Marx On The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 02:03 PM
Marx did NOT say there was a transitional stage between capitalism and communism, it was trotsky who argued that in underdeveloped countries like russia and the third world there had to be a period of industrialisation before said region could become communist, however this had been refuted on several occassions by the SPBG.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM IT MEANS THE SAME THING, GET ANY OTHER IDEAS OUT OF YOUR HEAD PLEASE.
Interesting... Anyway, I put this in theory because it is appropriate for this forum.

'Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.'
[Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, pp. 32-33.]

'This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.'
[Marx, "The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 1, p. 223.]

"the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat".
["Marx to J. Wedemeyer, March 5, 1852", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 452.]

Marx didn't talk of socialism, but rather a first phase of communism known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin used the word socialism to decribe the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I am not at all clear on what you are talking about. But certainly;
'political transition period'
'class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally'
Marx did say there was a transition period between capitalism and communism known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. I can not see how this is coherent along side your 'Marx did NOT say there was a transitional stage between capitalism and communism'.

[redstar2000]

Sometimes these kinds of discussions can get a little bit...well, theological.

That is, what did Marx really mean when he said such-and-such? It almost sounds like preachers arguing over the exact meaning of some quip by Saulos of Tarsus.

This is particularly the case when people try to build up a whole structure of political theory on the basis of a few fragmentary remarks on "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and the transition between capitalism and communism.

For example, there is no possibility that the Leninist-Stalinist or the Maoist state can be "theoretically justified" by anything Marx or Engels ever said...simply because they would have flatly denied the possibility of communist revolution in those (or any) backward, almost pre-capitalist countries. A small, weak, and culturally underdeveloped proletariat cannot make a communist revolution in a predominately peasant country, period.

How much of a "state apparatus" Marx and Engels envisioned or how long it would be needed is as speculative as they were themselves about this.

It is clear (to me, at least) that when they used the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat"...they meant it in the same way as we speak of the present state apparatus as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"--they certainly did not imagine the rule of a small, tightly-disciplined and centralized party exercising a dictatorship over the proletariat.

I would further argue (at least on the basis of the evidence we have so far), that Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist socialism is not a "transition stage" to anything...except capitalism. Marx and Engels didn't know that would happen.

That there will and must be a period of transition is obvious. That one way to "name" that period is "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is poor public relations but technically accurate.

But what should actually be taking place in that period? The building up of a "workers' state apparatus" on a more or less permanent basis? Or the actual construction of communist relations of production?

I think answering that question is more important than attempting to "squeeze" an entire theory of "strong-state socialism" out of a few words of Marx...especially since those words were never intended to apply to pre-capitalist countries in the first place.

And there's this remark by Engels...

Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Yes.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

What planet is Sandanista from?

From the manifest of the communist party;

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

[Abiyot]

Redstar writes,


That is, what did Marx really mean when he said such-and-such? It almost sounds like preachers arguing over the exact meaning of some quip by Saulos of Tarsus.

I agree with him, that sometime that discussions have a kind of theological flavor. But I argue that Redstar is guilty of the same fault when he writes,


For example, there is no possibility that the Leninist-Stalinist or the Maoist state can be "theoretically justified" by anything Marx or Engels ever said...simply because they would have flatly denied the possibility of communist revolution in those (or any) backward, almost pre-capitalist countries. A small, weak, and culturally underdeveloped proletariat cannot make a communist revolution in a predominately peasant country, period

Here, I believe that Redstar to support a point he is making, tries to show us that because Marx-Engel's did not foresee something or say something in their writings then logically this cannot happen or occur. I believe that those who argue in this way can be accused of "dogmatism" and "rigidity". A "dogmatism" and "rigidity" however that is "selective" and "opportunistic".

For instance, Redstar, imagine a "peasant" society where say 80% of the peasants do not "own" they farm. In fact they are in one one sense of the term, because of the processes of commoditisation of production and differentiation within the peasantry, converted into labor completely alienated from the means of production. If you like we could say that here we have a proto-rural proletariat. :unsure:

And Redstar, what is a "peasant"? What is a peasant society? Don't you realise that in large parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, the peasant as a social category and the peasant "mode of produuction" is increasingly "under threat" (which is one thing that anti-globalization campaigners whine about amongst many others. As ususal, completely missing the point)? Therefore, the peasant, peasant societies and peasant production systems are not static, unchanging categories (dialectics). So there were and are changes, processes of destruction, mutation and creation which are creating new forces and relations of production. Therefore, then our reading of Marx-Engel's would also have to take this into account.

I think and obviously too, that revolutions have a tendency to occur where the class contradictions have reached their level/plane of development. Ofcourse this is a simplification, and many other factors are also important. And this historically (past historical experience) and in the present, seem to be a tendency in the underdeveloped world. Witness, Colombia, Peru, India and Nepal today. If we look at the developed Capitalist World, the opposite is true. In fact we could say after WW2 and the historic "surrender" of the CP's who gave up their arms and joined the arena of liberal democratic competition, the working classes in Europe have not had the requisite revolutionary leadership. Ofcourse, the emergence of the Welfare state, the labor aristocracy phenomena are also very important. :D

Marx-Engel's are not and would not want their works to be viewed as "holy writ". The world outlook, methodology and concepts they developed are supposed to be tools for study, analysis, interpretation and above all creative and transformative change.

UP THE REVOLUTION!!!

[redstar2000]

Here, I believe that Redstar to support a point he is making, tries to show us that because Marx-Engels did not foresee something or say something in their writings then logically this cannot happen or occur.

Well, not exactly. My point was really that you cannot legitimately derive a political theory about the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat from a starting point that they would have denied the possibility of existing.

If you want to argue that Lenin and his various political heirs created their versions of "socialism" in the context of material conditions completely different from what Marx and Engels saw as the foundations of communism, that's fair enough.

But I think Lenin, etc. were innovators...their theories have many parallels with Marxism but are not really Marxist.

Moreover, I have already conceded that, in particular, the Maoist variant "works" in backward countries...you really can overthrow imperialist domination and a colonial bourgeoisie/landed aristocracy in those countries.

But what you get is not really socialism or communism as Marx and Engels defined those terms.

In fact, what you have really accomplished is a bourgeois revolution by a rather tortured and twisting path...probably because imperialism makes the "direct path" impractical.

...imagine a "peasant" society where say 80% of the peasants do not "own", they farm. In fact they are in one sense of the term, because of the processes of commoditisation of production and differentiation within the peasantry, converted into labor completely alienated from the means of production. If you like we could say that here we have a proto-rural proletariat.

Very well. 80% seems a bit high, but not impossible. Is the suggestion then that a revolution made by such a group would be "proletarian"?

I don't know if a theoretical answer is possible, but the empirical answer would be immediately obvious: after the big landowners flee, what happens with the land? If it becomes collective property, that's at least "proto-proletarian". If it is divided up so that all the landless people get a share of it for themselves to own, use, sell and buy, etc., then it's clearly bourgeois.

Attempts to impose collective ownership at gunpoint don't count, by the way. The landless rural proletariat have to actually want a collective arrangement for it to be meaningful in a Marxist sense. (There have been a few cases of this historically...but no one knows if they would have endured.)

...what is a "peasant"? What is a peasant society? Don't you realise that in large parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, the peasant as a social category and the peasant "mode of production" is increasingly "under threat" (which is one thing that anti-globalization campaigners whine about amongst many others. As usual, completely missing the point)? Therefore, the peasant, peasant societies and peasant production systems are not static, unchanging categories (dialectics). So there were and are changes, processes of destruction, mutation and creation which are creating new forces and relations of production. Therefore, then our reading of Marx-Engel's would also have to take this into account.

Aside from the plug for "dialectics", I see nothing to argue with you about in this paragraph. But I don't see that any of those things turns peasants into communist revolutionaries in a material sense...though they may well find Maoism an attractive doctrine.

With one exception: young rebellious peasants often emigrate to the cities, determined to put peasant life behind them. They consciously "proletarianize" themselves...and may well embrace communist ideas as a part of that process.

...revolutions have a tendency to occur where the class contradictions have reached their level/plane of development. Ofcourse this is a simplification, and many other factors are also important. And this historically (past historical experience) and in the present, seem to be a tendency in the underdeveloped world. Witness, Colombia, Peru, India and Nepal today.

I'm unsure what you mean by "level/plane of development". I think of revolutions as a product of a social system coming into conflict with the material conditions of its own existence...it is simply unable to function any longer. People not only have the desire to be rid of it...but even its masters despair and begin to look forward to the end.

