Failure to achieve socialism.

[Rainsborough]

To arrive at the ‘stateless’ society necessary for the establishment of communism, one has to pass through several stages. One of these, according to Marx, is the socialist stage, and it can be argued that no country has achieved this yet (in fact many do). It could be said that the closest any countries have come is the aftermath of the revolutions in Russia and later in China. However in both these countries once the revolution is established, attempts to further consolidate and expand the situation, resulted in a slow but sure move from socialism to state capitalism (a state that China still embodies). Why?

[AK]

Not doing much to answer your question, but:
1. State capitalism is bullshit.
2. Remind me where it was exactly that Marx argued for a transitional socialist state?

[thälmann]

because opportunist and revisionist peoples went on top of state and the communist party. the reason for that is a little bit deeper. i guess their were a social base for this problem because of too big social differences. but there are a lot of other reasons, like not enough ordinary people could take part in organising state and economy and so on.

where marx talked about a socialits state? are you serious? i mean the dictatureship of the proletariat is something marx did talk about first, not lenin.

[Widerstand]

where marx talked about a socialits state? are you serious? i mean the dictatureship of the proletariat is something marx did talk about first, not lenin.

The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' merely means that it seizes power (political and economical).

Marx, as far as I am aware, never talked about 'socialism' being a "transitional stage" between capitalism and communism. It was much later, after Lenin, that this understanding of 'socialism' and 'communism' as distinct stages, rather than synonyms, has been introduced, one would assume to explain the Bolshevik's failure to achieve communism in Russia and to justify Stalin's state capitalist tendencies.

[thälmann]

ok, but he talked about a state, where the proletarian dictatureship is established, and which is not yet communism. and why is stalins theory state capitalism?

[Widerstand]

It's not necessarily his theory, but that's where the USSR was heading immediately before, during and after WW2.

[Rainsborough]

Okay, so maybe Marx didn’t say that socialism was a transitory state on the path to communism (me bad, study more :blushing:). But most people see it as so, otherwise why bother with socialism, why not go straight to communism? But that doesn’t deny the other part of my question. Why does it always seem that revolution starts with socialist ideas and ends with capitalism hidden beneath a socialist veneer?

[ComradeOm]

However in both these countries once the revolution is established, attempts to further consolidate and expand the situation, resulted in a slow but sure move from socialism to state capitalism (a state that China still embodies). Why?Because neither Russian nor China ever constructed a socialist society. Their revolutions failed due to specific material circumstances. I recently made some posts on Russia in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyists-revaluate-russian-t142628/index.html)


Remind me where it was exactly that Marx argued for a transitional socialist state?Show me where Marx believed that the state should be abolished overnight

[Magón]

Why does it always seem that revolution starts with socialist ideas and ends with capitalism hidden beneath a socialist veneer?

Because in other words, it's just Wolves in Sheep's Clothing. You're trading just one crooked State for another. Just with another title. (Like Dem/Repub)

[Diello]

Okay, so maybe Marx didn’t say that socialism was a transitory state on the path to communism (me bad, study more :blushing:).

I had the exact same misconception up until about a week ago. Don't know where I got the idea to begin with.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

One of the main reasons for faild attempts to build socialism is the reaction frome imperialists, like when the USSR was created, first thing to happen was that 13 nations declared war at it. Anyway in my opinion the state that has been closeset to achive socialism is the DDR, even if they relied on the rest of the eastbloc.

[cenv]

To arrive at the ‘stateless’ society necessary for the establishment of communism, one has to pass through several stages. One of these, according to Marx, is the socialist stage, and it can be argued that no country has achieved this yet (in fact many do). It could be said that the closest any countries have come is the aftermath of the revolutions in Russia and later in China. However in both these countries once the revolution is established, attempts to further consolidate and expand the situation, resulted in a slow but sure move from socialism to state capitalism (a state that China still embodies). Why?
It may not be stateless, but socialism still implies that the working class wields power by means of social ownership, radical demoracy, etc. Yet when you look at the real conditions under which these revolutions occurred, you realize that the means of production and communication were not advanced for the working class to coordinate a social revolution -- capitalism had not yet fulfilled what Marx called its "historic mission." Since the tools and technologies that make socialism possible weren't available, the working class had to coordinate its efforts through highly centralized structures that tended towards increasing bureaucratization. The rest is history. ;)

A lot of people will tell you that socialism only failed because of "revisionism" or because of "Stalinism" or because of "authoritarianism." This is bullshit -- don't listen to these people. Revolutions don't fail because of "isms." The Marxist method means getting to the material root of the problem, the concrete source of all "isms."

