in OI with "Comrade" Anarchist.
Since when I oppose democracy? This is nothing but a strawman.
What's wrong with it is that it's completely utopian.
Just like a stateless, classless society, yeah? That argument gets you nowhere when it can be turned against you.
Arguing with you and manic expression is just pointless.
Leaders who lead us to liberation are not our oppressors. That's quite clear-cut.
The revolutionary leader has the responsibility of leading a "relatively stable society" after the revolution, so what you oppose is part of the job description.
Lead all you want. Don't, however, rule over other people.
A leader is a guide of a group of people who takes the same risks as they do for the same goal.
A ruler is an authoritarian figure who orders those below them in the hierarchy to do the actual work and keep them in power.
Adi Shankara
14th June 2010, 02:26
I would consider myself a Marxist Leninist, who would support Maoism in the third world, yet i think we should straight up denounce the unnecesarry purges that took place in the USSR and the PRC.
I believe purges are necessary, I just don't believe the ones under the USSR were fair. personally, I'd like to have seen a democratically elected (from a part of the proletariat, who have passed a written exam or test) Tribunal decide on purges, and whether they should be violent or not. afterall, I believe exile or jailing would've been more appropriate, but not killing.
Also, I didn't agree that Mensheviks and other communists should be thrown with the purges as well, as I see that is eliminating the very proletariat that the state was designated to protect.
I am all for the oppression of the overthrown ruling class, i am even for the QUOTE=Universal Struggle;1769711]suppresion of liberals and religeous organisations[/QUOTE]
I don't believe in the supression of religion, just like I don't believe in the supression of ideas; I figure, (as did Marx) that if enough people became educated about communism, then it would be natural progression to communism they would choose as a political path, and having to purge would become obsolete, since Marxism is based in science.
We also cheer Ho chi min, sepite him turning in trotskyites to the police for money, i feel we have a responsibility to admit to the wrongdoings in the past, to make a better, more united and revolutionary future.
There is no proof of this at all, and certainly no trusted documenting of it; Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist first, a communist second, a socialist third, then lastly, a hyphenated communist. He was against the Khmer Rouge, but that was more based on a nationalist dispute than a political one (since the Khmer Rouge wanted to turn all of Khmer Krom territory into Greater Kampuchea)
Adi Shankara
14th June 2010, 02:31
...Also there are no peasants in Western Europe or North America...
Absolutely false as well; they just have different titles these days; whereas, back then they were called "laborers", "farmers", "factory workers" etc. they are still wage slaves who aren't getting their fair share of what they deserve for the amount of labor they output.
If you ever want a good example of wage slavery still in existence--go to the state of Hawaii. There you'll see people who are forced to work for low wages, because tourism is "the only game in town", as they are priced out of the housing market because rich people with more money and opportunity than they can ever dream of come from out of state and buy up all the housing for vacationing, thus eliminating any dream that these people have of ever owning a home.
the same is happening in California along the coast, as well as New York city. the concept of wage slavery and peasantry is very alive these days...they just have different titles, and NO, they're NOT all lazy.
ComradeOm
14th June 2010, 10:21
How on earth do you make that out?This is not the thread for a long discussion on how strengthening the peasantry in 1917 was not in the interests of the Russian proletariat. If you're interested then please start a thread in the History forum
Absolutely false as well; they just have different titles these days; whereas, back then they were called "laborers", "farmers", "factory workers" etc. they are still wage slaves who aren't getting their fair share of what they deserve for the amount of labor they output.Peasants are not, except in the most general sense, "wage slaves". A key distinction between the peasantry and agricultural workers is that the former possesses their own land
manic expression
14th June 2010, 10:21
Lead all you want. Don't, however, rule over other people.
A leader is a guide of a group of people who takes the same risks as they do for the same goal.
False. Most great military leaders did not fight at the front (and if they did, rarely and only in very specific circumstances). That's what leaders are supposed to do, make crucial decisions and delegate tasks accordingly. History bears this out.
A ruler is an authoritarian figure who orders those below them in the hierarchy to do the actual work and keep them in power.
So a good leader is supposed to have no power? A good leader is supposed to have the same exact amount of influence as everyone else? That defeats the whole purpose of being a leader.
False. Most great military leaders did not fight at the front (and if they did, rarely and only in very specific circumstances). That's what leaders are supposed to do, make crucial decisions and delegate tasks accordingly. History bears this out.
Then they were rulers or planners of some sort. Unless you're one of the types who thinks a president is a leader.
So a good leader is supposed to have no power? A good leader is supposed to have the same exact amount of influence as everyone else? That defeats the whole purpose of being a leader.
A good leader should not use force to achieve personal goals. They must lead; stay with them and guide them.
manic expression
14th June 2010, 13:25
Then they were rulers or planners of some sort. Unless you're one of the types who thinks a president is a leader.
Hannibal Barca, Julius Caesar, Richard I, Saladin, Joan of Arc, Gustavus Adolphus, Little Turtle, Simon Bolivar...weren't leaders? Just planners, right? On what basis do you make that judgment?
And the president is a leader...just because we don't agree with that leader doesn't change anything. The question is what and who they lead, and to what end. This argument of yours is parallel to you only recognizing a state as a state if it defends a minority, as if the fundamental nature of a thing changes merely along with its adherents. Remember, a gun is a gun whether it is held by a revolutionary or a reactionary.
A good leader should not use force to achieve personal goals. They must lead; stay with them and guide them.
You're not saying anything of substance anymore. How does a good leader lead? How are they to "stay with them and guide them"? And why do you think them leaders only if they guide people you agree with? Truisms and platitudes aren't really all that helpful here.
pranabjyoti
14th June 2010, 16:54
A good leader should not use force to achieve personal goals. They must lead; stay with them and guide them.
Actually liberals like you are just unable to understand that throughout the history of mankind, ALL LEADERS RULE ON BEHALF OF SOME CLASS AND WILL RULE IN FUTURE TOO UNTIL AND UNLESS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY ALL OVER THE WORLD WILL BE ESTABLISHED. Every leader HAS TO use force to suppress the the anti-class. Leaders can not born out of nothing, without any kind of class support, they can not come and stay in power.
Jazzhands
14th June 2010, 20:04
Actually liberals like you are just unable to understand that throughout the history of mankind, ALL LEADERS RULE ON BEHALF OF SOME CLASS AND WILL RULE IN FUTURE TOO UNTIL AND UNLESS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY ALL OVER THE WORLD WILL BE ESTABLISHED. Every leader HAS TO use force to suppress the the anti-class. Leaders can not born out of nothing, without any kind of class support, they can not come and stay in power.