It's unarguable that this phemonenon has appeared and is appearing in the undeveloped countries around the world; even when "class peace" is re-established, within a generation or less, fresh uprisings break out. A rebellion is crushed here; a new one breaks out there.

But what is the real nature of these rebellions? I submit that these are really bourgeois revolutions...forced to be much more (temporarily) radical than they would otherwise be by the existence of imperialism. When they make one of their "socialist" revolutions, they do indeed temporarily break free from imperialism...but not for long. After a generation or two (or less), they find themselves drawn back into the international marketplace; the vanguard that administers the means of production begins to entertain ideas of owning those means of production; and so on.

We have seen this happen. Those who blame this on the individual "treachery" of this or that "leader" completely miss the point...these countries are undergoing the transition from feudalism (speaking loosely) to capitalism. There is nothing anyone could have done to change the outcome, IF Marx was right.

In fact we could say after WW2 and the historic "surrender" of the CP's who gave up their arms and joined the arena of liberal democratic competition, the working classes in Europe have not had the requisite revolutionary leadership.

That's not the main reason there has been no revolutionary uprising of the European proletariat or even the 50th reason. Post-World War II Europe has always been "rich" in Lenin-wannabes...the working class hasn't been interested.

I think we have to look at material conditions...the European proletariat went through a long period of "boom times", of steadily rising incomes, improved social services, etc. Historians can argue over exactly why this was possible...what is clear to me is that it is no longer possible.

I think (and, yes, I'm really going out on a limb here) that the deterioration in the living standards of the proletariat that Marx predicted...has begun. There are not going to be any more "good times"; there are not going to be any more "great reforms"; etc. Things are going to alternate between stagnation and...getting worse.

The attitude of the ruling class has turned quite grim...they seem to be waging the class struggle with real enthusiasm, both politically and economically.

New generations of young European workers are bound to respond to that...no matter how many times they've been told that Marx was a wanker.

At least, so it looks to me now.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

My primary argument was that Marx did say there was a transitional period between capitalism and communism.

I also argued as to what Marx said the nature of this transitional stage would be and Comrade RAF backed me up on that. I think that one of your statements shows you agree with the fundamental point of my argument:

That there will and must be a period of transition is obvious. That one way to "name" that period is "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is poor public relations but technically accurate.

[the SovieT]

ofcourse there is a transitional period between capitalism and communism..

in fact more than one, if you taki in consideration the need for state capitalism in some ocasions...

anyone with vague concepts of marxism (or bolchevism ;) ) would know that..

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 6 2003, 08:46 PM
ofcourse there is a transitional period between capitalism and communism..

in fact more than one, if you taki in consideration the need for state capitalism in some ocasions...

anyone with vague concepts of marxism (or bolchevism ;) ) would know that..
However comrade sovieT as "State Capitalism" is a myth created by Trots, the correct form of econominc policy wuld be value-based socialism.

[the SovieT]

whatever..

i am used to call it state capitalism..

still, whatever you decide to call it you agree that the "value-based socialism" is difrent from the original concept of socialism..

i like to call it a pre-socialism..

[Morpheus]

The idea of State-Capitalism was not coined by Trotskyists. Anarchists started calling Russia State-Capitalist in 1918. Trotsky never claimed the USSR was state-capitalist.

[redstar2000]

...the correct form of economic policy would be value-based socialism.

I'd like to focus on that: it sounds "innocent" but means a good deal more than some might think.

"Value-based socialism" means that the "law of value" prevails under all the Leninist models of socialism; that is, the exchange-value of commodities depends on the socially necessary labor-power required to make them.

There is no doubt of the accuracy of that description.

The question is: is such an economic form necessary in the transition from capitalism to communism? (Naturally, I'm speaking of advanced capitalist countries only.)

Or is it possible--even necessary--to proceed at once to the rapid elimination of the market, of money, and of exchange-values altogether?

I recognize that there can be legitimate differences of opinion concerning the rapidity of this transition--we have no way of knowing exactly what will be practical in the aftermath of proletarian revolution.

But I think the communist perspective is pretty clear and obvious: faster!

That is, we should be resolutely and militantly opposed to any attempt from any quarter to establish "value-based socialism" as any kind of quasi-permanent "stage" that needs to be "consolidated" before we can begin the transition to communism.

We begin the transition to communism at once. Any use of the market is a consciously-acknowledged temporary expedient that is planned for early extinction.

On this, there can be no "fooling around" or "weaseling"...the market and all that is associated with it is our deadly enemy.

If we do not destroy it, it will destroy us.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Trotsky never claimed the USSR was state-capitalist.

I think he wrote on "state capitalism" in "The Revolution Betrayed".

[Morpheus]

Yes, he criticized the theory that the USSR was state-capitalist. He instead argued that it was a "degenerate workers state."

[elijahcraig]

Trotskyists are all famous for their condemnation of USSR as "state capitalist", not really Trotsky himself. Tony Cliff for instance.

Here is what Trotsky said:

1.
State Capitalism
We often seek salvation from unfamiliar phenomena in familiar terms. An attempt has been made to conceal the enigma of the Soviet regime by calling it "state capitalism." This term has the advantage that nobody knows exactly what it means. The term "state capitalism" originally arose to designate all the phenomena which arise when a bourgeois state takes direct charge of the means of transport or of industrial enterprises. The very necessity of such measures is one of the signs that the productive forces have outgrown capitalism and are bringing it to a partial self-negation in practice. But the outworn system, along with its elements of self-negation, continues to exist as a capitalist system.

Theoretically, to be sure, it is possible to conceive a situation in which the bourgeoisie as a whole constitutes itself a stock company which, by means of its state, administers the whole national economy. The economic laws of such a regime would present no mysteries. A single capitalist, as is well known, receives in the form of profit, not that part of the surplus value which is directly created by the workers of his own enterprise, but a share of the combined surplus value created throughout the country proportionate to the amount of his own capital. Under an integral "state capitalism", this law of the equal rate of profit would be realized, not by devious routes—that is, competition among different capitals—but immediately and directly through state bookkeeping. Such a regime never existed, however, and, because of profound contradictions among the proprietors themselves, never will exist—the more so since, in its quality of universal repository of capitalist property, the state would be too tempting an object for social revolution.

During the war, and especially during the experiments in fascist economy, the term "state capitalism" has oftenest been understood to mean a system of state interference and regulation. The French employ a much more suitable term for this etatism. There are undoubtedly points of contact between state capitalism and "state-ism", but taken as systems they are opposite rather than identical. State capitalism means the substitution of state property for private property, and for that very reason remains partial in character. State-ism, no matter where in Italy, Mussolini, in Germany, Hitler, in America, Roosevelt, or in France, Leon Blum—means state intervention on the basis of private property, and with the goal of preserving it. Whatever be the programs of the government, stateism inevitably leads to a transfer of the damages of the decaying system from strong shoulders to weak. It "rescues" the small proprietor from complete ruin only to the extent that his existence is necessary for the preservation of big property. The planned measures of stateism are dictated not by the demands of a development of the productive forces, but by a concern for the preservation of private property at the expense of the productive forces, which are in revolt against it. State-ism means applying brakes to the development of technique, supporting unviable enterprises, perpetuating parasitic social strata. In a word, state-ism is completely reactionary in character.

The words of Mussolini: "Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state" (May 26, 1934), are not to be taken literally. The fascist state is not an owner of enterprises, but only an intermediary between their owners. These two things are not identical. “Popolo d’ltalia" says on this subject: "The corporative state directs and integrates the economy, but does not run it ("dirige e porta alla unita l’economia, ma non fa l’economia, non gestisce"), which, with a monopoly of production, would be nothing but collectivism." (June 11, 1986.) Toward the peasants and small proprietors in general, the fascist bureaucracy takes the attitude of a threatening lord and master. Toward the capitalist magnates, that of a first plenipotentiury. "The corporative state,” correctly writes the Italian Marxist, Feroci, "is nothing but the sales clerk of monopoly capital.... Mussolini takes upon the state the whole risk of the enterprises, leaving to the industrialists the profits of exploitation." And Hitler in this respect follows in the steps of Mussolini. The limits of the planning principle, as well as its real content, are determined by the class dependence of the fascist state. It is not a question of increasing the power of man over nature in the interests of society, but of exploiting society in the interests of the few. "If I desired," boasts Mussolini, "to establish in Italy—which really has not happened —state capitalism or state socialism, I should possess today all the necessary and adequate objective conditions." All except one: the expropriation of the class of capitalists. In order to realize this condition, fascism would have to go over to the other side of the barricades—“which really has not happened" to quote the hasty assurance of Mussolini, and, of course, will not happen. To expropriate the capitalists would require other forces, other cadres and other leaders.

