What Would We Do Different?

[DuracellBunny97]

A common argument in favour of communism, that I myself use sometimes, is that communism never really existed, or at least that countries that called themselves communist were not real adaptations of communism, as they involved coercive government control over means of production, or they were actually more capitalist than communist. Asides from perhaps the Paris commune, and maybe anarchist Spain, I think this is true, communism has never really been utilized, though Cuba, could be on it's way to being a more communist country. I understand their are many apologists for Stalin, Mao, Castro and I don't know maybe even Pol Pot, but I think we can all agree that we wouldn't want to live under their rule.

Many anti-communists wonder, "when are you going to give up and admit that communism won't ever work"? I think most famous examples of "communism" were started by revolutionaries that really tried to jump the gun, and go directly to communism, or became power hungry dictators, when I think communism needs time to evolve, and needs democracy rather than one party rule.

So how do you respond to these anti-communists? Assume the Communist party of Canada or whatever country it is that you live in, won a federal election, what do you think would be different? would the fact that they were democratically elected, and the fact that we are a more developed nation than any other one that attempted communism would have any bearing on their leadership, and prevent Canada, or whatever country, from becoming another USSR?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

A common argument in favour of communism, that I myself use sometimes, is that communism never really existed, or at least that countries that called themselves communist were not real adaptations of communism, as they involved coercive government control over means of production, or they were actually more capitalist than communist. Asides from perhaps the Paris commune, and maybe anarchist Spain, I think this is true, communism has never really been utilized, though Cuba, could be on it's way to being a more communist country. I understand their are many apologists for Stalin, Mao, Castro and I don't know maybe even Pol Pot, but I think we can all agree that we wouldn't want to live under their rule.

Many anti-communists wonder, "when are you going to give up and admit that communism won't ever work"? I think most famous examples of "communism" were started by revolutionaries that really tried to jump the gun, and go directly to communism, or became power hungry dictators, when I think communism needs time to evolve, and needs democracy rather than one party rule.

So how do you respond to these anti-communists? Assume the Communist party of Canada or whatever country it is that you live in, won a federal election, what do you think would be different? would the fact that they were democratically elected, and the fact that we are a more developed nation than any other one that attempted communism would have any bearing on their leadership, and prevent Canada, or whatever country, from becoming another USSR?

Marx viewed the progression towards communism as the defining influence of historical activity. To begin, he and Engels talk about ancient society and the development of the state. They prove that the state did not exist in ancient society because of the lack of exploitative class division (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02.htm).

Then they talk about class antagonism. They prove that in almost every instance that individuals have been exploited and subjected to inequalities within social classes, they have risen up and replaced the existent state with one that proved greater economic equality. This is the progression of economics: Ancient slavery-feudalism-primitive capitalism-imperialism-modern capitalism. Each stage had been overthrown in some manner to reach the next. They argued that an exploitative system creates social tension that is acceptable for a time, or at least for as long as it is necessary. But when it is no longer necessary, the minority exploited by the majority rise up. Since the power of the minority (or as we call the modern upper class, the Bourgeoisie) rests upon the exploitation of the lower class, as soon as the lower class refuses to be exploited, the upper classes power disappears. They are thrown out by the unfathomable power of the working class and replaced by a system of greater equity. However, each change wasn't enough. Exploitation was never removed, although it became better.

We then reach our modern stage of being. Capitalism is highly exploitative. Marx talks about internal contradictions (you'll have to read up on that) and how they cause economic insecurity and collapse. The workers, as always, have it the worst. It is only logical that the advancement shown countless times in history will occur once again.

Some call the next stage socialism, but it is irrelevant. Communism is what we consider the FINAL STAGE to be, the stage when the entire society is satisfied enough that it will not rise up again.

The requisites for Communism are:
Abolishment of Social Class
Abolishment of the State as an Oppressive Institution Aimed Towards Enforcing the Status Quo
Equality of all Individuals

Almost every revolutionary-leftist has those goals in mind. With the accomplishment of those goals, we will reach true equality and economic prosperity.

But to fully answer your question:
We will never give up because social and economic progression towards Communism can't be avoided. Capitalism's tendency to exploit garantees that.