[StoneFrog]

Things i believe why Russia ended up being the way it did:

-Failure for the proletariat to achieve a successful revolution in a developed country. Lenin himself said that USSR was a holding state for the proletariat.

-Peasantry out numbering the industrial workers.

-Weakening of the Soviets role. I believe that by making the soviets redundant bodies of the state, stopped the progression of the proletariat.

-Due to a too strong vanguard after the revolution, maybe not exactly the fault of the leaders, but due to necessity, to keep the balance with peasantry and to defend from counter-revolutionaries. This strong vanguard allowed the like of Stalin in power, without bodies like the soviets having enough power to defend the proletariat from bureaucracy of the Stalin regime.

[AK]

Show me where Marx believed that the state should be abolished overnight
I never said that. I was simply asking for evidence that showed Marx argued for a transitional "socialist" state a la early USSR. Don't go putting words in my mouth.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Show me where Marx believed that the state should be abolished overnight
Right Here:
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/rude/1/finger.gif

[28350]

Marx argued

marx talked about

Marx, as far as I am aware, never talked about

Marx believed that

Am I the only one whose political convictions don't rest upon the "true meaning" of Marx's words? It's not like the dude was some sacred holy avatar conduit from on high, channeling the word of truth as a prophet.

[Amphictyonis]

The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' merely means that it seizes power (political and economical).

Marx, as far as I am aware, never talked about 'socialism' being a "transitional stage" between capitalism and communism. It was much later, after Lenin, that this understanding of 'socialism' and 'communism' as distinct stages, rather than synonyms, has been introduced, one would assume to explain the Bolshevik's failure to achieve communism in Russia and to justify Stalin's state capitalist tendencies.

I have to interject here :)

Marx always said (before Lenin revised his works) communism could only take hold in nations who had first gone through the capitalist phase of development and it also couldn't arise in an isolated nation (Stalin disagreed)- communism must be global (not all at once in one fell swoop of course). Russia, perhaps, could have made it to communism if the more advanced western nations had revolutions as well. Russia was on an island forced to compete with capitalism all while developing the industrial means of production (hence state capitalism). It was doomed without western revolution. Even if they were democratic or not. In our modern western advanced capitalist nations a socialist phase would be necessary to abolish class/private property/capital with the end result being advanced communism. The anarchists wanted to jump straight to advanced communism.

[L.A.P.]

The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' merely means that it seizes power (political and economical).

Marx, as far as I am aware, never talked about 'socialism' being a "transitional stage" between capitalism and communism. It was much later, after Lenin, that this understanding of 'socialism' and 'communism' as distinct stages, rather than synonyms, has been introduced, one would assume to explain the Bolshevik's failure to achieve communism in Russia and to justify Stalin's state capitalist tendencies.
Marx said that socialism was the transition stage between capitalism and communism. Where the fuck have you guys been?

[Amphictyonis]

Marx said that socialism was the transition stage between capitalism and communism. Where the fuck have you guys been?

Yes, Marx saw the socialist phase as necessary to abolish private property/capital. It also had to come after advanced capitalist development. I'll even go as far as to argue Marx thought capitalism must first globally exaust itself before communism was possible (materialist conception of history).

[AK]

Am I the only one whose political convictions don't rest upon the "true meaning" of Marx's words? It's not like the dude was some sacred holy avatar conduit from on high, channeling the word of truth as a prophet.
I think Marxists ought to know what it is Marx meant so that they can base their views around it :rolleyes:

[Amphictyonis]

Am I the only one whose political convictions don't rest upon the "true meaning" of Marx's words? It's not like the dude was some sacred holy avatar conduit from on high, channeling the word of truth as a prophet.

Without him both Marxism and anarchism wouldn't exist. We'd all be stuck with pacifists like Henri de Saint-Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy,_comte_de_Saint-Simon), Robert Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen) , Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) and Leo Tolstoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy). No thanks :)

[28350]

I think Marxists ought to know what it is Marx meant so that they can base their views around it :rolleyes:

And I adhere to Marxism's strict line of living in the 1800's and not shaving too.