The first concentration of the means of production in the hands of the state to occur in history was achieved by the proletariat with the method of social revolution, and not by capitalists with the method of state trustification. Our brief analysis is sufficient to show how absurd are the attempts to identify capitalist state-ism with the Soviet system. The former is reactionary, the latter progressive.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 01:00 AM
...the correct form of economic policy would be value-based socialism.

I'd like to focus on that: it sounds "innocent" but means a good deal more than some might think.

"Value-based socialism" means that the "law of value" prevails under all the Leninist models of socialism; that is, the exchange-value of commodities depends on the socially necessary labor-power required to make them.

There is no doubt of the accuracy of that description.

The question is: is such an economic form necessary in the transition from capitalism to communism? (Naturally, I'm speaking of advanced capitalist countries only.)

Or is it possible--even necessary--to proceed at once to the rapid elimination of the market, of money, and of exchange-values altogether?

I recognize that there can be legitimate differences of opinion concerning the rapidity of this transition--we have no way of knowing exactly what will be practical in the aftermath of proletarian revolution.

But I think the communist perspective is pretty clear and obvious: faster!

That is, we should be resolutely and militantly opposed to any attempt from any quarter to establish "value-based socialism" as any kind of quasi-permanent "stage" that needs to be "consolidated" before we can begin the transition to communism.

We begin the transition to communism at once. Any use of the market is a consciously-acknowledged temporary expedient that is planned for early extinction.

On this, there can be no "fooling around" or "weaseling"...the market and all that is associated with it is our deadly enemy.

If we do not destroy it, it will destroy us.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
I will have to disgree with you on this RS. Eliminating the transitional period will only create panic and chaos among the uneducated and politically immature masses. Socialism must be perfected in each and every environment prior to the evolution into communism.


SovieT,

What or who's concepts of socialism does a value based socialist economic platform violate?

[redstar2000]

Eliminating the transitional period will only create panic and chaos among the uneducated and politically immature masses. Socialism must be perfected in each and every environment prior to the evolution into communism.

Are the masses, who have just made a revolution with openly communist objectives, remember, so "uneducated" and "politically immature" as to "panic" at the prospect of enjoying the fruits of their labor?

Having harvested his crops, does a farmer "panic" at the thought of eating?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 03:32 AM
Trotskyists are all famous for their condemnation of USSR as "state capitalist", not really Trotsky himself. Tony Cliff for instance.
Some do that, but in doing so they contradict Trotsky and are basically ripping off Anarchist & Ultra-Left theory, both of whom were calling the USSR State-Capitalist almost from the day it was formed. Genuine followers of Trotsky don't consider the USSR state-capitalist since Trotsky himself was strongly opposed to this theory - those who do believe in this theory are revisionist Trotskyists or not Trotskyist at all. See "The Marxist-Humanist Theory of State-Capitalism" by Raya Dunayevskaya for a Marxist refutation of Trotsky's view of the USSR as a "degenerate workers state" and not state-capitalist.

[elijahcraig]

Some do that, but in doing so they contradict Trotsky and are basically ripping off Anarchist & Ultra-Left theory, both of whom were calling the USSR State-Capitalist almost from the day it was formed. Genuine followers of Trotsky don't consider the USSR state-capitalist since Trotsky himself was strongly opposed to this theory - those who do believe in this theory are revisionist Trotskyists or not Trotskyist at all. See "The Marxist-Humanist Theory of State-Capitalism" by Raya Dunayevskaya for a Marxist refutation of Trotsky's view of the USSR as a "degenerate workers state" and not state-capitalist.

Great! The Anarchists win the "Stupidest Utopian Fucks Award". :lol:

[the SovieT]

"What or who's concepts of socialism does a value based socialist economic platform violate? "

well i dont think it actually "violates" any..
correct me if i am wrong, but by socialism, economicly, one understands the peasent control of the lands, and the workers direct control of the ways of production..
wile in value based socialism the state controls the ways of production..

i think that value based socialism should only be used on early stages of the socialist life of any country (or union of nations)..

[redstar2000]

Great! The Anarchists win the "Stupidest Utopian Fucks Award".

In what way does this kind of remark assist this discussion?

Suppose an anarchist said "Great! The Stalinists win the 'Stupidest Totalitarian Fucks Award'."

Would you regard that as a constructive comment?

I think you should speak to the political questions...if you can demonstrate that a particular anarchist position is "utopian", fine.

That doesn't mean that they're "fucks".

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

In what way does this kind of remark assist this discussion?

Suppose an anarchist said "Great! The Stalinists win the 'Stupidest Totalitarian Fucks Award'."

Would you regard that as a constructive comment?

I think you should speak to the political questions...if you can demonstrate that a particular anarchist position is "utopian", fine.

That doesn't mean that they're "fucks".

An inevitable attribute of getting old redstar is the inability to pick up on sarcasm.

I think all Marxist-Leninists agree that anarchists are utopian.

[redstar2000]

I think all Marxist-Leninists agree that anarchists are utopian.

Well, that's nice. So what?

If it was your wish to simply echo a Leninist prejudice, you probably could have saved yourself the trouble...it's fairly common knowledge, after all.

And it still doesn't make them "fucks".

By the way, I also suggest that you refrain from playing "the age card" (although, admittedly, RAF does it all the time...to his discredit). I've never criticized anyone's views on the basis of their youth...and, as you might imagine, don't particularly appreciate disparaging comments regarding my age.

The validity of political ideas does not depend on the date on the birth certificate of the proponent. Young people can be right or wrong, as can middle-aged people and old people.

I appeal to you once more: make political criticisms, if you can. In this forum, there's nothing to be gained by anything less.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Well, that's nice. So what?

If it was your wish to simply echo a Leninist prejudice, you probably could have saved yourself the trouble...it's fairly common knowledge, after all.

Jokes and sarcasm, apparently you're new to the concept.


And it still doesn't make them "fucks".

What's so bad about being a fuck?


By the way, I also suggest that you refrain from playing "the age card" (although, admittedly, RAF does it all the time...to his discredit). I've never criticized anyone's views on the basis of their youth...and, as you might imagine, don't particularly appreciate disparaging comments regarding my age.

Stop complaining. You have leverage over everyone because you're older. It's an asset.


The validity of political ideas does not depend on the date on the birth certificate of the proponent. Young people can be right or wrong, as can middle-aged people and old people.

Well, I guess so. Although knowledge usually progresses as age does.


I appeal to you once more: make political criticisms, if you can. In this forum, there's nothing to be gained by anything less.

I quoted Trotsky on the state capitalism subject. I had been debating. One sarcastic comment doesn't destroy the whole thread. Understand Grandpa?

[redstar2000]

What's so bad about being a fuck?

In light of your response, evidently not much!

Here's looking at you, kid.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 12:13 PM
Eliminating the transitional period will only create panic and chaos among the uneducated and politically immature masses. Socialism must be perfected in each and every environment prior to the evolution into communism.

Are the masses, who have just made a revolution with openly communist objectives, remember, so "uneducated" and "politically immature" as to "panic" at the prospect of enjoying the fruits of their labor?

Having harvested his crops, does a farmer "panic" at the thought of eating?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Not at all my friend. They will eat and eat and eat until they are fat and happy. Or until they realise that someone is now going to have to supply them with all the free things to eat. At this point their relative immaturity will manifest in chaos as they will have no specific direction to go.


You remember that old saying about teaching a man to fish rather than simply feeding him yes? Well someone has to not only teach the masses how to fish but they also must make the rods in order to fish with!

My Italian comrades call this post revolution phenomenon "mange, mange"

[redstar2000]

They will eat and eat and eat until they are fat and happy. Or until they realise that someone is now going to have to supply them with all the free things to eat. At this point their relative immaturity will manifest in chaos as they will have no specific direction to go.

This seems to me to be a mystical argument...that is, it makes an assertion that is not only without evidence but without the possibility of evidence.

Granted therefore that either of us might be right, what should be the communist hypothesis?

Should we follow the historical assumptions of class society and base our strategy on the "generally accepted consensus" that the masses are "unfit" to govern themselves and "need" an "enlightened" despotism "for their own good"? This, of course, is Leninist doctrine.

Or should we communists "bet" on the working masses who have just overthrown the capitalist order? Should we be prepared to accept whatever "chaos" might initially ensue (and there will certainly be some...perhaps quite a bit for a few weeks or months) in order that the masses themselves may decide the shape of the new classless society?