We have made mistakes in the past, that is certain, our goal now is to iron things out. Unfortunately Marx died before constructing a true revolutionary theory (as in how the revolution will occur). Many since have proposed plans. Some may work, some may not. But again, it is what we strive for. It is unavoidable. You should also read up on these leaders, many fail because they are opposed by the entire world.

[Burn A Flag]

I've thought about this recently too. It seems the left knows what it wants just doesn't know how to get there.

[DuracellBunny97]

I just don't know if the current situation calls for violent revolution, so electing a party seems like the only way to go

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Think about this. The bourgeois controls basically all of the wealth and power. They control the media, politics, economics, the school systems... literally everything. When they see something that opposes them, they crush it. Think of the red scare. Nazi Germany. Did the British just let the US succeed? No! They fought it with all of their might.

Revolutionary Leftists almost always agree that a revolution should take place.
We believe in using peace when possible, but violence when necessary.

By exciting the entire working class, the upper class will loose it's power so violence will be minimized (unless foreign countries decide to attack). The logistics of revolution are still being worked out. Most agree in maintaining all "freedoms" except for that to private property so long as they aren't used to threaten the revolution.

We need to look at the short term versus long term benefits.

Reforms are good, but not the solution. The capitalists just have to much money, to much power to resist. Until that power is stripped from them, until they no longer have anyone to exploit... we can't make true progress. 95% of the population will prevail and the result will be greater equality, greater freedoms, and a far better, more ethical, better economical and more moral future for mankind.

[DuracellBunny97]

I guess I just feel pacifism is a better way to go, in other countries where communism was attempted, there was already an oppressive dictatorship, or the country was in poverty to begin with, but we are living in a society built around an idea we dislike, there's not an actual oppressive regime ruling over us, I don't see the call for violence

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I guess I just feel pacifism is a better way to go, in other countries where communism was attempted, there was already an oppressive dictatorship, or the country was in poverty to begin with, but we are living in rather well to do built around an idea we dislike, capitalism, but I don't see the call for violence

You're talking about the state as if it weren't a bad thing.

Like I said, we have a goal. We achieve whatever possible through peace. We achieve what is NECESSARY through violence. Why? Because those things that can't be achieved with peace MUST be achieved. It's been shown that the proper change can't occur peacefully. If we don't strike them, they strike us. The bourgeois just have to much interest in maintaining the system to back down peacefully. Hell, if they felt threatened enough by us they would have no reservations having us hanged. We are their greatest fear.

They have unwittingly created the proletariat, led them to anger, armed them, repressed them... and they will see the change that the proletariat hope to bring about as something to be abhorred and destroyed.

That's the harsh reality, shown countless times throughout history. But throughout history, we can also see that those revolutions that occurred naturally, when the proletariat were ready, resulted in better government.

Why have Socialist revolutions failed? The modern capitalist is the most powerful and dangerous of histories oppressing classes. They are united internationally and will stop at nothing to keep their status quo.

That, however, is why violence may be necessary. There is no other way, and the end result is undeniably worth it.

5% of the population will be hurt, but that is the nature of the system that the Capitalists themselves created.

"Since civilization is founded on the exploitation of one class by another class, its whole development proceeds in a constant contradiction. Every step forward in production is at the same time a step backwards in the position of the oppressed class, that is, of the great majority. Whatever benefits some necessarily injures the others; every fresh emancipation of one class is necessarily a new oppression for another class. The most striking proof of this is provided by the introduction of machinery, the effects of which are now known to the whole world. And if among the barbarians, as we saw, the distinction between rights and duties could hardly be drawn, civilization makes the difference and antagonism between them clear even to the dullest intelligence by giving one class practically all the rights and the other class practically all the duties. But that should not be: what is good for the ruling class must also be good for the whole of society, with which the ruling-class identifies itself. Therefore the more civilization advances, the more it is compelled to cover the evils it necessarily creates with the cloak of love and charity, to palliate them or to deny them–in short, to introduce a conventional hypocrisy which was unknown to earlier forms of society and even to the first stages of civilization, and which culminates in the pronouncement: the exploitation of the oppressed class is carried on by the exploiting class simply and solely in the interests of the exploited class itself; and if the exploited class cannot see it and even grows rebellious, that is the basest ingratitude to its benefactors, the exploiters."