Don't you see that if there are purges, the ruling class can use that against us endlessly? They can say "we're victims of persecution" and gain the sympathy of the masses and before you know it you have a counter-revolution on their hands. To purge, one must increase the power of the state and concentrate it into the hands of the few. Our goal is to make the state wither away and decentralize power until all the people are equal. How will that be accomplished if the state is ruled by a gang of homicidal secret policemen with unlimited power?
Zanthorus
14th June 2010, 20:32
Which is exactly why you need a strong base of support all over the world.
So you think you can co-ordinate the revolution to happen worldwide simultaneously? That would be terrible tactically speaking. You need to strike when the bourgeois state is weakened (Especially if your an anarchist planning to dismantle it from the outside). Although capitalism is an international system it's governance system is still national for the most part (Even in places like the EU, you can have one state in crisis while the rest are going along fine), and the workers will need to settle matters with their own national bourgeoisie respectively.
There is no historical precedent for a simultaneous worldwide revolution and I think the chances are so slim as to not even thinking about it.
Am I a Makhnovist? No. Do I seek to conscript peasants? No.
Well Mahkno and Durruti are about the only examples of anarchist military leaders in history. And Kim Jwa-Jin as well I guess. If you have any examples in history of an army which co-ordinated self I'd be interested.
I propose delegates, not representatives. I make it a point to distinguish between the two. Delegates are essentially instantly revocable messengers which must express the views and act according to the concerns of those who elected them.
And when you need technical expert? People with prior training? People will not suddenly become able to run their own lives as soon as capitalism is destroyed. The order that arises out of capitalism will be stamped with all the birthmarks of the old society including differentials in education, experience etc.
Zoster
14th June 2010, 20:52
The anarcho-idiot demand for "no leaders" is just a mask for how they run their organizations. Anarchist organizations are always run by the loudest white guy who claims he isn't a leader, all the while he is at the top of the informal-leadership, and accountable to no one.
dawt
14th June 2010, 21:26
So a good leader [...]?
I'll just reply with a quote...
A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, They fail to honor you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, "We did this ourselves."
Jazzhands
14th June 2010, 22:02
The anarcho-idiot demand for "no leaders" is just a mask for how they run their organizations. Anarchist organizations are always run by the loudest white guy who claims he isn't a leader, all the while he is at the top of the informal-leadership, and accountable to no one.
In these societies, the people decide to follow someone willingly, and he does not use force to get people to follow him. He uses his intellect and his ability to convince people that he is right. We have organized enthusiasm, not obedience.
manic expression
14th June 2010, 22:04
I'll just reply with a quote...
Laozi? Really? :rolleyes: Sorry, just let me know when the Taoist Revolution happens.
dawt
14th June 2010, 22:07
HA HA, whatever. :rolleyes:
Even crazy old chinese dudes with awesome beards occasionally let a nugget of truth slip out.
manic expression
14th June 2010, 22:18
Old Chinese dudes are fine, but Laozi was a great philosopher and not much more, aside from founding a new philosophy and religion (sort of), what did he accomplish? Even Confucius was more involved in the politics of his day. Taking Laozi's word on leaders would be a bit like reading up on St Francis of Assisi to figure out how to organize a union.
dawt
14th June 2010, 22:27
Again: Nugget of truth. Every dog has it's day. A blind man may perchace hit the mark. etc.
I, for my part, find this quote to be quite truthful. <3 No matter who said it.
manic expression
14th June 2010, 22:33
OK, fine, I'll give you a chance to justify your argument. Name a leader who was successfully either politically or militarily (or even athletically, just for fun) while adhering to the quote you posted.
dawt
14th June 2010, 23:07
Trick question? Gosh, define "successful" ^^ Generally speaking, this quote fits the people I like working with, and have most successfully worked with.
Just gonna lean out of the window a bit and go for Subcomandante Marcos, but since you clearly "hang" with the more authoritarian "peeps", I'm pretty darn sure you'll have something wise and totally unbiased *chrm* to say against my nominee.
Try good parents, then... Good teachers, etc etc etc... What would you say, constitutes one of these?
Whatever <3
manic expression
14th June 2010, 23:52
"People barely know [Marcos] exists"? PR and getting people to know he and the Zapatistas exist is probably his forte.
Good parents have control over their environments, good teachers have control over their classroom. Both are obeyed, both talk more than a little, both might be despised from time to time.
Os Cangaceiros
14th June 2010, 23:54
Marcos is actually not a leader of the EZLN (hence the "subcommandante" rank). He's just the public face of the organization.
manic expression
14th June 2010, 23:55
Marcos is actually not a leader of the EZLN (hence the "subcommandante" rank). He's just the public face of the organization.
An even better argument than mine.
dawt
15th June 2010, 00:26
Marcos is actually not a leader of the EZLN (hence the "subcommandante" rank). He's just the public face of the organization.
He's definitely an ideological leader ... he gives advice, and the people listen to him, because they trust him because he's shown to give good advice. Obviously also goes for the other Comandantes.
Read the Laozi quote again... it matches perfectly. Dude gets shit done without forcing it in any way.
Btw: You saying he's not a leader... kinda proves my point ;)
A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, They fail to honor you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, "We did this ourselves."
manic expression
15th June 2010, 00:42
Read the Laozi quote again... it matches perfectly. Dude gets shit done without forcing it in any way.
This has already been illustrated but you're not getting it. First, Marcos is the most visible figure in the Zapatistas. How does that square with Laozi's "people barely know he exists"? Second, Marcos isn't someone who "talks little", he talks a whole lot, that's basically his job. Third, people do acclaim Marcos, in fact, he's among the most acclaimed contemporary figures in anarchist circles. Fourth, to say that Marcos "gets shit done" is downright comical. The Zapatistas, as much as I want to see them do well, are a trivial, somewhat curious footnote in Mexican politics, much less anything else. Have they done anything of note in the last decade?
Btw: You saying he's not a leader... kinda proves my point ;)
Your point being the sound of one non-leader, clapping.
dawt
15th June 2010, 00:53
Trying to bug me, or do you always take every word literally. There are more meanings to the sentence "A leader is best when people barely know that he exists" ... it's not about him being in public, it's about him not being viewed as a leader at all, by many.
