Paths to communism

[noble brown]

i would like to hear detailed arguments on the methods to communism. this is not an effort to draw lines in the sand (thats their tactic) but to encourage logical analysis of our various ideologies and hopefully to discover whether or not they are indeed mutually exclusive as the dogmatic of my komrades tend to believe. also i see an opportunity for synthesis.
　
　
　
there are two popular positions on this subject that i am aware of:
　
　
　
1. the vanguard. i'm very well versed in this one. society basically needs to be led or rather guided into a communist social structure. the reasons for this are various (please elaborate your views) but generally held to be that communism is such a radical departure, socially and ethically, from the current social structures that those with a clear vision and understanding ought to be the guideposts for the masses into communism. does this require elitism? most of the classical proponents of this position agree that the dictatorship of the masses ( i've substituted proletariat here since the original term is hopelessly dated) will result in the suppression of the minority but that the means justify the ends. this is very utilitarian (personally utilitarian ethics doesn't sit well w/ me as a general rule). its only temporary but an absolute prerequisite to communism.
　
　
　
2. anarchism. there is no need to suppress or exert illegitimate authoritarian control over the minority (or the masses) during the transition. the state and other forms of illegitimate authoritarianism will whither away once power is wrenched from the minority. freedom and egalitarianism will reign supreme naturally. the dissenters (like capitalists and socialists) will be absorbed through normal social phenomena. if i want to move next door and form a capitalist or socialist state of my own i can but it just wouldn't make sense since the ppl living next door are living free and economically egalitarian.
　
　
　
the vanguard ideology does not allow for the anarchist while the anarchist will allow for socialism it just doesn't feel it will be sustainable. so logically i come to anarchism however there are some burning issues.
　
　
　
the masses are, by definition almost a bunch of idiots, when it comes to whats most propitious for the whole. ppl are hard wired to follow the ass in front of them like a herd of cattle but this is what makes society possible. if the vast majority of us weren't conformist then there would be no society. so anarchism requires a critical mass of the population to be anarchists in order for it to be feasible. in lieu of this the vanguard becomes necessary.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

I don't think the 'vanguard' is even something which is intrinsically revolutionary, it's a method of political organization, and an effective one, because it's been proven to work.

It's just that practically speaking, some people are going to be able to devote most of their time to political activity and action, while ordinary people still have to well... work, to make ends meet, so they can only devote less time to political activity.

I would suppose that in earlier times, when the 8-hour day was not established yet, and capitalism was not so advanced, that the 'vanguard' made more sense, but I think it still does.

For practical purposes, democratic centralism is a good method because firstly it's democratic, the position of the organization can be critiqued, and debated, but at the end of such discussions whatever the majority decides becomes the line, and the rest of the organization have to stick with it and accept the decision, until such time as the party changes that position.

I was in a 'social-democratic' (I say that lightly) youth organization when I was younger, and I learned how parties operate before I even read Lenin.

The reason you do this is because disunity is death in politics, you can't have internal discussions open to the ears of those who want to cause harm to your organization and your cause.

There isn't anything elitist about it, cooperation and discipline means that the whole is stronger than the individual unit. It just means people have to keep their ego in check. It would be like a rebel group saying 'let's do away with military tactics, ranks, subordination and orders, lets just all go after the enemy every one of us individually'.

[Die Rote Fahne]

"The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves" - Marx

I take this view, as a Luxemburgist, that a vanguard party can bring about only authoritarianism, which in turn brings about sectarianism, which in turn brings about totalitarianism.

While I do support a revolutionary party as opposed to anarchism, it is mainly the centrality of the working class in the revolutionary struggle. We must allow for democracy in the form of general elections, allowing the workers to campaign for their own socialist political programs, unlike the vanguard which tends to remain in power in the single party state following only it's own socialist political program.