After all, there would be nothing stopping us or anyone from organizing "pockets of order" as appropriate...getting trash picked up, arranging food supplies, getting the electricity back on, etc.

People in fact have done these kinds of things in revolutionary situations "instinctively"--they did not require an "official vanguard" to do them.

Is there any real reason to believe--aside from the historical traditions of class society--that these pockets of order will not spread to the point where classless society fully exists? No doubt it would still be "disorderly" from a capitalist outlook--lots of meetings and arguments, low "productivity", a complete lack of "respect" for the authority of property and superstition, etc.

It strikes me that the appeal of Leninism to you (as well as your seeming fascination with "the dictatorship of the proletariat" phrase) is that you are still convinced that the working masses are "sheep" that need to be "herded"

That's wrong!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[rcpnz]

As a member of the SPGB, of which Sandinista is an applicant for membership, I find it necesarry to correct the error he has made.

I quote the first letter in this topic, which is a reply by "Chairman Mao to
our applicant:

"Marx did NOT say there was a transitional stage between capitalism and communism, it was trotsky who argued that in underdeveloped countries like russia and the third world there had to be a period of industrialisation before said region could become communist, however this had been refuted on several occassions by the SPBG.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM IT MEANS THE SAME THING, GET ANY OTHER IDEAS OUT OF YOUR HEAD PLEASE.
(Sandinista)"



Mao replies:

Interesting... Anyway, I put this in theory because it is appropriate for this forum.

'Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.'
[Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, pp. 32-33.]

'This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.'
[Marx, "The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 1, p. 223.]

"the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat".
["Marx to J. Wedemeyer, March 5, 1852", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 452.]

Marx didn't talk of socialism, but rather a first phase of communism known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin used the word socialism to decribe the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I am not at all clear on what you are talking about. But certainly;
'political transition period'
'class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally'
. I can not see how this is coherent along side your 'Marx did NOT say there was a transitional stage between capitalism and communism'. "

MY COMMENT:

ON SANDINISTA:

Sandinista has made an error here. The SPGB has never stated that Marx said that there was no transitional period between capitalism and Socialism.

His attack on Trotzky is rather odd. Because Marx said something quite similar to what he says Trotzky said:
"No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient,[A] feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence — but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation."
(Critique Of Political Economy).

Marxists believe in the process of social evolution. This means that society progresses throughout history. From primitive communism, we get chattel slavery. From that we get feudalism. From that we get capitalis, and finally back to what Engels called a "higher plane" of communism.

This process is called the negation of the negation. Communal society is replaced by private property society, and eventually it returns to a form of communal society.

Capitalism is the last stage of the first negation(that of private property), and in order to get Socialism, you have to have passed through capitalism first, and capitalism must have outgrown its social usefulness and must have turned into a reactionary system.

As I have statd Marx and Engels believed there was a transition between capitalism and Socialism. The socialist argument against a period of economic transition is that the productive forces for Socialism have already developed under capitalism. We do not deny the need for a political transition(see our website article, in the 'polemic' section on 'Socialism and the State', www.spgb.org.uk).

ON CHAIRMAN MAO:

These quotes prove Sandinista's contention to be erroneous. An idea would to be read the 1891 Preface to the Civil War In France, which contains more of the same, but more specific.

"Marx did say there was a transition period between capitalism and communism known as the dictatorship of the proletariat". This is erroneous. It is in the political period of transition that would conventionally correspond to the economic transition that THE STATE would be the REVOLUTIONARY DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.(Sorry if you think this is pedantry, but I can't be lenient on people).

Apart from that little bit, everything is fine.

SANDINISTA, sorry I did not simply send this to your e-mail, but I lost your
e-mail address. I hope these comments help.

[Saint-Just]

I'm very tired, but in my view:

'Marx did say there was a transition period between capitalism and communism known as the dictatorship of the proletariat'

is precisely the same as:

'It is in the political period of transition that would conventionally correspond to the economic transition that THE STATE would be the REVOLUTIONARY DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.'

You cite the economic transition, as do I. And we both say that there is a transition (you specify that it is political whilst I make the assumption that it is a political transition) corresponding to this. I say it is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' whilst you call it the 'revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat'.

Are you simply giving a more accurate version of what I said? I would then agree, but you called my statements erroneous.


Also, rcpnz, do I happen to know you from somewhere else? since you sound very familiar.

[rcpnz]

What do you mean it is the same? It is not. There are two forms of the period of transition, the economic and the political. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the state in the political transition. It is not 'the transition'.

I didn't mean that it was necesarrily erroneous, but simply that the way you were wording it was misleading, and that if you were to say that on the platform, I could say it was erroneous. Words are the only weapons of the working class at this point. We have no armed forces. We must use our weapons wisely.

Yes, we have met over the internet in discussion a couple of times. You are observant of people's writing styles I can see.

[Vinny Rafarino]

This seems to me to be a mystical argument...that is, it makes an assertion that is not only without evidence but without the possibility of evidence.

Funny, I say the same thing about your "ingenius" plans. Finding human behaviour en messe predictable as I do, I can confidently say that you are wrong. Give the masses freedom from capitalist oppression without some sort of leadership and you will get panic. You will get the masses taking more than they need simply because they are making up for having so little for so long. The will for yearslive in fear that capitalism will "strike back" and attempt to take back everything they now possess. The human psyche is simple once you understand that the majority of the global population are about a sharp as marbles. They will follow predictable paths. You are blinded by your love of the proletariat Redstar.

As much as you may not like to hear it RS, it is indeed fact.

Some quick advice my friend never bet on people doing whats "right". What you can bet on is this;

People will always do what is in their own best interest.



People in fact have done these kinds of things in revolutionary situations "instinctively"--they did not require an "official vanguard" to do them.

Is there any real reason to believe--aside from the historical traditions of class society--that these pockets of order will not spread to the point where classless society fully exists? No doubt it would still be "disorderly" from a capitalist outlook--lots of meetings and arguments, low "productivity", a complete lack of "respect" for the authority of property and superstition, etc.

It strikes me that the appeal of Leninism to you (as well as your seeming fascination with "the dictatorship of the proletariat" phrase) is that you are still convinced that the working masses are "sheep" that need to be "herded"

That's wrong!


Prove it.

[elijahcraig]

I have to agree with comrade RAF. The masses are no more "enlightened" as to their position than before. The occasional break through (hey, that's me!), but for the most part...no. RedStar is overestimating the proletariat in his, I'm sure sincere, want for it to be the way he describes. But, in reality, it is not so. I don't know one worker who would think of revolting against the guards. Not one. Only men who sit in the living room, drink beer, and watch sports games. And women who cook, clean, and serve the household. There are only exceptions when this is not true, and these exceptions make up the vanguard. Most people are, in reality, sheep. Period. There have been hits against it...but if you step out of the house at all and walk around, look at people, try to talk with people...they are sheep. Conformists completely. It will always be this way. The ones who are militant and enlightened as to their position can guide the way for the "as sharp as a marble" rest. Period.

[rcpnz]

Elijah Craig: "I have to agree with comrade RAF...Most people are, in reality, sheep."

Red Star: "It strikes me that the appeal of Leninism to you (as well as your seeming fascination with "the dictatorship of the proletariat" phrase) is that you are still convinced that the working masses are "sheep" that need to be "herded"

That's wrong!"

Comrade RAF: "Prove it. "

Elijah Craig claims to agree with RAF, but then says that he believes that the working class are 'sheep'. RAF claims he does not agree with this, as subtly implied by his request to Red Star, 'prove it'.

How can you claim to agree with someone, then argue against what they are saying?

A bit like this Socialist Worker Party pamphlet I was reading for research for a lecture. Callincos and Foot(1984, and 1991 respectively), claimed that the Labour Party was formerly a reformist, but 'socialist' party. Then Blackie, (SWP 1991), says that the Labour Party was never socialist.

And they are all members of the same party. It's like being in the ICC and being a council-communist.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 11:07 PM
What do you mean it is the same? It is not. There are two forms of the period of transition, the economic and the political. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the state in the political transition. It is not 'the transition'.

I didn't mean that it was necesarrily erroneous, but simply that the way you were wording it was misleading, and that if you were to say that on the platform, I could say it was erroneous. Words are the only weapons of the working class at this point. We have no armed forces. We must use our weapons wisely.