Again, yes he talks ... but he doesn't give orders, doesn't make promises. He makes others talk.
To me, what the Zapatistas have managed - against all odds - in their time of existence, is incredible. Seriously think they could've performed any better with (more) authoritarian principles and leaders?
pranabjyoti
15th June 2010, 01:56
Don't you see that if there are purges, the ruling class can use that against us endlessly? They can say "we're victims of persecution" and gain the sympathy of the masses and before you know it you have a counter-revolution on their hands. To purge, one must increase the power of the state and concentrate it into the hands of the few. Our goal is to make the state wither away and decentralize power until all the people are equal. How will that be accomplished if the state is ruled by a gang of homicidal secret policemen with unlimited power?
To suppress us, the ruling class don't need any excuse at all. There were suppression before the purges and there is suppression after that too. Instead, purge is some kind of reply to the atrocities they have done with us.
Jazzhands
15th June 2010, 02:09
To suppress us, the ruling don't need any excuse at all. There were suppression before the purges and there is suppression after that too. Instead, purge is some kind of reply to the atrocities they have done with us.
So what you're saying is you want mass murder as revenge for what they do to us. That's great. I'll just call Two-Face and you can have a rampage together. :thumbup1:
pranabjyoti
15th June 2010, 02:21
So what you're saying is you want mass murder as revenge for what they do to us. That's great. I'll just call Two-Face and you can have a rampage together. :thumbup1:
Firstly, purge isn't mass murder. Imperialists and their kept intellectuals may call it so, BUT IN REALITY IT IS SUPPRESSION OF REACTIONARY PETTY-BOURGEOISIE ELEMENTS INSIDE PARTY AND IN THE NATION. I think you should have some clear idea about petty-bourgeoisie class character.
Secondly, DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT MEANS SUPPRESSION OF OTHER CLASSES. I suggest you better understand that as quick as possible.
dawt
15th June 2010, 02:30
It's just the way you formulated it in your post above...
Instead, purge is some kind of reply to the atrocities they have done with us.
And not everybody's a fan of the dictatorship of the proletariate ;)
Wanted Man
15th June 2010, 06:50
Again: Nugget of truth. Every dog has it's day. A blind man may perchace hit the mark. etc.
I, for my part, find this quote to be quite truthful. <3 No matter who said it.
Do you always think in clichés?
RATM-Eubie
15th June 2010, 08:15
Guys no purges... Seriously.....
All i have to say...
Have a nice day
To suppress us, the ruling class don't need any excuse at all. There were suppression before the purges and there is suppression after that too. Instead, purge is some kind of reply to the atrocities they have done with us.
Wait, that makes this kind of shit ok? We should lower ourselves to the level of the bourgeoisie? Disgusting.
Firstly, purge isn't mass murder. Imperialists and their kept intellectuals may call it so, BUT IN REALITY IT IS SUPPRESSION OF REACTIONARY PETTY-BOURGEOISIE ELEMENTS INSIDE PARTY AND IN THE NATION. I think you should have some clear idea about petty-bourgeoisie class character.
Secondly, DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT MEANS SUPPRESSION OF OTHER CLASSES. I suggest you better understand that as quick as possible.
Suppress classes... Petit-bourgeoisie must be purged.... See, this is why I don't like you or your idea of the DoP. There should be no classes in a post-revolutionary society. Nor should there be an oppressive state (much like the one you so proudly advocate).
manic expression
15th June 2010, 11:14
Trying to bug me, or do you always take every word literally. There are more meanings to the sentence "A leader is best when people barely know that he exists" ... it's not about him being in public, it's about him not being viewed as a leader at all, by many.
Again, yes he talks ... but he doesn't give orders, doesn't make promises. He makes others talk.
So you're saying he's not viewed at all as a leader...and that he talks a lot but that it doesn't count because you say so. Your inability to apply your own definition is comical.
To me, what the Zapatistas have managed - against all odds - in their time of existence, is incredible. Seriously think they could've performed any better with (more) authoritarian principles and leaders?
You should raise your standards a bit. The Zapatistas are pretty marginalized and haven't done anything of note in a long, long time. The Mexican state could crush them if they felt like it. Call it "incredible" if you want, you're only being delusional.
Wait, that makes this kind of shit ok? We should lower ourselves to the level of the bourgeoisie? Disgusting.
Why is self-defense "disgusting"? Why are you morally opposed to the defense of the revolution?
There should be no classes in a post-revolutionary society. Nor should there be an oppressive state (much like the one you so proudly advocate).
You keep saying we "shouldn't" do this and that...why not? Why not do what is most effective to defend the revolution?
Why is self-defense "disgusting"? Why are you morally opposed to the defense of the revolution?
Purging is not self-defence.
You keep saying we "shouldn't" do this and that...why not? Why not do what is most effective to defend the revolution?
You keep supporting the proud purger. I guess we're both bastards.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 11:35
Purging is not self-defence.
Not always, of course, but this isn't about the specific application of something, it's about the thing itself. Do you deny that a socialist state has the right to defend itself from its enemies by suppressing them?
Not always, of course, but this isn't about the specific application of something, it's about the thing itself. Do you deny that a socialist state has the right to defend itself from its enemies by suppressing them?
The people must defend themselves and their system from sabotage or counter-revolution - not to keep individuals and minorities in power.
Interpret it how you want. I'm out of this thread - this is just getting to be a pain.
manic expression
15th June 2010, 13:09
The people must defend themselves and their system from sabotage or counter-revolution - not to keep individuals and minorities in power.
Yes, and that means a state and what pranabjyoti was describing.
Interpret it how you want. I'm out of this thread - this is just getting to be a pain.
Fair enough...thanks for keeping it civil and respectful. :thumbup1:
Starport
15th June 2010, 15:35
The people must defend themselves and their system from sabotage or counter-revolution - not to keep individuals and minorities in power.
Interpret it how you want. I'm out of this thread - this is just getting to be a pain.
Very well, but if you feel that a tranquil polemic at a distance is "getting to be a pain." - we can probably count you out of other revolutionary struggles which are just going to get more painful for everyone, especially the working class youth in the western bourgeois 'democracies' who are already beginning to get purged out of jobs and educational opportunities etc., which where once considered a 'basic right' for all. Along with this is the purging of poor immigrants and women from to workforce and affluent society generally.
Then watch- out for the forced repatriations and military conscriptions in defence of 'patriotic' capitalist purging agendas. Watch 'surplus capital' itself being purged from the 'overproduction' system along with the means of production including countless millions of workers in inter-capitalist wars.