[Aesop]

I didn't know that revolutionary socialism begins and ends with Karl Marx. However the way some people are typing on this thread would want to make us believe that.

[28350]

Without him both Marxism and anarchism wouldn't exist. We'd all be stuck with pacifists like Henri de Saint-Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy,_comte_de_Saint-Simon), Robert Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen) , Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) and Leo Tolstoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy). No thanks :)

I'm not saying I don't thoroughly enjoy the man's contributions, I'm just saying that not all things he said, just by virtue of him saying them, should influence one's politics.

[Amphictyonis]

And I adhere to Marxism's strict line of living in the 1800's and not shaving too.
The basic principles of capitalism haven't changed much (although Keynes did play with them). Marx is still relevant to this day. Not so much Lenin and Trotsky's revised versions (applicable in Russia in their time) but Marx's original writings.

He was the Einstein of social revolution.

[Amphictyonis]

I didn't know that revolutionary socialism begins and ends with Karl Marx. However the way some people are typing on this thread would want to make us believe that.


Robert Owen was a revolutionary socialist? Proudhon? Saint Simon?

[Aesop]

Marx is still relevant to this day. Not so much Lenin and Trotsky's revised versions (applicable in Russia in their time) but Marx's original writings.


:confused: So why are you a luxemburgist then.

[Aesop]

Robert Owen was a revolutionary socialist? Proudhon? Saint Simon?

No Robert owen was not a revolutionary socialist/revolutionary marxist, seeing as he predates marx and did not advocate the abolishment of private property.

Proudhon was an anarchist who happened to believe in private property(despite his saying of private property is theft).

[Amphictyonis]

:confused: So why are you a luxemburgist then.

I'm a classical Marxist. As was she. if there's a classical Marxist group on here I'll change my silly RevLeft tendency to that.

[Zanthorus]

I'm a classical Marxist. As was she. if there's a classical Marxist group on here I'll change my silly RevLeft tendency to that.

We have a revolutionary Marxists usergroup:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=12

[Thirsty Crow]

To arrive at the ‘stateless’ society necessary for the establishment of communism, one has to pass through several stages. One of these, according to Marx, is the socialist stage, and it can be argued that no country has achieved this yet (in fact many do). It could be said that the closest any countries have come is the aftermath of the revolutions in Russia and later in China. However in both these countries once the revolution is established, attempts to further consolidate and expand the situation, resulted in a slow but sure move from socialism to state capitalism (a state that China still embodies). Why?

Can I see a textual evidence for this claim?
Apart from that, I'm not a big fan of historical schemas, to say the least.

[penguinfoot]

Marx always said (before Lenin revised his works) communism could only take hold in nations who had first gone through the capitalist phase of development and it also couldn't arise in an isolated nation (Stalin disagreed)

Marx was clear that communism requires an advanced productive apparatus for its base, this much is true, but he didn't say that it would be possible for communism to "take hold" in the sense of becoming an ideological force only in advanced capitalist countries, and towards the end of his life he displayed a dynamic engagement with the revolutionary populist movement in Russia, especially through his interaction with Vera Zasulich. What you seem to be suggesting comes close to the historical praxis of Stalinism because the bureaucratized Comintern argued that in those countries where capitalist development had not occurred and where there were still various forms of backwardness such as a large agricultural sector it was necessary for revolutionaries to ally with the bourgeoisie and accept the continued existence of capitalism until development had reached a point where the proletariat had become a sufficiently strong social force to take power...whereas it was the intervention of Trotsky that showed how even when the proletariat is a numerical minority a seizure of power is both possible and desirable.

[Amphictyonis]

To arrive at the ‘stateless’ society necessary for the establishment of communism, one has to pass through several stages. One of these, according to Marx, is the socialist stage, and it can be argued that no country has achieved this yet (in fact many do). It could be said that the closest any countries have come is the aftermath of the revolutions in Russia and later in China. However in both these countries once the revolution is established, attempts to further consolidate and expand the situation, resulted in a slow but sure move from socialism to state capitalism (a state that China still embodies). Why?