Yes, we have met over the internet in discussion a couple of times. You are observant of people's writing styles I can see.
I see, it is a misunderstanding then. Redstar2000 and I already discussed political and economic transition. I have knowledge of the difference between politics and economics. What I wrote was misleading, but not particularly in my opinion.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 12:28 AM
Sometimes these kinds of discussions can get a little bit...well, theological.
[snip]
For example, there is no possibility that the Leninist-Stalinist or the Maoist state can be "theoretically justified" by anything Marx or Engels ever said...simply because they would have flatly denied the possibility of communist revolution in those (or any) backward, almost pre-capitalist countries. A small, weak, and culturally underdeveloped proletariat cannot make a communist revolution in a predominately peasant country, period.
[more snip]
On the first, sure, but what relevance does that have here? Sandinista made an inaccurate statement about Marx's ideas, and Chairman Mao pointed out what Marx actually said. If one takes those ideas out of historical context, they can easily become a Bible, yes, but as I'm about to show you are the one doing that here.

On the second, it's a common misconception. For some reason, nobody every notices that the Communist Manifesto anticipates revolution occurring first not in England, the most developed country, or in France, but in Germany. In 1848, Germany was not a highly industrialized country. The League of the Just was more based among artisans than anything. I'd guess that a majority of the country was peasants.

However, the Manifesto says that the democratic revolution there will be the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution. Essentially relates to the idea that the bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class, even in relation to feudalism, and only the working class can carry through the revolution even in backward countries.

This creates huge post-revolution problems, of course, which can only be completely solved if the revolution spreads to other countries. But a revolution doesn't wait until someone can guarantee that everything will be fine post-revolution. It breaks out when conditions dictate, not when you want it to.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 5 2003, 02:33 PM
Marx didn't talk of socialism, but rather a first phase of communism known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin used the word socialism to decribe the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Actually, I think you're combining a couple different stages as well. The dictatorship of the proletariat comes before "the first phase of communism" or socialism as Lenin called it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

If you tanslate Marx's words exactly as written, you will find he calls for revolution. Then the "Ruling" class dictatorship of the proletariat. Then the abolution of the State.

Call the transitional period "the era brought to you by Bud Lite" for all I care...It is what it is.

[redstar2000]

For some reason, nobody ever notices that the Communist Manifesto anticipates revolution occurring first not in England, the most developed country, or in France, but in Germany. In 1848, Germany was not a highly industrialized country. The League of the Just was more based among artisans than anything. I'd guess that a majority of the country was peasants.

However, the Manifesto says that the democratic revolution there will be the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution. Essentially relates to the idea that the bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class, even in relation to feudalism, and only the working class can carry through the revolution even in backward countries.

Quite right...the reason no one "notices" is that it turned out to be an embarrassingly wrong prediction.

Marx and Engels, being optimistic, "predicted" revolutions on a number of occasions that never materialized...or took a form completely different from what they anticipated.

I don't think they grasped the idea that there is no way to "predict" the future in useful detail.

And even on those occasions when they "got it right", the time-scale was way off; Engels was predicting a 1789 (a bourgeois revolution) in Russia in the 1870s...nearly a half-century before it materialized.

The hypothesis that the bourgeoisie are no longer a "revolutionary class" and require the assistance of the proletariat to make a bourgeois revolution is almost certainly valid. In fact, in 20th century bourgeois revolutions, a revolutionary peasantry has been even more important.

The hypothesis that such revolutions can quickly "move on" into the realm of proletarian revolution has been falsified. There was the appearance of proletarian revolution in Russia, China, Yugoslavia, etc....but genuine proletarian rule was sporadic, brief, and ultimately a failure. Neither the material conditions nor the consciousness of the proletariat were ripe for that kind of transition; after a winding and twisting path, all of those countries ended up exactly where a Marxist analysis would have predicted: capitalism.

Finding human behaviour en messe predictable as I do, I can confidently say that you are wrong. Give the masses freedom from capitalist oppression without some sort of leadership and you will get panic. You will get the masses taking more than they need simply because they are making up for having so little for so long. They will for years live in fear that capitalism will "strike back" and attempt to take back everything they now possess. The human psyche is simple once you understand that the majority of the global population are about a sharp as marbles. They will follow predictable paths.

Whenever I read stuff like this, I'm always struck by how much it resembles the fascist view of "human nature". Most lefties have probably never read much fascist material; I may be the only person on this board who has actually read Mein Kampf. There is a longish section in it where Hitler talks about the "masses"...their limited capacity for understanding abstract thought, their "need" for simple slogans and a black-and-white world-view, their "longing" for a strong leader to submit to, and so on.

It seems to me that if this view of the "human psyche" were accurate, then the choice between fascism or (Leninist) socialism would boil down to a matter of taste.

If most humans deserve a dictatorship, then it only remains to decide which kind of dictatorship is "more benevolent" in your own eyes.

Indeed, you might "legitimately" decide that present-day capitalism is preferable to either (as long as you live in a "first-world" country). Is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie really so bad? Remembering, now, that in this view of the "human psyche", dictatorship of some kind is "inevitable".

Can I "prove" that this is an erroneous assumption? Of course not. But there is an indirect proof available: if RAF's assumption were correct, then all talk of communism would be an absurdity. The rest of human history would be nothing but a succession of dictatorships, some "better", some "worse". Any kind of political activity that wasn't directly careerist would be utterly pointless. Forget Marx; study Machiavelli.

I think there is fragmentary evidence (gathered during revolutionary periods) that this Leninist view of "the human psyche" is, in fact, wrong. But that's not "proof".

At this point in history, it remains an "open question". How you choose to answer it will determine what kind of revolution you will advocate or support.

I must say, however, that if you really think the masses are "sheep"...then fascism is your logical choice.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Elijah Craig: "I have to agree with comrade RAF...Most people are, in reality, sheep."

Red Star: "It strikes me that the appeal of Leninism to you (as well as your seeming fascination with "the dictatorship of the proletariat" phrase) is that you are still convinced that the working masses are "sheep" that need to be "herded"

That's wrong!"

Comrade RAF: "Prove it. "

Elijah Craig claims to agree with RAF, but then says that he believes that the working class are 'sheep'. RAF claims he does not agree with this, as subtly implied by his request to Red Star, 'prove it'.

How can you claim to agree with someone, then argue against what they are saying?

RAF was asking RedStar to "prove" that the workers were not to be "herded". I use less harsh words, but I agree that they need to be "herded".



Whenever I read stuff like this, I'm always struck by how much it resembles the fascist view of "human nature". Most lefties have probably never read much fascist material; I may be the only person on this board who has actually read Mein Kampf. There is a longish section in it where Hitler talks about the "masses"...their limited capacity for understanding abstract thought, their "need" for simple slogans and a black-and-white world-view, their "longing" for a strong leader to submit to, and so on.

This is from the Manifesto, it is my view on Communist vanguard. I interpret it as that:

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.


It seems to me that if this view of the "human psyche" were accurate, then the choice between fascism or (Leninist) socialism would boil down to a matter of taste.

For your age you really are immature. Shouting "fascist" is the pastime of rage against the machine fans.


If most humans deserve a dictatorship, then it only remains to decide which kind of dictatorship is "more benevolent" in your own eyes.

I don't see it that way. The party is made up of the most "advanced" and militant workers who understand their position in class society.


Indeed, you might "legitimately" decide that present-day capitalism is preferable to either (as long as you live in a "first-world" country). Is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie really so bad? Remembering, now, that in this view of the "human psyche", dictatorship of some kind is "inevitable".

This is just getting pathetic redstar.


Can I "prove" that this is an erroneous assumption? Of course not. But there is an indirect proof available: if RAF's assumption were correct, then all talk of communism would be an absurdity. The rest of human history would be nothing but a succession of dictatorships, some "better", some "worse". Any kind of political activity that wasn't directly careerist would be utterly pointless. Forget Marx; study Machiavelli.

Etc etc etc, I disagree. See above comments.


I think there is fragmentary evidence (gathered during revolutionary periods) that this Leninist view of "the human psyche" is, in fact, wrong. But that's not "proof".


At this point in history, it remains an "open question". How you choose to answer it will determine what kind of revolution you will advocate or support.


I must say, however, that if you really think the masses are "sheep"...then fascism is your logical choice.

No, use of the word "sheep" is an accurate description. Do you really think they don't "follow in line to the slaughter"? Do they not also "follow in line to the meadows"? The answer is yes, they do. And your out-of-touch-with-reality "fascist" accusations are just pathetic.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I find your use of comparing ME of all people to a fascist to be an utterly innane way of skirting the issue while attempting to sway popular opinion in your direction by the use of these "unique perspectives" and propagandic slander.

I don't buy it for a second Redstar old chap.