Then tell us that its "getting to be a pain." and get back into the fight to develop revolutionary theory about how we build the dictatorship of the proletariat which will permanently end all class society and the need for any violence and purging.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the proletarian state which has to administer/organise society which will still be riven with inequalities inadequacies and class antagonisms left over from capitalist slump and war devastation.
It won't be 'socialism' yet but there's no other way to get there because the capitalists will constantly try to regenerate themselves out of what remains of the rural and urban middle classes.
TIME TO QUOTE MARX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Something I don't see MLers doing often other than the "workers of the world" shit you guys say every half-second, followed by comrade,comrade,comrade, as if everyone you knew was some kind of soldier)
"Capital Punishment cannot be justified by any society calling itself civilized"-Karl Marx to the New York Tribune.
"Marxist-Leninists" moar liek "Merely-Leninists" amirite?
Ocean Seal
15th June 2010, 17:49
I would consider myself a Marxist Leninist, who would support Maoism in the third world, yet i think we should straight up denounce the unnecesarry purges that took place in the USSR and the PRC.
Ok...
I am all for the oppression of the overthrown ruling class, i am even for the suppresion of liberals and religeous organisations, but i think in order to avoid the same mistakes,us MLMers should accept the injustices that went on.
Yes let's be as bad as them. Don't oppress them just make them equal.
I do not think the "Great terror" was anywhere near as bad as the bourgousie says, but the killing of revolutionaries such as Trotskyites and Anarchists was terrible, and partly to blame for the sectarianism today.
I mean i can understand trots being sectarianist towards us, because the history of MLs killing and torturing them is not very confidence inspiring.
True it was terrible, but sectarianism is more deelpy rooted than that.
We also cheer Ho chi min, sepite him turning in trotskyites to the police for money, i feel we have a responsibility to admit to the wrongdoings in the past, to make a better, more united and revolutionary future.
I never heard of him turning in Trotskyites for money.
Peace
Irony
pranabjyoti
15th June 2010, 18:08
It's just the way you formulated it in your post above...
And not everybody's a fan of the dictatorship of the proletariate ;)
If you are pro-working class, you MUST support dictatorship of proletariat. Otherwise, there is something wrong in your conception.
Zanthorus
15th June 2010, 18:10
TIME TO QUOTE MARX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Something I don't see MLers doing often other than the "workers of the world" shit you guys say every half-second, followed by comrade,comrade,comrade, as if everyone you knew was some kind of soldier)
"Capital Punishment cannot be justified by any society calling itself civilized"-Karl Marx to the New York Tribune.
"Marxist-Leninists" moar liek "Merely-Leninists" amirite?
Lenin was against even killing political enemies. He only supported capital punishment for people found directly trying to sabotage the soviet state.
Also Marx was against moralistic dogma. I'm pretty sure he would not appreciate having every word he ever wrote being transformed into such.
pranabjyoti
15th June 2010, 18:24
Wait, that makes this kind of shit ok? We should lower ourselves to the level of the bourgeoisie? Disgusting.
Without going into the same level as the bourgeoisie, HOW CAN WE FIGHT THEM? Sorry, life and toils of my comrades are expensive, I can not spoil them by showing Christian or something like that kind of mercy to the bourgeoisie and their allies.
Suppress classes... Petit-bourgeoisie must be purged.... See, this is why I don't like you or your idea of the DoP. There should be no classes in a post-revolutionary society. Nor should there be an oppressive state (much like the one you so proudly advocate).
Again, problem with people like you is that YOU ARE JUST UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT REVOLUTION IS JUST THE VICTORY OF PROLETARIAT AND THE CORNERSTONE OF FUTURE CLASSLESS SOCIETY. IT CAN NOT ITSELF ESTABLISH A CLASSLESS SOCIETY. All the revolutions of 20th century showed that CLASSES EXIST AFTER REVOLUTION.
Starport
15th June 2010, 20:59
TIME TO QUOTE MARX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Something I don't see MLers doing often other than the "workers of the world" shit you guys say every half-second, followed by comrade,comrade,comrade, as if everyone you knew was some kind of soldier)
"Capital Punishment cannot be justified by any society calling itself civilized"-Karl Marx to the New York Tribune.
"Marxist-Leninists" moar liek "Merely-Leninists" amirite?
Is this what you were trying to quote?
"... and it would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization."
from: Karl Marx in New-York Tribune 1853
Capital Punishment. — Mr. Cobden’s Pamphlet. — Regulations of the Bank of England
If so, it dose not imply or say what you hope it dose. And neither dose any part of the article. If it is not the quote can you please supply an accurate reference for us to check. Thanks in advance.
Starport
15th June 2010, 21:13
"Plainly speaking, and dispensing with all paraphrases, punishment is nothing but a means of society to defend itself against the infraction of its vital conditions, whatever may be their character." Karl Marx in New-York Tribune 1853 Capital Punishment.
Jazzhands
15th June 2010, 22:48
Without going into the same level as the bourgeoisie, HOW CAN WE FIGHT THEM? Sorry, life and toils of my comrades are expensive, I can not spoil them by showing Christian or something like that kind of mercy to the bourgeoisie and their allies.
Again, problem with people like you is that YOU ARE JUST UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT REVOLUTION IS JUST THE VICTORY OF PROLETARIAT AND THE CORNERSTONE OF FUTURE CLASSLESS SOCIETY. IT CAN NOT ITSELF ESTABLISH A CLASSLESS SOCIETY. All the revolutions of 20th century showed that CLASSES EXIST AFTER REVOLUTION.
LET'S USE ALLCAPS ALL THE TIME BECAUSE IT MAKES US SOUND SMARTER AND LESS LIKE BLOODTHIRSTY LUNATICS OBSESSED WITH CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. :rolleyes:
Starport
15th June 2010, 23:30
LET'S USE ALLCAPS ALL THE TIME BECAUSE IT MAKES US SOUND SMARTER AND LESS LIKE BLOODTHIRSTY LUNATICS OBSESSED WITH CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. :rolleyes:
It makes you look like a pissed off anti-communist with no way of answering the arguments advanced by Leninists.
Wanted Man
16th June 2010, 00:08
I think you guys need to slow things down. The intellectual level of this thread is way too high for simple people like most of us. :(
Is this what you were trying to quote?