[revolution inaction]

　
　
2. anarchism. there is no need to suppress or exert illegitimate authoritarian control over the minority (or the masses) during the transition. the state and other forms of illegitimate authoritarianism will whither away once power is wrenched from the minority. freedom and egalitarianism will reign supreme naturally. the dissenters (like capitalists and socialists) will be absorbed through normal social phenomena. if i want to move next door and form a capitalist or socialist state of my own i can but it just wouldn't make sense since the ppl living next door are living free and economically egalitarian.

this is quite wrong, anarchists don't generaly think that the state will wither away, that is a lenists view, an anarchist revolution would require the destruction of the state. capitalist would have there property sized, they would have no choice over this.
attempts to form a state after the revolution would be shut down, with force if necessary, they would not be allowed to exist beside an anarchist society.
I don't see how capitalist could survive alongside anarchism, because the anarchists would not respect the property of hte capitalists and would resist any attempt to enforce it. any way how could capitalism compete with everything for free?




the masses are, by definition almost a bunch of idiots, when it comes to whats most propitious for the whole. ppl are hard wired to follow the ass in front of them like a herd of cattle but this is what makes society possible. if the vast majority of us weren't conformist then there would be no society.

i find that most people who are convince of the stupidity of the masses are the stupidest of the lot. your statement is compleat bolox

[noble brown]

this is quite wrong, anarchists don't generaly think that the state will wither away, that is a lenists view, an anarchist revolution would require the destruction of the state. capitalist would have there property sized, they would have no choice over this.
attempts to form a state after the revolution would be shut down, with force if necessary, they would not be allowed to exist beside an anarchist society.

you're correct. whither away was the wrong term and it is a leninist view. thank you for your correction.





i find that most people who are convince of the stupidity of the masses are the stupidest of the lot. your statement is compleat bolox

i dont mean to say that the masses are stupid in a general sense. each individual has his or her own intrinsic aptitude, if you will. im speaking of a social phenomena. the emergent behavior that occurs when social groups manifest. "complete idiots" was kinda a harsh term but i dont retract it. masses are historically single minded and unwavering. now when i say "masses" im referring to the group mind of any social group of any size. w/in any group there always exists those individuals who are members but arent swayed as easily by the group mind. these tend to be the innovators, anti-socials, philosophers and such. my analogy is that of a herd of cows. the herd gets form one place to another by following the ass in front of it, simple and plain. you have those individual cows that wonder off and either get lost or chewed up and the herders are analogous to the social sanctions that occur when one tries to break off from the group current paradigm of thought or belief. now most of the time they get corralled back in or get lost or become outcasts or what have you. every once in a great while this individual is heard and listened to and a revolution occurs, whether one of thought or material. only thru this synthesis of the mass and the individual does society ever adapt and progress. w/out the innovator nothing new would be though cause the masses are solely consumed w/ following the ass in front of them, conformity. w/out the masses there would be no social structure and no social unity. both are necessary parts of a whole, a yin and yang. one is no more important then the other.

do you think that both ideologies, as a general rule only, encourages opposite aspects of this whole that i have just detailed? and shouldnt a truly progressive social structure address both social tendencies equally. find the golden mean, since both tendencies are necessary to a healthy and dynamic social structure that is sustainable? acknowledge the masses and w/out allowing them to coerce the minority and acknowledge the individual and even encourage their innovativeness and individuality but understand that both are equally important.

of course that sounds like communism but we're here to discuss the paths to such. it seems to me that the socialism and anarchism, during the transitory phase, tends to suppress individualism or deny the importance of the mass mind. the latter is much less apparent but certain strain of anarchist thought atleast come across like that, for instance Emma Goldman.

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. the vanguard. i'm very well versed in this one. society basically needs to be led or rather guided into a communist social structure. the reasons for this are various (please elaborate your views) but generally held to be that communism is such a radical departure, socially and ethically, from the current social structures that those with a clear vision and understanding ought to be the guideposts for the masses into communism. does this require elitism? most of the classical proponents of this position agree that the dictatorship of the masses ( i've substituted proletariat here since the original term is hopelessly dated) will result in the suppression of the minority but that the means justify the ends. this is very utilitarian (personally utilitarian ethics doesn't sit well w/ me as a general rule). its only temporary but an absolute prerequisite to communism.