Perhaps you may be able to double talk you way around some 16 year old kids that would rather run away then confront your "pretty posts" but I am not one of them. I see right through you RS. I know what your attempting to do. I knew you were going to post this garbled bit of nonsense before you even though of doing it.

Perhaps one day you may actually hold a logical debate without pretenting to be the big, dramatic "victim" or without such nonsensical posts such as these. I revel in the fact that you would rather compare me to a fascist rather than confront me. I derive much pleasure out of knowing you simply have no bottle left in your archaic ideals.

My view of the human psyche has nothing to do with Lenin. My view of the human psyche has everything to do with genetic human behaviour. Perhaps a class in evolutionary psychology or even sociology will help you to understand. I am happ with the fact that your behaviour in this matter suited perfectly the model I have created for you.

I'm on to you Redstar. You can't change your genetic disposition mate. You are in my pocket.


Let me guess, your next post was going to be filled with a tirade containing lots of statements such as these;

"If these theories prove to be correct" and "Perhaps he could be right, Who's to tell....."

Followed by a closing remark such as;

"I for one am not willing to find out!"

At this point you will light a cigarette, lean back in you chair and admire your handywork with a nice feeling of accomplishment. Perhaps even sigh and chuckle as you blow out your smoke.

You're in my pocket. How does it feel?

[redstar2000]

My view of the human psyche has everything to do with genetic human behaviour. Perhaps a class in evolutionary psychology or even sociology will help you to understand.

Wow, RAF, you are really wallowing in it now. Evolutionary psychology? You mean what used to be called evolutionary biology? And what was called socio-biology before that? And what was called social-Darwinism and racial science before that?

You mean that wretched pseudo-science that has to be re-branded every generation?

You mean that fraudulent superstition that has always "proved" that existing elites are "truly superior"?

And this is your "proof"?

Frankly, I think Lenin would find both you and elijahcraig to be an embarrassment.

You are both a lot closer to fascism than you realize.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 03:14 AM
My view of the human psyche has everything to do with genetic human behaviour. Perhaps a class in evolutionary psychology or even sociology will help you to understand.

Wow, RAF, you are really wallowing in it now. Evolutionary psychology? You mean what used to be called evolutionary biology? And what was called socio-biology before that? And what was called social-Darwinism and racial science before that?

You mean that wretched pseudo-science that has to be re-branded every generation?

You mean that fraudulent superstition that has always "proved" that existing elites are "truly superior"?

And this is your "proof"?

Frankly, I think Lenin would find both you and elijahcraig to be an embarrassment.

You are both a lot closer to fascism than you realize.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
How was that cigarette?


Thanks for proving my point RS.

[elijahcraig]

RS called me a fascist, oh no, I don't know what I'll do now.

:lol:

[redstar2000]

RS called me a fascist, oh no, I don't know what I'll do now.

No, I didn't call either of you fascists. Stop whining.

What I pointed out was the striking parallel between your views of "human nature" and the fascist view...do either of you wish to deny it? On what grounds?

As to what you should do, I recommend a reappraisal of your position.

But I'm not holding my breath.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I never mentioned "human nature", so I won't go into that. Whining? OMG. Old men, tisk tisk tisk, you have to always make sure they don't say anything stupid when you're in public. :lol:

I see nothing between my ideology and fascism, sorry. I have quoted the Manifesto, and that is how I feel. It is very clear.


The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

That means vanguard to me.

[redstar2000]

I never mentioned "human nature", so I won't go into that.

Usually, it's old guys like me that have problems with short-term memory. But since we know that some Leninists have an extraordinarily casual attitude towards history, I guess it's not surprising that you conveniently forgot your own words.

Here's what you wrote...

Most people are, in reality, sheep. Period. There have been hits against it...but if you step out of the house at all and walk around, look at people, try to talk with people...they are sheep. Conformists completely. It will always be this way. The ones who are militant and enlightened as to their position can guide the way for the "as sharp as a marble" rest. Period.

Now tell me how your view of "human nature" doesn't imply permanent dictatorship?

And then tell me how this differs from the fascist view of "human nature"?

Of course, I'm not suggesting that either you or RAF endorse racist or anti-semitic views or that either of you are planning genocide. That's why I didn't "call" either of you fascists.

But there is a crucial parallel there...and neither of you have refuted that. The most you can come up with is a promise to be "benevolent dictators".

Why should we believe you?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I never mentioned "human nature", so I won't go into that.

Usually, it's old guys like me that have problems with short-term memory. But since we know that some Leninists have an extraordinarily casual attitude towards history, I guess it's not surprising that you conveniently forgot your own words.

Here's what you wrote...

Most people are, in reality, sheep. Period. There have been hits against it...but if you step out of the house at all and walk around, look at people, try to talk with people...they are sheep. Conformists completely. It will always be this way. The ones who are militant and enlightened as to their position can guide the way for the "as sharp as a marble" rest. Period.

Now tell me how your view of "human nature" doesn't imply permanent dictatorship?

I was referring to under the capitalist system when I said "always", we were debating whether they would ever ALL come around and form a proletariat revolution without leadership. I say no.


And then tell me how this differs from the fascist view of "human nature"?

I have no view of "permanent human nature", only such under capitalism.


Of course, I'm not suggesting that either you or RAF endorse racist or anti-semitic views or that either of you are planning genocide. That's why I didn't "call" either of you fascists.

:lol:


But there is a crucial parallel there...and neither of you have refuted that. The most you can come up with is a promise to be "benevolent dictators".

Dictators? Nowhere have I mentioned dictators, or even a ruling class. I have mentioned the party as the outlet of the people. No dictators.


Why should we believe you?

I'm not sure what you mean...I have done none of the things you assert.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 01:42 AM
For some reason, nobody ever notices that the Communist Manifesto anticipates revolution occurring first not in England, the most developed country, or in France, but in Germany. In 1848, Germany was not a highly industrialized country. The League of the Just was more based among artisans than anything. I'd guess that a majority of the country was peasants.

However, the Manifesto says that the democratic revolution there will be the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution. Essentially relates to the idea that the bourgeoisie is no longer a revolutionary class, even in relation to feudalism, and only the working class can carry through the revolution even in backward countries.

Quite right...the reason no one "notices" is that it turned out to be an embarrassingly wrong prediction.
Oh. And here I thought a revolution did, in fact, break out in Germany in 1848, just a few months after the Communist Manifesto was written. And I also thought that the experience of that revolution sheds a lot of light on the relationship between the democratic revolution and the proletarian revolution, including in economically underdeveloped countries that haven't had bourgeois-democratic revolutions, which is the subject at hand.

But RS informs us that no such revolution occurred, and Marx and Engels were "embarassingly" wrong. Thanks for clearing that up, RS. Your knowledge of the history of the working-class movement, and the valuable lessons bought by blood in the course of struggle, is an inspiration for us all.

[redstar2000]

And here I thought a revolution did, in fact, break out in Germany in 1848, just a few months after the Communist Manifesto was written. And I also thought that the experience of that revolution sheds a lot of light on the relationship between the democratic revolution and the proletarian revolution, including in economically underdeveloped countries that haven't had bourgeois-democratic revolutions, which is the subject at hand.

Well, if you wish to dignify the German events of 1848 with the title of "revolution", be my guest. Who was overthrown, anyway? As I recall, the King of Prussia ran things before it started and was still running things after it was over.

The French, on the other hand, actually did manage to overthrow their monarch...only to have him replaced by Napoleon III a few years later. The Hungarians also mounted a significant rebellion...crushed by Czarist troops "on loan" to the emperor of Austria. And, if memory serves me, there was a brief rebellion in the city of Rome...against the pope.

Anything else?

If any light was shed "on the relationship between the democratic revolution and the proletarian revolution"...it escapes me. I'm assuming what you're calling "the democratic revolution" is actually the bourgeois revolution...and, as things turned out, the bourgeoisie were too weak to take power and the proletariat not strong enough to make them do it or, as in 1917, to make a bourgeois revolution "in the name of the proletariat".

Anything else?

Your knowledge of the history of the working-class movement, and the valuable lessons bought by blood in the course of struggle, is an inspiration for us all.

Isn't it curious how you (and some others) appear to be fascinated by blood? In a way, it kind of reminds of the f*****ts, who also thought blood was very important.

I was referring to under the capitalist system when I said "always", we were debating whether they would ever ALL come around and form a proletariat revolution without leadership. I say no.

So, under the capitalist system, the overwhelming majority of the working class will "always be sheep" who need a "good shepherd"...you!