"... and it would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization."
from: Karl Marx in New-York Tribune 1853
Capital Punishment. — Mr. Cobden’s Pamphlet. — Regulations of the Bank of England
If so, it dose not imply or say what you hope it dose. And neither dose any part of the article. If it is not the quote can you please supply an accurate reference for us to check. Thanks in advance.
Having a party decide the fate of Anarchist dissidents is quite on contra to what you say. However, I'm speaking of Stalinist puges here, not Lenin's.
Jazzhands
16th June 2010, 02:15
If killing people is illegal for the people themselves to do, why should a state of the people have this right? When a section of the state possesses the power of indiscriminate killing, it becomes not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of the Politburo or of a single man. You people also seem to be under the impression that "dictatorship of the proletariat" means the proletariat must rule despotically. It really doesn't. There were plenty of benevolent dictators in history, like Catherine the Great. This also does not mean an actual dictatorship. Let's analyze the term "dictatorship of the proletariat". The proletariat were, in Marx's time and place, the vast majority of the people. Thus, a dictatorship of the proletariat is absolute power of the majority. That's pretty much what democracy is. Obviously not the same thing as the bourgeois sham democracy, that would defeat the purpose of the revolution.
The revolution will not require purges because the bourgeoisie is a tiny segment of the population. When the post-revolutionary society is in construction, the bourgeoisie will have been overthrown. Their power would be broken because the new society will be structured on the will of the vast majority, the proletariat. They could try bribing the workers, but the workers, having already attained the necessary class consciousness to carry out the revolution, will not want to return to wage slavery so easily after revolting against it.
Os Cangaceiros
16th June 2010, 02:28
The proletariat were, in Marx's time and place, the vast majority of the people.
That's not correct, actually. The industrial proletariat in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe) during Marx's heyday was a minority compared to the peasantry.
That's one of the original criticisms that anarchism had of Marxism, actually (that it was minority rule).
Is this what you were trying to quote?
"... and it would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization."
from: Karl Marx in New-York Tribune 1853
Capital Punishment. — Mr. Cobden’s Pamphlet. — Regulations of the Bank of England
If so, it dose not imply or say what you hope it dose. And neither dose any part of the article. If it is not the quote can you please supply an accurate reference for us to check. Thanks in advance.
It sounds like the same thing to me. Though I did misquote, FUCK THIS BOOK I'M READING
pranabjyoti
16th June 2010, 04:31
If killing people is illegal for the people themselves to do, why should a state of the people have this right? When a section of the state possesses the power of indiscriminate killing, it becomes not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of the Politburo or of a single man. You people also seem to be under the impression that "dictatorship of the proletariat" means the proletariat must rule despotically. It really doesn't. There were plenty of benevolent dictators in history, like Catherine the Great. This also does not mean an actual dictatorship. Let's analyze the term "dictatorship of the proletariat". The proletariat were, in Marx's time and place, the vast majority of the people. Thus, a dictatorship of the proletariat is absolute power of the majority. That's pretty much what democracy is. Obviously not the same thing as the bourgeois sham democracy, that would defeat the purpose of the revolution.
Again, problem with people like you is that, YOU ARE JUST UNABLE NOTHING LIKE "PEOPLE OF THE STATE" CAN EXIST OTHER THAN A CLASSLESS SOCIETY. Your total arguments stands on wrong conceptions. In the time of Marx, the portion of proletariat is much less than that of today. Most of the part of the population is peasantry.
Though I have repeatedly said, but still you are unable to understand that BOTH POLITBURO AND A SINGLE MAN RULES ON BEHALF OF A CLASS. IT IS THE BASIC CONCEPT OF MARXISM THAT RULERS RULE ON BEHALF OF CLASS.
The revolution will not require purges because the bourgeoisie is a tiny segment of the population. When the post-revolutionary society is in construction, the bourgeoisie will have been overthrown. Their power would be broken because the new society will be structured on the will of the vast majority, the proletariat. They could try bribing the workers, but the workers, having already attained the necessary class consciousness to carry out the revolution, will not want to return to wage slavery so easily after revolting against it.
At least in most of the third world countries, proletariat isnt' and wouldn't be the VAST MAJORITY of the population. Majority of the population is petty-bourgeoisie, whose class character I have repeatedly described in this thread and others. Inside them, hidden will be the seeds of bourgeoisie. We have to continue fighting till the day of the establishment of a classless society.
Starport
16th June 2010, 07:10
It sounds like the same thing to me. Though I did misquote, FUCK THIS BOOK I'M READING
You know its not the same thing. By the way what book have you got that is misquoting Marx in this way?
I think you should read the article first hand because Marx has some interesting things to say about Kant who you use as a tag about 'truth' at the end of your posts.
Now would be a good time to stop digging and do some reading mate.
Zanthorus
16th June 2010, 11:50
There were plenty of benevolent dictators in history, like Catherine the Great.
The problem here is that it's difficult to work out exactly what a "dictator" is. The originaly "dictators" where the Roman dictatura who held unlimited power during times of emergency. However the Roman dictators actions where subject to retrospective evaluation so their power was neither arbitrary nor unnacountable. In usage since then "dictator" has usually been used to describe people or groups of people who held, or supposedly held at any rate, power which was arbitrary and not subject to any kind of constitutional restraint.
What's important here is what Marx himself understood by the terms "dicator" and "dictatorship". I'm pretty sure at least that when he thought of dictatorship he wouldn't have been referring to Catherine the Great.
Let's analyze the term "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Indeed. We could start by noting that those four words never appeared together in any of Marx's writings during the formative years 1843-1848 when he was developing the basis upon which much of his later work would rest. In the Communist Manifesto for example he talks about centralising everything in the hands of "the proletariat organised as the ruling class" and "win[ning] the battle of democracy". The first time it appears is in The Class Struggles in France which was first published in 1850. It also appears alongside the slogan "Overthrow of the Bourgeoisie!", suggesting that "dictatorship of the working class" was merely meant was a corrolary to the latter. He uses the term a few more times in the back and forth over his interpretation of events and then stops using it for the next twenty years. What's important here is the fact that at the time Marx would've been around Blanquists. The Blanquists had long called for an "educational dictatorship" post-revolution, much the same as most people have imagined Marx's "dictatorship" slogan to mean. It is not far out to believe that Marx was merely using a rhetorical trick, turning one man "educational dictatorship" into the dictatorship of the whole working class.