Meghnad Desai (who many have misunderstood as a supporter of capitalism) has put a book out entitled "Marx's Revenge". You can read many reviews of the book online by people who don't understand his point- his point basically being:

Globalization, as Marx saw it, was a good thing. The reason? Only before capitalism's productive forces were completely exhausted could socialism take hold. When people review his book and insinuate Desai was saying Marx supported capitalism they know fuck all of anything. What he was saying is Marx saw capitalism as a necessary step towards socialism. That only within advanced capitalist societies could socialism be formed and the global socialist revolution could not be successful until capitalism's global productive forces had been exhausted.

Desai gets much of his views from reading Grundrisse and various works outlining the Materialist Conception Of History. The point is, capitalism cannot be overthrown until it's productive forces become stagnant. In that regard, he argues, Marx would have supported capitalist globalization because the sooner capitalism can no longer expand the sooner socialism will take hold.

I have his book sitting in front of me and would actually like to debate his views with anyone who's read it :)

[Paulappaul]

So tired of all these "Well Marx said this" and "Marx believed that". Fact of the matter is, Marx wasn't a fortune teller. He didn't know what the system of society would look like following the abolition of Capitalism.

Marx laid out some fundamental contradictions of Capitalism, which he applied to his understanding of history and found that the Masses views are antithetical to that of the Minority. To settle this Contradiction the masses would over through the Ruling Class and establish themselves as the ruling class.

The Ruling Class represents such a small minority, that by tossing them out of all power, all that would be left is Majority Class and thus as their is only one class remaining, class distinctions would end and Society would become Classless.

That's Marxism in about 90 words. Naturally I can go in detail as to why all is what is, but for purposes sake I remain at that - so please don't quote and ***** about how it isn't precise to Marx's words.

Any more details then that Marx didn't know. Marx as a Revolutionary was struggling for what he could get. He understood that much the world wasn't developed enough for a World Revolution, - hence why he often said that more and more society is becoming to major conflicting classes i.e. the Proletarians and the Bourgeois.

In his understanding that the "Emancipation of the working class will be the act of the working class itself" it was concluded that the immediate goal of revolutionaries was to progress Capitalism in the most humanitarian way - to conceal immediate demands for the proletarians (see 10 Point Program of Communist Manifesto) - while at the same promoting a revolutionary spirit in the minds of Proletarians so that one day they may conceal there fates as the class which finally puts an end to Class distinctions.

The conception that we can find a Blueprint of Socialism in the works of Marx is infantile. He didn't have one cause he probably didn't know. We shouldn't be dogmatic about Marxism, after all the man himself as any human being was consistently changing and inspired by his peers.

It's fun to lay out conceptions of "what Socialism will look like" but anybody who is fixed on that conception will use only Authoritarian Methods - or Utopian - to establish it. Communism is the Proletarians job and therefor it will be their self expression, that is to say, their own creation.

With that said, it's always nice to conclude on the idea repeated for probably almost a century now, that Marx is frankly outdated. Capitalism in all it means, Social, Political and Economic has changed. While Marx is nice for his spot on statements, much of his ideas are tossed out the window :lol:

[Amphictyonis]

So tired of all these "Well Marx said this" and "Marx believed that". Fact of the matter is, Marx wasn't a fortune teller. He didn't know what the system of society would look like following the abolition of Capitalism.

Marx laid out some fundamental contradictions of Capitalism, which he applied to his understanding of history and found that the Masses views are antithetical to that of the Minority. To settle this Contradiction the masses would over through the Ruling Class and establish themselves as the ruling class.

The Ruling Class represents such a small minority, that by tossing them out of all power, all that would be left is Majority Class and thus as their is only one class remaining, class distinctions would end and Society would become Classless.

That's Marxism in about 90 words. Naturally I can go in detail as to why all is what is, but for purposes sake I remain at that - so please don't quote and ***** about how it isn't precise to Marx's words. While Marx is nice for his spot on statements, much of his ideas are tossed out the window http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Any more details then that Marx didn't know.
EDIT (Change from stupid to silly) That has to be the SILLIEST post I've seen in my brief time here on RevLeft. No offense.

[Paulappaul]

Thanks. Why did you quote something when it's right above of you?