Is it reasonable to assume that a "shepherd" functions as a dictator with regard to sheep? Shepherds don't poll the sheep on their preferences, do they? Shepherds don't accept criticism from sheep, do they? In fact, shepherds have dogs that are trained to bite rebellious sheep, don't they?

But, I can hear you saying, "good shepherds look after the well-being of their flocks". Of course, they do...until it's time to eat one.

Somehow, I just don't picture you as a vegetarian. :lol:

But I do picture you as a minor official in a Leninist bureaucratic dictatorship, smug in your conviction of superiority to ordinary working people, kissing the ass of your party superiors and demanding that your ass be kissed by your "inferiors", and, as you get older, not unwilling to accept a bribe now and then.

Of course, you're "not like that" now...it takes a decade or two for corruption to do its work. But there's little reasonable doubt that you will follow in that path...you could call it "Shepherd's Road".

You have the right "mind-set"--you want to "guide" people (give orders) "because" people "need" to be "guided".

The f*****ts also thought that people "needed" to be "guided".

They were wrong. So are you!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

I agree with elijahcraig. Under capitalism the vast masses of people have a sheepish nature. However, over time certain aspects of human nature change, those aspects which are gained from society.

These are some quotes from Kim Jong Il:

reactionary bourgeois ideas reduce them to servants who obey the
domination of capital, to ideological and mental cripples...

...[Where]oppression and capital hold sway – the masses’ consciousness
of their independence is suppressed. [By] falsehood and deception,
imperialists and reactionaries benumb the masses’ uncorrupted minds….
This is the very ideological suppression which stops the development
of people’s consciousness of their independence. It is criminal
ideological indoctrination, which forces reactionary ideas on
people...

...Only then[Under socialism] can they free themselves once and for all
from the influence and shackles of all kinds of outmoded ideas…. Only
then can everyone develop his individuality, aspirations, wisdom and
talent in an all-round way. Because it is the most revolutionary
ideology and champions and realizes the masses independence,
socialist ideology serves as a weapon for genuine ideological and
human emancipation. It ensures the unlimited development of people’s
ideologies and mental qualities. Socialist ideology is the sum total
of the development of human ideas.'

[elijahcraig]

I was referring to under the capitalist system when I said "always", we were debating whether they would ever ALL come around and form a proletariat revolution without leadership. I say no.

So, under the capitalist system, the overwhelming majority of the working class will "always be sheep" who need a "good shepherd"...you!

DID YOU READ THE QUOTE FROM THE MANIFESTO I POSTED??? Are you going to continue along this ignorant line of "oh, you'll be da leader.hehehe"? It's pathetic. My views are expressed specifically in that quote.


Is it reasonable to assume that a "shepherd" functions as a dictator with regard to sheep? Shepherds don't poll the sheep on their preferences, do they? Shepherds don't accept criticism from sheep, do they? In fact, shepherds have dogs that are trained to bite rebellious sheep, don't they?

Ronald Reagan's the all-time favorite president of the American people, now that's a poll which will prove the "sheep theory".

And the "dogs"..."sheep"..."dictators" bullshit is unbelievably cliche RS.


But, I can hear you saying, "good shepherds look after the well-being of their flocks". Of course, they do...until it's time to eat one.

I turn the sheep into wolves and we destroy the pigs.


Somehow, I just don't picture you as a vegetarian.




But I do picture you as a minor official in a Leninist bureaucratic dictatorship, smug in your conviction of superiority to ordinary working people, kissing the ass of your party superiors and demanding that your ass be kissed by your "inferiors", and, as you get older, not unwilling to accept a bribe now and then.

God, that's just pathetic RS. You are so cliche! Come up with something better than this rubbish! I would NEVER do such things!


Of course, you're "not like that" now...it takes a decade or two for corruption to do its work. But there's little reasonable doubt that you will follow in that path...you could call it "Shepherd's Road".

???

etc

???


You have the right "mind-set"--you want to "guide" people (give orders) "because" people "need" to be "guided".

No, I don't want to "give orders", I want to "open minds" to the possibilities of communism.


The f*****ts also thought that people "needed" to be "guided".

So, now you're saying the masses don't "need" to be helped, even if YOU are of the masses??? What do you want??? Spontaneous working class solidarity and enlightenment??? If that's the case, you are an idiot.


They were wrong. So are you!

Wow, you've certainly done anther twist-job on me and wound up with the last "death sentence" of a paragraph. Smoke? You're pathetic.

[redstar2000]

Ronald Reagan's the all-time favorite president of the American people, now that's a poll which will prove the "sheep theory".

If these sentiments, absurd as they are, were actually true, then how would you explain rebellion at all?

Rebellion, after all, is a constant feature of class society...even in the complete absence of your precious "vanguard". It takes hundreds or thousands of forms, it is usually very limited, granted all that...nevertheless, it does take place. Even in the fortress of world reaction--the United States--and even in its moments of imperial triumph, there are still tiny sparks of rebellion here and there.

What gives your "analysis"--the "sheep" theory--a superficial plausibility is the fact that we currently live in a period of reaction. The working classes are widely demoralized and many of them have placed their hopes in the triumph of empire. Most working people must at least pretend to be servile in order to keep their jobs and stay alive.

You simply assume that it will always be like that "unless" a vanguard on a white horse comes to the rescue. You!

The common Leninist interpretation of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is a dictatorship of the party, and especially of its leadership...all "for the proletariat's own good,of course".

Chairman Mao understands this. Comrade RAF understands this. Why don't you understand it?

You take refuge in a quote from The Communist Manifesto that I have no problem with at all...who would argue that some people are more resolute than others or that some people understand the long-term goal better than others?

How does any of that confer the "right" to give orders? And why do you keep pretending that you "don't want" to do that...when that is at the very core of Leninism in all its variants?

As your grasp of your own political position is so tenuous, I can hardly expect you to understand mine at all.

Nevertheless, here it is: it is material conditions in class society that create revolutionary class consciousness. Communists can help...but that's all. Proletarian revolution is a class phenomenon, not the product of a disciplined elite. And the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a dictatorship of a class...not a small group of "great leaders".

That's a Marxist view, by the way, not an "anarchist" view, though some anarchists agree with it.

Like all Leninists, you think that revolution is simply a matter of "will and idea"--another parallel to the f*****ts, by the way.

That's wrong too.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Ronald Reagan's the all-time favorite president of the American people, now that's a poll which will prove the "sheep theory".

If these sentiments, absurd as they are, were actually true, then how would you explain rebellion at all?

I don't see rebellion in first world countries with labor aristocracy workers as a possibility in mass forms, like RAF has said, there is only one thing we can do at this time: fuel the masses with propaganda with the hope that they will turn to communism, and hit in small attacks against the capitalist system.


Rebellion, after all, is a constant feature of class society...even in the complete absence of your precious "vanguard". It takes hundreds or thousands of forms, it is usually very limited, granted all that...nevertheless, it does take place. Even in the fortress of world reaction--the United States--and even in its moments of imperial triumph, there are still tiny sparks of rebellion here and there.

Then you'd definetely be against any minority breaking out, that would be too "fascist".


What gives your "analysis"--the "sheep" theory--a superficial plausibility is the fact that we currently live in a period of reaction. The working classes are widely demoralized and many of them have placed their hopes in the triumph of empire. Most working people must at least pretend to be servile in order to keep their jobs and stay alive.

"Pretend"? Do you EVER see/talk to any workers of America??? They are BRAINWASHED! They sit and watch TV! Drink beer and are glad and proud when the national anthem is played at a baseball game! Sheep!!!


You simply assume that it will always be like that "unless" a vanguard on a white horse comes to the rescue. You!

Once again...have you read the quote from the Manifesto? It says the Communists have an advantage in that they know their position in society, and they have the power to show the masses the way...thus lead them to freedom.


The common Leninist interpretation of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is a dictatorship of the party, and especially of its leadership...all "for the proletariat's own good,of course".

Sorry, you're just wrong. It is the party governing through the working class.


Chairman Mao understands this. Comrade RAF understands this. Why don't you understand it?

Chairman Mao said:

Under capitalism the vast masses of people have a sheepish nature. However, over time certain aspects of human nature change, those aspects which are gained from society.

That is the exact same thing I am saying.

RAF will have to speak on this, but I'm sure he is not different from my view at all.




You take refuge in a quote from The Communist Manifesto that I have no problem with at all...who would argue that some people are more resolute than others or that some people understand the long-term goal better than others?




How does any of that confer the "right" to give orders? And why do you keep pretending that you "don't want" to do that...when that is at the very core of Leninism in all its variants?