In fact, the next time Marx uses the term "dicatorship of the proletariat is in september 1871 in a speech to the International Workingmen's Association. The speech was made after the fall of the Paris Commune when many of the Blanquists involved had escaped persecution to make their way to London where they began working with Marx and taking up their slogans of "educational dictatorship" again. So here we find Marx again in the company of Blanquists and again beggining to use the "dictatorship of the proletariat" slogan. He uses it on and off for the next four years. The last time that the term ever appears in Marx is in the 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.
At other times Marx had merely talked about "workers state", "revolutionary workers government", "proletariat organised as the ruling class". Any one of these formulations could easily be used to replace the "dictatorship of the proletariat" formulation without the meaning being lost.
That's not correct, actually. The industrial proletariat in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe) during Marx's heyday was a minority compared to the peasantry.
This is not entirely correct. Marx based a lot of his analysis on England which he took to be the model of capitalist development par excellence. It was also were Marx lived for a great deal of his life. I'm sure the proletariat would have been at least a sizeable proportion of the population in England at the time. The industrial revolution had been going on for forty years.
BOTH POLITBURO AND A SINGLE MAN RULES ON BEHALF OF A CLASS. IT IS THE BASIC CONCEPT OF MARXISM THAT RULERS RULE ON BEHALF OF CLASS.
Not really. Marx was very skeptical towards would-be reformers and revolutionary leaders who tried to carry emancipation from above. In fact so was Lenin. In The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government he notes that the main difference between the bourgeois and the proletarian revolution is that in the former the minority imposes it's will regardless of the majority while in the latter the purpose of social construction of necessity has to involve the participation of the masses:
A fundamental condition for the successful accomplishment of the primary task of organisation confronting us is that the people’s political leaders, i.e., the members of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), and following them all the class-conscious representatives of the mass of the working people, shall fully appreciate the radical distinction in this respect between previous bourgeois revolutions and the present socialist revolution.
In bourgeois revolutions, the principal task of the mass of working people was to fulfil the negative or destructive work of abolishing feudalism, monarchy and medievalism. The positive or constructive work of organising the new society was carried out by the property-owning bourgeois minority of the population. And the latter carried out this task with relative ease, despite the resistance of the workers and the poor peasants, not only because the resistance of the people exploited by capital was then extremely weak, since they were scattered and uneducated, but also because the chief organising force of anarchically built capitalist society is the spontaneously growing and expanding national and international market.
In every socialist revolution, however—and consequently in the socialist revolution in Russia which we began on October 25, 1917—the principal task of the proletariat, and of the poor peasants which it leads, is the positive or constructive work of setting up an extremely intricate and delicate system of new organisational relationships extending to the planned production and distribution of the goods required for the existence of tens of millions of people. Such a revolution can be successfully carried out only if the majority of the population, and primarily the majority of the working people, engage in independent creative work as makers of history.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/28.htm
Anyway there are plenty of things which are more "fundamental" to Marxism than the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, regardless of how you interpret that phrase.
pranabjyoti
16th June 2010, 14:07
Not really. Marx was very skeptical towards would-be reformers and revolutionary leaders who tried to carry emancipation from above. In fact so was Lenin. In The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government he notes that the main difference between the bourgeois and the proletarian revolution is that in the former the minority imposes it's will regardless of the majority while in the latter the purpose of social construction of necessity has to involve the participation of the masses:
How can this contradicts my view?
Zanthorus
16th June 2010, 14:19
How can this contradicts my view?
One man and the politburo ruling "on behalf of the class" kind of goes against the necessity for mass participation.
Kléber
16th June 2010, 14:41
One man and the politburo ruling "on behalf of the class" kind of goes against the necessity for mass participation.
A peasant from the country returns to his family after a trip to Moscow.
"How was the big city?" they ask him. "Tell us what was socialism like!"
"It was so modern and progressive," he replies. "Everything is run for the good of Man. I even saw that Man drive past!"
Starport
16th June 2010, 16:03
After your academic but lifeless discussion of 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' you then come out with this utterly and entirely wrong and definitely un-Leninist howler:
Anyway there are plenty of things which are more "fundamental" to Marxism than the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, regardless of how you interpret that phrase.
Surly you have read ‘The State and Revolution’ by Lenin who was the most successful of Marxist revolutionary theoreticians by a very long way.
He said:
"Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeoisie. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested.”
How could you have missed this?
I think it’s interesting that capitalist culture has no problem with the theory and practice of revolution – that’s how they got power over feudalism. And while capitalist culture has also never had a problem with exercising its vicious dictatorship over all other classes everywhere and anywhere, the middle class academic ‘lefts’ of every description spend their time wringing their hand and chewing their nails about ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ either lying about it (see above) or ignorantly repeating every bit anti-communism that they learned in capitalist schools and colleges like Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ for example.
OK, don’t accept Lenin’s theoretical leadership if it gives you so much grief, but at least have the sense to familiarise yourselves with the actual REVOLUTIONARY writings of Marx and Lenin and then tell us why they are wrong and how your various pacifist and super democratic notions are superior against the utterly degenerate, and vicious ‘dictatorship of the capitalist class.’
Why you will never do this, is because the actual REVOLUTIONARY content of Marx and Lenin’s writings are nothing other than a lifelong struggle against your daft reactionary pacifist and leaderless fantasy revolutionist notions.
pranabjyoti
16th June 2010, 16:18
One man and the politburo ruling "on behalf of the class" kind of goes against the necessity for mass participation.
This phrase, "mass participation" is utterly useless without proper context. Lenin used this phrase for rural Russia of that time, where feudal and semi-feudal production relationship and mentality existed strongly. Most of the people of Russia were peasants at that time and their goal clearly matches with the goal of proletariat. The Russian revolution was a peoples democratic revolution, NOT socialist revolution. In a peoples democratic revolution, petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat can stand side by side and fight together. But, problem arises with destruction of feudal and semi-feudal societies in rural areas. Then the actual nature of petty-bourgeoisie will come out. You mentioned the phrase by Lenin but just forgot to describe the context.
Before mentioning Lenin and Marx, kindly try to understand them properly. Both analyzed and criticized petty-bourgeoisie well and repeatedly aware proletariat about their dubious character.
Starport
16th June 2010, 18:14
A peasant from the country returns to his family after a trip to Moscow.
"How was the big city?" they ask him. "Tell us what was socialism like!"
"It was so modern and progressive," he replies. "Everything is run for the good of Man. I even saw that Man drive past!"