Well I think vanguard has been a highly mis-used concept and many groups have declared themselves to represent the "vanguard" while other leftists consider "vanguard" elitist.

In my view a "vanguard" exists no matter what - it's is just the people in society who are convinced of the need for working class rule and a revolution to achieve that. So at any given time, the "vanguard" is comprised of radicalized trade-union members and leaders, anarcho-syndicalists, revolutionary socialists, revolutionary anti-racist organizers, and so on.

The idea of a vanguard party is simply the idea that the goal of this party is to organize and connect all these various revolutionaries in order to coordinate political action as well as collect all the various disperse experience and lessons from struggle so that the revolutionary movement as a whole can learn and grow and get a sense of the general political atmosphere. So if there was a revolution in the US and Chicago workers were militant and ready for mass strikes and actions but New York workers were uncertain about taking action - then the Chicago workers would know not to expect that their action would automatically be mirrored in other cities.

The other important thing about vanguards is that it can not be declared. Any party now would be made up of various people who might be called "part of the vanguard" but there is no party or group currently able to win the trust of the working class in general. So most current self-declared and so-called vanguards are simply generals without armies. The working class in general decide who (if there is only one at the time of a revolution) is the "vanguard" of the working class simply by choosing to decide that that group does have good political and tactical ideas and adopting them.


the vanguard ideology does not allow for the anarchist while the anarchist will allow for socialism it just doesn't feel it will be sustainable. so logically i come to anarchism however there are some burning issues.If there was a strike-wave and people were joining the IWW in mass and these workers were becoming increasingly radicalized, then anarcho-syndicalist politics would be "the vanguard" although I'm sure most revolutionaries in this tradition would reject that particular terminology.

In the Russian Revolution, there were many anarchists who initially supported the Bolsheviks and of course the revolution in general. The Bolsheviks did not set out to create a one-party system initially but it became that first because of the situation of the revolution and then because the revolution failed and the nature of the party and of "socialism" changed in Russia.

I think in the future, vanguards (even if they don't call themselves this) will not be dominated by one group or party, but there will probably become coalitions of radicals who see themselves on the same track politically. And because the revolutionary traddition is much more diverse than in 1917, there will undoubtedly be more different kinds of political ideas about worker's power and workers will organize themselves around these ideas as "parties" either out of existing anarchist and socialist groups, or out of the political debates that would happen as workers try and re-organize society on their own terms.


the masses are, by definition almost a bunch of idiots, when it comes to whats most propitious for the whole. ppl are hard wired to follow the ass in front of them like a herd of cattle but this is what makes society possible. if the vast majority of us weren't conformist then there would be no society. so anarchism requires a critical mass of the population to be anarchists in order for it to be feasible. in lieu of this the vanguard becomes necessary.True revolutionary socialism and anarchism require the self-activity and leadership of the working class themselves. They dividing questions are about how to best do this.

And the fact that there is so much political and physical repression in places like the US, shows that people are not passive and willingly lead - IMO, workers have to be taught to be passive in capitalism. This is why we are punished at school, taught things by route or how to follow instructions - this is why we have police and repression against radical political ideas - this is why protests that go against the wishes of the ruling class are ignored, first and repressed if ignoring it didn't end the "problem" - protests in favor of ruling class interests, on the other hand, get a lot of disproportionate attention (such as tea-parties or when a handful of people protest in favor of police "cleaning up their town"). Everything about our society is built to try and convince us that what we have is good and any alternative would be worse - either that or it's designed to make us feel powerless. When we complain about the nature of job conditions, we get called "commie" and are told to "love it or leave it" - basically this is a way of saying "change can't and won't happen". But when the corporations don't like the union laws or other reforms that workers won in the past, they very happily change this situation and then if we complain about this change, they say: "love it or leave it".

As radicals, our job is not to lead workers by the nose, but instead, convince them of their own ability to lead and run society in a collective and democratic way.