Giving orders in the party? Of course, it is democratic centralism...pushing the masses around and ruling over the masses instead of ruling with them is not, you can read Mao Tse-tung's Red Book for that for god's sake RS.


As your grasp of your own political position is so tenuous, I can hardly expect you to understand mine at all.


Nevertheless, here it is: it is material conditions in class society that create revolutionary class consciousness. Communists can help...but that's all. Proletarian revolution is a class phenomenon, not the product of a disciplined elite. And the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a dictatorship of a class...not a small group of "great leaders".

"Communists can help"? My god you are out of it.


That's a Marxist view, by the way, not an "anarchist" view, though some anarchists agree with it.

yeah..ok... :lol:


Like all Leninists, you think that revolution is simply a matter of "will and idea"--another parallel to the f*****ts, by the way.

Are you stoned again RS, you're obsession with calling me a fascist is something spectacular?

[redstar2000]

Do you EVER see/talk to any workers of America??? They are BRAINWASHED! They sit and watch TV! Drink beer and are glad and proud when the national anthem is played at a baseball game! Sheep!!!

A great many do those things, some do not. You assume that such behavior reflects their real feelings instead of being a response to the social pressures upon them.

You would have used the same arguments in 1850 to "prove" that most slaves were "happy" being slaves...after all, only a few ran away and even fewer actually rebelled. You would have said they were "sheep" and "brainwashed".

And you would have been wrong then as you are wrong now and will be even more wrong in the future. As the Northern Armies passed through confederate territories, they were flooded with "runaway" slaves. As soon as the slaves saw the real possibility of liberation, they seized it at once.

Do you think modern wage-slaves are any different? Just ask one who wins a lottery what she plans to say to her boss.

If you don't think every worker dreams of liberation, then you are the idiot! They believe it to be a "hopeless dream"...but don't think for a second that they don't dream it still.

When material conditions mature to make that dream a real possibility, they will seize it!

It is the party governing through the working class...Giving orders in the party? Of course, it is democratic centralism...pushing the masses around and ruling over the masses instead of ruling with them is not, you can read Mao Tse-tung's Red Book for that...

I don't understand why you're always asking if I'm stoned; you must have smoked a pound of opium to come up with that a-historical nonsense. Don't you know anything about Russia, China, eastern Europe, etc.? Don't you have any idea of how the political systems in those countries actually functioned?

"Communists can help"? My god you are out of it.

And this is more and more the only kind of response that you are seemingly capable of. A sputtering of disbelief is not a political argument.

I think from here on out it would be a more constructive use of my time to argue with real Leninists...people who actually comprehend what the guy said.

You simply don't yet understand what you are talking about.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Do you EVER see/talk to any workers of America??? They are BRAINWASHED! They sit and watch TV! Drink beer and are glad and proud when the national anthem is played at a baseball game! Sheep!!!

A great many do those things, some do not. You assume that such behavior reflects their real feelings instead of being a response to the social pressures upon them.

Real feelings? Only someone who is not surrounded by workers would say that.


You would have used the same arguments in 1850 to "prove" that most slaves were "happy" being slaves...after all, only a few ran away and even fewer actually rebelled. You would have said they were "sheep" and "brainwashed".

Sitting in front of the TV with a beer in your hand isn't the same as being whipped in the back 100 times and then having your family raped and murdered. Nice try though.


And you would have been wrong then as you are wrong now and will be even more wrong in the future. As the Northern Armies passed through confederate territories, they were flooded with "runaway" slaves. As soon as the slaves saw the real possibility of liberation, they seized it at once.

Did they liberate themselves RS? No, they were "liberated". If you can call it that.


Do you think modern wage-slaves are any different? Just ask one who wins a lottery what she plans to say to her boss.

Wow, great! She's joining the capitalist class...she's soooo rebellious.


If you don't think every worker dreams of liberation, then you are the idiot! They believe it to be a "hopeless dream"...but don't think for a second that they don't dream it still.

In America? You must be joking. I can't think of ONE worker I know who is class concious. When you attempt to talk politics, they become patriotic and insult you.


When material conditions mature to make that dream a real possibility, they will seize it!


And? I cannot help them to it and participate? I am a worker, do I not count?



It is the party governing through the working class...Giving orders in the party? Of course, it is democratic centralism...pushing the masses around and ruling over the masses instead of ruling with them is not, you can read Mao Tse-tung's Red Book for that...

I don't understand why you're always asking if I'm stoned; you must have smoked a pound of opium to come up with that a-historical nonsense. Don't you know anything about Russia, China, eastern Europe, etc.? Don't you have any idea of how the political systems in those countries actually functioned?

Fine, we disagree. Though since you think Leninists are fascists...I can't say I take you seriously.



"Communists can help"? My god you are out of it.

And this is more and more the only kind of response that you are seemingly capable of. A sputtering of disbelief is not a political argument.

It's obvious I think Communist can help and in fact make the revolution materialize.


I think from here on out it would be a more constructive use of my time to argue with real Leninists...people who actually comprehend what the guy said.

Send me to something which you consider a "fascist" stance, becuase I've read nearly all of his 40+ volumes, letters...telegrams...essays...speeches...things on Trotskyist factionalism...whole books...




You simply don't yet understand what you are talking about.

Right, that was SO political RS, why don't we just stamp the label: HYPOCRITE on your old wrinkled forehead?

[redstar2000]

I am a worker, do I not count?

Your first intelligent question!

Yes indeed, you do count. You could help. You could make a difference.

But that will not happen until the swelling in your brain goes down; until you realize that no one gave Lenin or you the "right" to "herd" people as if they were "sheep".

I gather from other posts you've made that you presently agree with the Maoist analysis of "the first world"...that the working class here is "a labor aristocracy" that is incapable of revolution...at least until "the third world" becomes entirely Leninist-Maoist.

The logical consequence of that view is that the duty of communist revolutionaries (or those who want to be) is to go to a "third world" country and participate in a Leninist-Maoist revolution. Perhaps this is what you have in mind.

It's a nutball scheme but, if that's what you want, go right ahead. I certainly won't try to stop you or try to talk you out of it. (At least learn the fucking language before you go!)

But...is that really what you want to do? Perhaps you'd rather join Comrade RAF's updated version of the Red Army Faction? Urban guerilla warfare certainly has a romantic appeal, doesn't it? Not to mention the fact that you don't have to live in some stinking jungle to do it. It's also a nutball scheme in all likelihood...but if that's what you want, go for it.

But perhaps all that's for the future. Right now, I would recommend that you go back and read Lenin critically...especially the writings from 1918 to 1922. Learn what Lenin really meant by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in his own words.

You won't listen to me; maybe you'll listen to him.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I am a worker, do I not count?

Your first intelligent question!

Yes indeed, you do count. You could help. You could make a difference.




But that will not happen until the swelling in your brain goes down; until you realize that no one gave Lenin or you the "right" to "herd" people as if they were "sheep".


I don't look at it that way, I look at it as I have stated before: I turn sheep into wolves to kill the pigs.


I gather from other posts you've made that you presently agree with the Maoist analysis of "the first world"...that the working class here is "a labor aristocracy" that is incapable of revolution...at least until "the third world" becomes entirely Leninist-Maoist.




The logical consequence of that view is that the duty of communist revolutionaries (or those who want to be) is to go to a "third world" country and participate in a Leninist-Maoist revolution. Perhaps this is what you have in mind.

I certainly am not altogether opposed to it. Though I wonder if I could help at all in a third world country. I would probably be shot as an infiltrator. And the other question I would have with that is the fact that the people cannot be liberated by outside forces, but by themselves alone. Though I would gladly fight with them, I doubt they would accept me.


It's a nutball scheme but, if that's what you want, go right ahead. I certainly won't try to stop you or try to talk you out of it. (At least learn the fucking language before you go!)

Yeah, that would be a good idea. :lol:


But...is that really what you want to do? Perhaps you'd rather join Comrade RAF's updated version of the Red Army Faction? Urban guerilla warfare certainly has a romantic appeal, doesn't it? Not to mention the fact that you don't have to live in some stinking jungle to do it. It's also a nutball scheme in all likelihood...but if that's what you want, go for it.

I don't consider it "romantic", it would in all likelihood be a horrible experience.


But perhaps all that's for the future. Right now, I would recommend that you go back and read Lenin critically...especially the writings from 1918 to 1922. Learn what Lenin really meant by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in his own words.

Thanks for the advice old man, unfortunately, I've read most of it. I don't see it the way you do. I am in no way comparable to fascists.


You won't listen to me; maybe you'll listen to him.

I have.