[RedMaterialist]

However in both these countries once the revolution is established, attempts to further consolidate and expand the situation, resulted in a slow but sure move from socialism to state capitalism (a state that China still embodies). Why?

Marx said somewhere that socialism could only emerge after capitalism had fully developed. Lenin and Trotsky (and later, Mao) were confronted with a situation in which a semi-feudal, semi-capitalist state had been destroyed in the Russian and Chinese revolutions. What were they supposed to do? Tell Western capitalists to take over Russia, wait a hundred yrs and then have another revolution? No. They moved on with what they had. We know that Stalin hi-jacked it and created a 'barracks socialism' and a 'degenerate worker state' (Trotsky's phrase.) It may have been ugly, but he defeated Hitler with it.

Is it surprising that these "forced birth" socialisms either died premature deaths or are morphing into quasi-capitalist, state-capitalist socialisms?

[Apoi_Viitor]

That has to be the stupidest post I've seen in my brief time here on RevLeft. No offense.

Why? I don't anything to disagree with...

Because, the way I see it, Paulappaul's argument is based around Michael Foucualt's sentiment - "The role of an intellectual is not to tell others what they must do. By what right would he do so? And remember all the prophecies, promises, injunctions and plans intellectuals have been able to formulate in the course of the last two centuries and of which we have seen the effects. The work of an intellectual is not to mold the political will of others; it is, through the analyses that he does in his own field, to re-examine evidence and assumptions, to shake up habitual ways of working and thinking, to dissipate conventional familiarities, to re-evaluate rules and institutions and starting from this re-problematization (where he occupies his specific profession as an intellectual) to participate in the formation of a political will (where he has his role as a citizen to play)"

I believe that in reading Marx, you shouldn't look for rigid guidelines or specificities which argue that the revolution should be carried out 'in this exact way, otherwise it is wrong'. In fact, I don't believe Marx ever intended to do such a thing. I feel as though the notion of 'scientific-socialism' was more of Engels' construct, not Marx's - and that Marx's main contributions were De-constructing/De-legitimizing capitalism, giving a vague outline of a post-capitalist society (by doing so, I perceive the intention was to show 'things could be better/different'), and the construction of a method for observing the 'nature of history'.

To some up what I'm trying to argue: I believe the construction of a post-capitalist society, will be done by the oppressed themselves, not an 'omni-potent' intellectual.

Also, if you think that's the stupidest post you've ever read on Revleft, then I assume you haven't read any of this http://www.revleft.com/vb/over-1-1-t142975/index2.html

[Amphictyonis]

Why? I don't anything to disagree with...

Because, the way I see it, Paulappaul's argument is based around Michael Foucualt's sentiment - "The role of an intellectual is not to tell others what they must do. By what right would he do so? And remember all the prophecies, promises, injunctions and plans intellectuals have been able to formulate in the course of the last two centuries and of which we have seen the effects. The work of an intellectual is not to mold the political will of others; it is, through the analyses that he does in his own field, to re-examine evidence and assumptions, to shake up habitual ways of working and thinking, to dissipate conventional familiarities, to re-evaluate rules and institutions and starting from this re-problematization (where he occupies his specific profession as an intellectual) to participate in the formation of a political will (where he has his role as a citizen to play)"

I believe that in reading Marx, you shouldn't look for rigid guidelines or specificities which argue that the revolution should be carried out 'in this exact way, otherwise it is wrong'. In fact, I don't believe Marx ever intended to do such a thing. I feel as though the notion of 'scientific-socialism' was more of Engels' construct, not Marx's - and that Marx's main contributions were De-constructing/De-legitimizing capitalism, giving a vague outline of a post-capitalist society (by doing so, I perceive the intention was to show 'things could be better/different'), and the construction of a method for observing the 'nature of history'.

To some up what I'm trying to argue: I believe the construction of a post-capitalist society, will be done by the oppressed themselves, not an 'omni-potent' intellectual.