[noble brown]

Well I think vanguard has been a highly mis-used concept and many groups have declared themselves to represent the "vanguard" while other leftists consider "vanguard" elitist.
i agree w you to an extent here komrade. however i don't think its so much a mis-used term as much as one that has been variously interpreted. it seems like you are taking a more general approach to defining the term, one i agree w. there is lit on the vanguard that is elitist in nature and not. i think what your bone is w/ the result of dogmatism. a revolutionary reads some lit explaining a very narrow position on the vanguard and then he/she feels that that is the only interpretation w/out being objective.

In my view a "vanguard" exists no matter what - it's is just the people in society who are convinced of the need for working class rule and a revolution to achieve that. So at any given time, the "vanguard" is comprised of radicalized trade-union members and leaders, anarcho-syndicalists, revolutionary socialists, revolutionary anti-racist organizers, and so on.
　
Agreed
.

The idea of a vanguard party is simply the idea that the goal of this party is to organize and connect all these various revolutionaries in order to coordinate political action...
　
i dont think that it is that simply defined and dealt w/ but thats not to say that it couldn't or shouldn't be.
　

The other important thing about vanguards is that it can not be declared. ...The working class in general decide who (if there is only one at the time of a revolution) is the "vanguard" of the working class simply by choosing to decide that that group does have good political and tactical ideas and adopting them.
　
Agreed!
　

The Bolsheviks did not set out to create a one-party system initially but it became that first because of the situation of the revolution...
　
learned something here... thank you
　

I think in the future, vanguards (even if they don't call themselves this) will not be dominated by one group or party, but there will probably become coalitions of radicals who see themselves on the same track politically. And because the revolutionary traddition is much more diverse than in 1917, there will undoubtedly be more different kinds of political ideas about worker's power and workers will organize themselves around these ideas as "parties" either out of existing anarchist and socialist groups, or out of the political debates that would happen as workers try and re-organize society on their own terms.
　
this is pretty much my hope too. but i get what you're saying. in your opinion anarchists and socialists both develop a vanguard (under the general definitions outlined above) so a more appropriate demarcation between the two (for the purposes of my original question only) would be the anarchist and the socialist state? thank you for helping me.
　

True revolutionary socialism and anarchism require the self-activity and leadership of the working class themselves.
　
Agreed!
　

And the fact that there is so much political and physical repression in places like the US, shows that people are not passive and willingly lead...
　
unfortunately, my good komrade i must disagree w/ you here. respectfully i don't think your argument follows from your premise.
1st lets define passivity as passivity of thought and not as turning the other cheek, as i do agree capitalist culture fosters passivity of action. passivity of thought, however, i feel is more of a social phenomena which is the result of our social nature as social beings. consider this:

when we are told something there are three basic responses. depending on various factors, we either believe it, disbelieve, or are skeptical. if i believe something said then that shows i have faith in the source to be relatively accurate, and thats the end of it. it could be the individual source, like a komrade whom i know to be much more well versed in a particular subject then me or it could be the preponderance of evidence i.e. everyone says the golden gate bridge exists along w/ pictures and videos. so therefore i believe. i could disbelieve due to all the contrary reasons. now when i disbelieve i can either say its crap and thats that or i can get skeptical. now if im skeptical, either initially or as a result of disbelief, then chances are i will make an attempt to investigate for myself. my investigation can lead me to either physically visit the golden gate bridge or to look for the preponderance of evidence. w/ the exception of the former im still relying on evidence external to my personal experience.

now its simply not practical to go around investigating every piece of info im given. nothing would ever get done if we all just walked around skeptical all the time of every little thing thats said to us. one of the more important reasons for being social is joint effort (the most appropriate term slipped my mind). so now we can all accumulate knowledge and at the same time continue tending to survival needs. this mostly is what culture is, accumulated knowledge passed on from one generation to the next. this describes the social phenomena i speak of. no need for me to waste time investigating the knowledge you're attempting to pass on to me i can just say ok, i trust your word and i can move on with my life w/out a hitch and a newly acquired piece of info. social psychology describes it as low-effort thinking or autopilot. you should be able to see now how it is a phenomena beneficial to the social construct.