But everything wasn't "run for the good of Man". It was run for the dictatorship of the proletariat over capitalists, rich peasants, landlords, priests, Social Revolutionaries and anarchists who spread disinformation, even by using very silly stories that would only make a middle class westerner laugh because they are so ignorant.
Zanthorus
16th June 2010, 18:30
After your academic but lifeless discussion of 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' you then come out with this utterly and entirely wrong and definitely un-Leninist howler:
Surly you have read ‘The State and Revolution’ by Lenin who was the most successful of Marxist revolutionary theoreticians by a very long way.
He said:
"Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeoisie. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested.”
How could you have missed this?
I think it’s interesting that capitalist culture has no problem with the theory and practice of revolution – that’s how they got power over feudalism. And while capitalist culture has also never had a problem with exercising its vicious dictatorship over all other classes everywhere and anywhere, the middle class academic ‘lefts’ of every description spend their time wringing their hand and chewing their nails about ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ either lying about it (see above) or ignorantly repeating every bit anti-communism that they learned in capitalist schools and colleges like Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ for example.
OK, don’t accept Lenin’s theoretical leadership if it gives you so much grief, but at least have the sense to familiarise yourselves with the actual REVOLUTIONARY writings of Marx and Lenin and then tell us why they are wrong and how your various pacifist and super democratic notions are superior against the utterly degenerate, and vicious ‘dictatorship of the capitalist class.’
Why you will never do this, is because the actual REVOLUTIONARY content of Marx and Lenin’s writings are nothing other than a lifelong struggle against your daft reactionary pacifist and leaderless fantasy revolutionist notions.
If youd've read my post you would've seen that all I claimed was that there were things more fundamental to Marxism than the dictatorship of the proletariat, not that DotP wasn't a valid concept.
Also I was the one arguing for leaders just a few pages back if you'd bothered to check. Not agreeing to having all power vested in one man who rules in the name of a class even against the actual will of that class does not equate to advocating "pacifist and leaderless fantasy revolutionist notions" except for maybe in stalinland.
As for my "academic but lifeless discussion" of the DotP all I was noting was that the word "dictatorship" was used in a specific historical context and other phrases used by Marx are less open to misinterpretation. I don't know about you but I'd personally find it easier when chatting to people not to say that I advocate "dictatorship" and waste several hours of my life trying to explain the concept to them.
This phrase, "mass participation" is utterly useless without proper context. Lenin used this phrase for rural Russia of that time, where feudal and semi-feudal production relationship and mentality existed strongly. Most of the people of Russia were peasants at that time and their goal clearly matches with the goal of proletariat. The Russian revolution was a peoples democratic revolution, NOT socialist revolution. In a peoples democratic revolution, petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat can stand side by side and fight together. But, problem arises with destruction of feudal and semi-feudal societies in rural areas. Then the actual nature of petty-bourgeoisie will come out. You mentioned the phrase by Lenin but just forgot to describe the context.
Before mentioning Lenin and Marx, kindly try to understand them properly. Both analyzed and criticized petty-bourgeoisie well and repeatedly aware proletariat about their dubious character.
I don't see what the "danger" of the petty-bourgeoisie is. For the most part they are a minority in developed capitalist countries.
Starport
16th June 2010, 20:13
If youd've read my post you would've seen that all I claimed was that there were things more fundamental to Marxism than the dictatorship of the proletariat, not that DotP wasn't a valid concept.
Also I was the one arguing for leaders just a few pages back if you'd bothered to check. Not agreeing to having all power vested in one man who rules in the name of a class even against the actual will of that class does not equate to advocating "pacifist and leaderless fantasy revolutionist notions" except for maybe in stalinland.
As for my "academic but lifeless discussion" of the DotP all I was noting was that the word "dictatorship" was used in a specific historical context and other phrases used by Marx are less open to misinterpretation. I don't know about you but I'd personally find it easier when chatting to people not to say that I advocate "dictatorship" and waste several hours of my life trying to explain the concept to them.
I don't see what the "danger" of the petty-bourgeoisie is. For the most part they are a minority in developed capitalist countries.
OK whatever. Let’s make this as straightforward as possible.
Everyone will go along with your revolution as long as you tell them that it will be very democratic and we will all be in voluntary committees making decisions about our communities and electing regional and national committees or whatever and there will be annual recall to prevent any would-be leaders turning into bosses. Any enemies of our revolution will be given the democratic opportunity to express their opposition and put it to the will of the majority.
Is this the kind of revolution many on this thread are talking about?
Now place this IDEAL in the context of worldwide economic slump and inter-capitalist world-war rivalry mayhem and use your imagination - or even better - use the historical and current situational examples to speculate what might happen?
What is happening?
Jazzhands
16th June 2010, 23:13
OK whatever. Let’s make this as straightforward as possible.
Everyone will go along with your revolution as long as you tell them that it will be very democratic and we will all be in voluntary committees making decisions about our communities and electing regional and national committees or whatever and there will be annual recall to prevent any would-be leaders turning into bosses. Any enemies of our revolution will be given the democratic opportunity to express their opposition and put it to the will of the majority.
Is this the kind of revolution many on this thread are talking about?
Now place this IDEAL in the context of worldwide economic slump and inter-capitalist world-war rivalry mayhem and use your imagination - or even better - use the historical and current situational examples to speculate what might happen?
What is happening?
What present day events signify is that the democracy you describe is needed MORE than ever. The reason for this current crisis is that power is concentrated into the hands of people who don't have the people's best interests at heart, and even if they did, they don't know what they're doing anyway! I can cite several past examples of the socialist democratic system actually being practiced in PRECISELY these conditions. See the documentary film "The Take", an actual story of when workers actually fired their boss and took over the factories and ran them themselves because they were fed up with the fact that the boss was an incredibly corrupt man who created the factory on public land using a grant procured from the then-military junta that held power at the time. No bureaucrats, no "vanguard", no capitalists. The factory is still going today, more productive than it ever was under capitalism.
Kléber
17th June 2010, 01:10
But everything wasn't "run for the good of Man". It was run for the dictatorship of the proletariat over capitalists, rich peasants, landlords, priests, Social Revolutionaries and anarchists who spread disinformation, even by using very silly stories that would only make a middle class westerner laugh because they are so ignorant.
With the exception of the priesthood, which was rehabilitated by Stalin, these capitalists, landlords and anarchists didn't exist during the purges of 36-41, unless you think that social class is a heritable characteristic rather than defined by one's relation to the means of production.