Also, if you think that's the stupidest post you've ever read on Revleft, then I assume you haven't read any of this http://www.revleft.com/vb/over-1-1-t142975/index2.html

I think Marx's works are the only relevant ones we should pay attention to. If anything Lenin/Trotsky and even perhaps Mao should be thrown to the wayside (especially in the west). Anyone who formulated 'a plan' and was in a nation which hadn't yet been through the advanced capitalist stage should not be exalted as the torch bearer of Marxism. Also, Marx never said a revolution was to be carried out in a specific manner but did in fact lay down some pre- conditions. Pre conditions, if one understands, explain why socialism has yet to 'win the day'. Capitalism has yet to exhaust it's productive forces. It cannot arise in an isolated nation and must be a global transformation starting with the advanced capitalist nations.

If you're talking physics and say "Newton or Einstein are irrelevant" you'd be off your rocker. Obviously today's physicists aren't looking at the world through the same eyes as Newton or even Einstein but some ground rules had been lain down by these men. My point is, people have lost sight of the ground rules Marx/Engels laid down- mainly because of all the various revisions after Marx and then Engels deaths. The world has indeed changed and in my opinion what we need now is a new interpretation of Marx/Engels original writings. A modern analysis for western advanced capitalist societies. To ignore Marx/Engels original writings whilst doing this would be silly. Even anarchists should at least respect the Marxist analysis of capitalism. Most anarchists I know do at least. I'd like to see a modern movement arise in the west where anarchist views on the nature of the state are mixed with classical Marxist analysis of capitalism (applied to our modern system).

[Paulappaul]

So for the most part you've agreed with what I've said. The only thing that really stuck out at me is this,


The world has indeed changed and in my opinion what we need now is a new interpretation of Marx/Engels original writings. A modern analysis for western advanced capitalist societies. To ignore Marx/Engels original writings whilst doing this would be silly. Even anarchists should at least respect the Marxist analysis of capitalism. Most anarchists I know do at least. I'd like to see a modern movement arise in the west where anarchist views on the nature of the state are mixed with classical Marxist analysis of capitalism (applied to our modern system). A New interpretation? That's your solution? When a world is rid with the famine of Capitalism, your solution is a new theory? The main impotence of Socialist movement is dicking around with theory. EVERY GENERATION of socialists have rehashed and reinterperted theory.

You want a contemporary theory of Marxism? Role yourself down to Libcom and search up the Situationist international. Trotsykists have done a muke reinterpatating Marxism to Western Economy.

Marxist theory isn't the problem. There is a superabundence of theory, and with the internet and Mass media it's even easier to get a hold of Neo Marxism. The problem with the Socialist movement right now, is a lack of getting out into the streets and into the lives of Proletarians.

Marxism and Anarchism are mixing, it's happening right now. Your tendency is a golden example thereof.

[Apoi_Viitor]

If you're talking physics and say "Newton or Einstein are irrelevant" you'd be off your rocker. Obviously today's physicists aren't looking at the world through the same eyes as Newton or even Einstein but some ground rules had been lain down by these men. My point is, people have lost sight of the ground rules Marx/Engels laid down- mainly because of all the various revisions after Marx and then Engels deaths. The world has indeed changed and in my opinion what we need now is a new interpretation of Marx/Engels original writings. A modern analysis for western advanced capitalist societies. To ignore Marx/Engels original writings whilst doing this would be silly. Even anarchists should at least respect the Marxist analysis of capitalism. Most anarchists I know do at least. I'd like to see a modern movement arise in the west where anarchist views on the nature of the state are mixed with classical Marxist analysis of capitalism (applied to our modern system).

I never said Marx is irrelevant, in fact, I argue very much to the contrary. Marx is highly relevant, Lenin/Mao/Trotsky not so much... Marx is very similar to Einstein, because both men never laid down any concrete rules. Einstein didn't use his Theory of Relativity to manipulate men, by saying, "look at this interpretation of physics I have theorized, now you must live your life according to this". He simply described why our bodies react in such a way with nature, which is exactly what Marx did. General Relativity didn't force us to live our lives differently, it just allowed us to see our lives differently. And that is exactly what Marx did.

However, I don't believe we need a re-interpretation of Marx's ideas. He makes it quite clear, the proletariat needs to create a revolution and take power. After that, the guidelines of society should decided by the oppressed, and not an elitist vanguard.

[Amphictyonis]

So for the most part you've agreed with what I've said. The only thing that really stuck out at me is this,

A New interpretation? That's your solution? When a world is rid with the famine of Capitalism, your solution is a new theory? The main impotence of Socialist movement is dicking around with theory. EVERY GENERATION of socialists have rehashed and reinterperted theory.