many ppl in contemporary society take this to the extreme. we go to work, come home, eat, drink, shit and sleep and wake up and do it all over again. now if you're not a part of the leisure class, which the majority is not, you are to busy surviving day to day life to investigate shit your told. so you watch news or t.v. for an hour or so and get your dose of acquired knowledge for the day (obviously its a continuos process but you get the gist).that way the next day during your lunch break you can talk politics or current events or sports with your friends and its all good. but its not, you're just regurgitating what you heard w/ out any critical thinking or investigation. when you scale this phenomena up to the social level you get the "herd mentality". just following the ass in front of you.

now some of us are more skeptical than most. there are various reasons for this. some times its just a natural disposition and sometimes we are woken up from our stupor. its not so much that we are stupid but that its so much easier to be on autopilot. it takes effort, personal sacrifice (and time) to be a critical thinker. now just because i subscribe to views that are not a part of the current social paradigm (i.e. anarchist or socialist) doesn't necessarily mean im a critical thinker. there are many in the far left who are still followers or "cattle" just of a much smaller herd. this is most evidenced by dogmatism. i can read anyone from marx to kropotkin and decide to subscribe to those views for whatever reason but if i don't think about it critically im no more ahead of the game then the automaton next door.

so now we can address the reason that the state apparatus suppresses the counter-culture movements. its not because there is a great preponderance of critical thinkers but because dangerous ideas (whether to us or to them) have a way of catching on if they aren't kept in check. the most important objective of the revolutionary is to encourage, not just our komrades but our everyday neighbor to think critically but the fact is that many just don't have the leisure, not that they're stupid. so when i say they're idiots i refer to the collective emergent social behavior, not an individual trait.

so considering this, that our capitalist culture exploits what is normally a propitious social phenomena into something completely detrimental to the whole. because we are robbed of any leisure time and the social construct is actively manufactured by the minority we have a detrimental population of automatons. waking them up to say the least is difficult because we don't control the leisure time or the media.

So must they be led??!!

[Jimmie Higgins]

so considering this, that our capitalist culture exploits what is normally a propitious social phenomena into something completely detrimental to the whole. because we are robbed of any leisure time and the social construct is actively manufactured by the minority we have a detrimental population of automatons. waking them up to say the least is difficult because we don't control the leisure time or the media. Well just consider the history of struggle and that there are sudden and large movements that arise which draw people in and generate wide-spread radicalism. Generally these periods are not monolithic in radical thinking - generally there are all sorts of ideas that arise (some good, some wacky). If people where just switching from the status-quo "herd" to a left-wing "herd" then it would follow that periods of radicalism would be rather homogeneous in political thought. Instead what we see with the civil rights movement or the anti-Vietnam movement or the labor battles of the gilded age is a flowering of many political (and usually cultural as well) ideas.

As far as the effect of lack of leisure time - well this certainty impacts the lives of individuals, but it also doesn't explain the upsurges in mass movements. If this were true, why would it be that in 1932, at the height of unemployment and the depths of the depression, strikes were few and (much like today) workers were generally passive (aside from a large movement of WWI vets and some local anti-eviction and homeless work done by the CP and other radical groups. But a few years later there was a huge strike wave, a series of general strikes and and explosion of union organizing and radical politics? Did people suddenly have more free-time to read past the lies told to them in the papers, radio, or newsreels? IMO, it was that people saw actual examples of how fighting back and striking can work and change the shitty conditions of the depression for working people. The successful sit-down strike in Detroit led to the auto-industry unionizing for the first time and led to a massive wave of imitators because people saw that these politics and tactics actually worked.

It was the same with the lunch-counter sit-ins of the civil rights movement. The movement had kind of fallen off the national radar by the time of the sit-ins because of right-wing push backs and a stall in progress and unresolved political questions about how to move forward (the same kind of situation most of the movements today are in). But with a small action, suddenly hundreds of people who had not been active before, but wanted to do something, created their own sit-ins because they saw a successful model that was effective.

So I still think that people are not "passive" in the sense of being drones or followers, I think they are actually very angry and this is why there is a lot of daily craziness and hostility and violence in our society. But this anger turns to frustration and demoralization if there is no viable outlet and I think that's the state of workers in places like the US where the only avenues and examples for change are seen, by many, as useless and a dead-end.