The Stalinist claim that class struggle is "aggravated" after the disappearance of class antagonisms is patently ridiculous.
Unlike bourgeois constitutions, the draft of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R. proceeds from the fact that there are no longer any antagonistic classes in society; that society consists of two friendly classes, of workers and peasants; that it is these classes, the labouring classes, that are in power; that the guidance of society by the state (the dictatorship) is in the hands of the working class, the most advanced class in society, that a constitution is needed for the purpose of consolidating a social order desired by, and beneficial to, the working people.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm
For, during this period, we succeeded in liquidating our bourgeoisie, in establishing fraternal collaboration with our peasantry and in building, in the main, Socialist society, notwithstanding the fact that the Socialist revolution has not yet been victorious in other countries.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm
manic expression
17th June 2010, 01:28
With the exception of the priesthood, which was rehabilitated by Stalin, these capitalists, landlords and anarchists didn't exist during the purges of 36-41, unless you think that social class is a heritable characteristic rather than defined by one's relation to the means of production.
I don't think Starport was specifying to that period...this discussion became very general long before I made my first post here.
However, those purges you mention were initiated because of legitimate concerns of (former) kulaks infiltrating the party and lying about their past in order to join. The first phase of the purges basically dealt with precisely that: looking over documents, double-checking membership credentials, etc. Quite a few members were ejected from the party because of that issue. So while the kulaks had ceased to exist as a class, the individuals did not cease to exist and they were tampering with Soviet society for their own ends (to put it lightly).
pranabjyoti
17th June 2010, 02:06
I don't see what the "danger" of the petty-bourgeoisie is. For the most part they are a minority in developed capitalist countries.
You forgot that there are A FEW underdeveloped countries in the world and most of the revolutionary processes are occurring there at present.
Zanthorus
17th June 2010, 17:07
Everyone will go along with your revolution as long as you tell them that it will be very democratic and we will all be in voluntary committees making decisions about our communities and electing regional and national committees or whatever and there will be annual recall to prevent any would-be leaders turning into bosses.
lol, so because I reject phrasemongering about "dictatorship" I must automatically be some kind of ultra-democratist? I'm rejecting a useless phrase not proposing we have some kind of uncoordinated spontaneous uprising.
What present day events signify is that the democracy you describe is needed MORE than ever. The reason for this current crisis is that power is concentrated into the hands of people who don't have the people's best interests at heart, and even if they did, they don't know what they're doing anyway!
The current crisis would've happened wether or not the leaders of the world had the "people's" (As a side note there is no such thing as "the people" in the abstract. Lumping a proletarian, lumpen and petty-proprieter together under the rubric of "the people" and pretending that they have similar interests is the tactic of liberal Maoists) best interests at heart. It was caused by the objective tendency of capital in it's period of descent to come increasingly into conflict with the growth of the productive forces.
Starport
17th June 2010, 17:34
What present day events signify is that the democracy you describe is needed MORE than ever. The reason for this current crisis is that power is concentrated into the hands of people who don't have the people's best interests at heart, and even if they did, they don't know what they're doing anyway! I can cite several past examples of the socialist democratic system actually being practiced in PRECISELY these conditions. See the documentary film "The Take", an actual story of when workers actually fired their boss and took over the factories and ran them themselves because they were fed up with the fact that the boss was an incredibly corrupt man who created the factory on public land using a grant procured from the then-military junta that held power at the time. No bureaucrats, no "vanguard", no capitalists. The factory is still going today, more productive than it ever was under capitalism.
Believe me I am trying to avoid being pedantic, but you must agree that it is reasonable of me to ask, once again, if you would actually "cite the several past examples" so we can have look at them ourselves and make an assessment.
Accepting everything is as you say it would seem to be an excellent development for the people concerned and there is a long history of cooperatives operating within capitalism in many places.
How is this cooperative movement going to end capitalism?
Starport
19th June 2010, 21:05
lol, so because I reject phrasemongering about "dictatorship" I must automatically be some kind of ultra-democratist? I'm rejecting a useless phrase not proposing we have some kind of uncoordinated spontaneous uprising.
How convenient for you to have discovered that ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is a “useless phrase” and that you don’t have to bother with it or explain it honestly to your acquaintances. It could be terribly embarrassing for you to have to tell nice people that wars and revolutions and the use of force is the normal condition of human society and not at all something special or out of the ordinary.
The ‘capitalist stat dictatorship’ can’t be reformed out of existence and will have to be “smashed” or as Marx put it:
"If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marx's italics--the original iszerbrechen], and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting." (Neue Zeit, Vol.XX, 1, 1901-02, p. 709.)[2] My Bold.
Of course you’re at liberty to explain this smashing of the capitalist state in whatever way you like, and I for one would be very interested to see what improvement you make to Marx and Lenin’s formulations.
As to the main point of this thread about purges, they go on all the time in one form or another in all societies. A recent case was the exposure of Members of the British parliament for their corruption. This was a classic example of one section of the state being purged, at least partially, by other sections – namely the press, the military and it is reasonable to assume that the secret services had a hand in it all as well.
Workers also purge their ranks of bad apples. The custom of recall of delegates and leaders is a way of purging. All workers unions and parties expect leading committees to use the elected authority to get rid of nuisances, slackers, and capitalist spies and saboteurs etc,.
Imposing discipline in social and poetical organisations ‘form above’ is routine activity everywhere and will continue for as long as there are social political and personal antagonisms, yes , even after any revolution before the full flowering of socialism. Legislating against all kinds of opportunism in parties and state organisation will not in it’s self prevent or eradicate overbearing bureaucratic bossiness. That can really only be replied to with better, deeper and more mature political theoretical leadership that everyone should be encouraged to develop.
Zanthorus
19th June 2010, 22:04
Of course you’re at liberty to explain this smashing of the capitalist state in whatever way you like, and I for one would be very interested to see what improvement you make to Marx and Lenin’s formulations.
How about "smashing the capitalist state"?
Seriously, this isn't an argument about actual tactics. You're just arguing words, maybe because you think saying how you support "dictatorship" makes you look badass or something.
Starport
19th June 2010, 23:09
How about "smashing the capitalist state"?
Seriously, this isn't an argument about actual tactics. You're just arguing words, maybe because you think saying how you support "dictatorship" makes you look badass or something.
Well it's not much of an improvement, but anyway what will it be smashed with and what will replace it the smashed capitalist state?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.