You want a contemporary theory of Marxism? Role yourself down to Libcom and search up the Situationist international. Trotsykists have done a muke reinterpatating Marxism to Western Economy.

Marxist theory isn't the problem. There is a superabundence of theory, and with the internet and Mass media it's even easier to get a hold of Neo Marxism. The problem with the Socialist movement right now, is a lack of getting out into the streets and into the lives of Proletarians.

Marxism and Anarchism are mixing, it's happening right now. Your tendency is a golden example thereof.

I'm fully aware Marxism and Anarchism are mixing on a small scale. I'm also fully aware there are modern interpretations of classical Marxism. Theory is important because it explains, in part, why we have not seen socialism 'win the day' as of yet while paving general road maps towards the path to socialism in the future. I wouldn't drive from CA to NY without a map. Capitalism isn't like a loop that goes in circles it is ever changing- new theories are necessary for changing times.

I don't know about you but I still see a bunch of people touting Lenin and Trotsky....the only reason I have "Luxemburgism" on my RevLeft thing is because her views on democracy and the fact Germany was actually a nation that could have gone socialist at the time. Everything that happened in Russia should be forgotten. Almost everything. It was one big fumbling fuck up.

[Manic Impressive]

I think a fundamental reason along with others already mentioned, for why a revolution has not yet led to a socialist society is that the class consciousness of the proletariat has not been high enough. Of course there have been times when it has been higher than it is now but even in Russia I've seen it argued that a lot of the working class were not fighting for a set of values and economic freedoms but were fighting due to the conditions under the Tsar and also through the war exhaustion felt as a result of the first world war and the previous Japanese Russian war. The majority of the proletariat were not fighting against capitalism they were fighting for modernisation and better conditions, which they got.

As communists our main priority should be to raise the class consciousness of the proletariat in order for them to realize their potential. The bourgeoisie are well aware of class warfare and unfortunately they are the only side fighting in the war. They are fighting constantly to undermine the concept of class and keep the proletariat ignorant. The proletariat have not fully united as a class and this is one of the reasons a socialist society has not succeeded.

[Amphictyonis]

The majority of the proletariat were not fighting against capitalism they were fighting for modernisation and better conditions, which they got.



And here we have the problem. Is the global socialist revolution going to be born solely out of ideology OR material interests? In my opinion ideology is important - when advanced capitalists economies stop expanding the global working class must, in revolutionary fashion, demand socialism. This cannot happen without idiology but the (declining) material conditions for revolution must also be present.

When feudalism was overthrown it was largely because feudal lords over stepped their bounds and milked the peasants dry. They once took the peasants surplus but started taking what they needed to survive. In the west there are too many people content with being wage slaves. As long as this is the case socialism will not take hold (my opinion). Pure ideology isn't going to do the trick. This is one of the "ground rules" Marx laid down. One people have chosen to ignore for generations.

[Paulappaul]

I'm fully aware Marxism and Anarchism are mixing on a small scale. I'm also fully aware there are modern interpretations of classical Marxism. Theory is important because it explains, in part, why we have not seen socialism 'win the day' as of yet while paving general road maps towards the path to socialism in the future. I wouldn't drive from CA to NY without a map. Capitalism isn't like a loop that goes in circles it is ever changing- new theories are necessary for changing times.

And I never said otherwise, more however that we have Theory, now we need to get to practical action, that of which puts into practice contemporary Marxist theory. Theories are made every year, programmes, constitutions and Manifesto's as well. But really non of it has really pushed us forward.

People don't sit down and write a significant theory of tactics. It's the product of real world experience and scientific investigation.

That being said, the thing to do isn't to "reinterperate Marx" - the majority of the Working Class and Revolutionaries can't understand Marx without devoting Mass sums of time to him - rather to form new theories based on practical experience.

I call myself a Council Communist for much the same reason as you Sympathize with Luxemburgism. It isn't a fixed dogma of mine, rather it's understanding that as you say, the Russian revolution was a complete fuck up and thus I sympathize with the members of the Communist international who learned from the failure of Leninist theory in Russia as Lenin did to the failures of Second International and Marx to the Failures of Utopian Socialists.