[noble brown]

thank you for the stimulating argument.



Well just consider the history of struggle and that there are sudden and large movements that arise which draw people in and generate wide-spread radicalism. Generally these periods are not monolithic in radical thinking - generally there are all sorts of ideas that arise (some good, some wacky). If people where just switching from the status-quo "herd" to a left-wing "herd" then it would follow that periods of radicalism would be rather homogeneous in political thought. Instead what we see with the civil rights movement or the anti-Vietnam movement or the labor battles of the gilded age is a flowering of many political (and usually cultural as well) ideas.


you're right these periods of radicalization are historically not homogeneous. however, the radicalizers, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they almost exclusively come from the middle to upper social-economic strata of society (or incidentally, prison, in which there is plenty of leisure time)? Marx, Lenin, Kropotkin, Mao, Zinn, (Malcolm X), etc. (of course exceptions exist). the student sit-ins, hell, much of the anti-war movement of the 60's originated with the college community.even the BPP, whom i admire greatly (the originals) originated from two college students. it's only if the radicals are significantly successful and and the population is significantly stressed do we see a sprouting of radical movements. after that point a variety of views arise from various walks of life but only once the ppl are effectively awakened, or rather shaken by both situational forces and by individual radicalizers usually originating from the leisure class.

but it follows from this, even w/out rejecting the idea of the mass of automatons (which i don't) that ppl don't need to be pulled literally into revolutionary progress all it requires is first the right social environment and good examples of how it can be done. the ppl (masses) from there will decide how it is best to proceed according to their relative situations and needs, as i knew instinctively it should be but couldn't quite wrap my head around how.

BUT, the problem i now see is what happens when the motivating crisis is over. at least over to the point of keeping the masses galvanized? this is what has happened over and over in the history of social upheaval. the masses rise, under the conditions outlined above, and then the power structure saves itself by offering concessions that only serve to relieve the pressure just enough to pacify the masses again and thereby ensure the survival of the existing power structure. and the process becomes cyclic in nature cause a generation or so later once the public memory forgets the struggle, and the power structure rolls back the previous concessions and we do it all over again and the next generation is left wondering why our parents from the 60's didn't push it all the way. the concessions eliminated the revolutionary momentum (the masses). Ex. the new deal in response to the 20's crash and the rollbacks of wwII, the civil right concessions and the re-invoking of Keynesianism in the sixties and then the rollbacks that occurred during the eighties w/ reaganomics and thatcherism among others. if we are just content to ride the wave of the masses, so to speak, then what when the wind is taken out of our sails? it will happen because we all know that the power structure has a vested interest in self-preservation. revolution won't happen w/out the masses and how do we stop them from becoming concessioned out. maybe you think that the mass will see as a whole and understand their need to push past the concessions (that WILL come) but i still think the preponderance of evidence shows that the mass as a whole are indeed passive, have a short memory memory, and will always choose the path of least resistance.

so do we technically have to wait for the system to actually self-destruct, which it is, for any thorough revolution to be successful? i know that in order to logically get to this point of my argument , you have to subscribe to the mass of automatons. otherwise you're response would be the faith in the masses to, right?

[Jayshin_JTTH]

Yes, but even if they are very similar in the United States (I honestly wouldn't know as I'm not American), oppression and exploitation are not the same thing.

Exploitation is systematic, oppression is intermittent, or at the least, not consistent. Even if every bourgeois or petty-bourgeois was white, and every proletarian black, it would still be necessary to have class struggle as a unifying principle, not opposition to racial intolerance. Class struggle leads to the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, opposition to racial intolerance does not. If it were the reverse, the ANC would have turned South Africa into a socialist state.

Opposition to racism is important as it increases class unity, and helps block the attempts of the ruling class to divide the working class based on race, but the end is still class revolution. It's not just physical unity of numbers either, racism is also a psychological distraction used by the ruling class, it's only a big issue if the working class thinks it's a big issue.