Engels: Origin of the Family- Chapter IX
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm

Once the ruling class looses it's incentive to be the minority (they are only hurt by it, no longer benefit off of surplus value), the minority will cease to exist, creating a society of equal social and economic class.

And so, the internal contradictions and class antagonism will be resolved and the state will cease to be of its own accord... "wither away"

"The state is therefore by no means a power imposed on society from without; just as little is it “the reality of the moral idea,” “the image and the reality of reason,” as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a particular stage of development; it is the admission that this society has involved itself in insoluble self-contradiction and is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to exorcise. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, shall not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, a power, apparently standing above society, has become necessary to moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of “order”; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state."

[bcbm]

we are living in a society built around an idea we dislike, there's not an actual oppressive regime ruling over us

oh so i don't have to work and pay rent and bills and taxes to survive?:sneaky:

[DuracellBunny97]

you'd still have to work if there was no government

[Rooster]

I guess I just feel pacifism is a better way to go, in other countries where communism was attempted, there was already an oppressive dictatorship, or the country was in poverty to begin with, but we are living in a society built around an idea we dislike, there's not an actual oppressive regime ruling over us, I don't see the call for violence

You can't just expect everyone to roll over and take it though. I think we have to be oppressive and authoritative (note "we" as in our class). I don't think people like Ayn Rand and Glen Beck will just accept that they have to live in a socialist world. What do you do with them? Stick flowers in their hair?

[Long Dong Silver]

oh so i don't have to work and pay rent and bills and taxes to survive?:sneaky:

There is difference between paying taxes and rent, and being arrested by Tsarist secret police, or gunned down by genocidal thugs. Although we mightn't like the society we live in, at least we have the legal right to express that dislike.

If our situation were really that grim, would the ruling classes allow us to form communist parties to fight openly for a better world? As long as we have that right, I believe we should utilize it and attempt a democratic path to socialism. It will give our movement more legitimacy.

And if all else fails, we still have the option of grabbing our AKs and heading for the hills

[Long Dong Silver]

You can't just expect everyone to roll over and take it though. I think we have to be oppressive and authoritative (note "we" as in our class). I don't think people like Ayn Rand and Glen Beck will just accept that they have to live in a socialist world. What do you do with them? Stick flowers in their hair?

If we have the full support of the people, then does it really matter what an Idiot like Glenn Beck thinks?

Hey may be a tool and an enemy of the working class, but I doubt he'll openly take up arms against a democratically elected socialist government, as long as it stays democratic.

He may inspire the far right to rise up against the new government, but will that really matter if we have the might of the working class backing us?

What we mustn't do, however, is oppress the classes that oppressed us. If we do, we become no better then them, and we may even push them to rebel against us. What we should instead do is treat them with respect and dignity, to show them just how better off the world will be under socialism. We mustn't play into their stereotype as ruthless genocidal oppressors

They can either join our Socialist Utopia, or they can die of starvation. Because he who does not work, neither shall he eat

[Thirsty Crow]

Marx viewed the progression towards communism as the defining influence of historical activity. To begin, he and Engels talk about ancient society and the development of the state. They prove that the state did not exist in ancient society because of the lack of exploitative class division (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02.htm).

I'd advise you to be more careful when choosing words. "Ancient society" does not refer to what Marx&Engels called "primitive communism", but rather to slave-holding societies, arising from the mateial conditions of surplus producing agriculture, which were indeed marked by the existence of the state and the ruling class, however we define it.



What we mustn't do, however, is oppress the classes that oppressed us. If we do, we become no better then them, and we may even push them to rebel against us. What we should instead do is treat them with respect and dignity, to show them just how better off the world will be under socialism. We mustn't play into their stereotype as ruthless genocidal oppressors
You do understand that expropriating the bourgeoisie, which is the first and completely necessary step in a revolution, will be represented by its ideologists as oppression?
You do understand that they will, no matter the relative peacefulness of the process of expropriation, rebel against the political and social rule of the proletariat since their class interests are in total opposition to this very process of revolution? You do understand that no matter how well conceived this "showing them how the world will be better off" it will have structural, large scale effect since it is not their interest that "the world" be better off?

If you cannot understand that, you are hopelessly naive.

As far as the starting point of this discussion is concerned, I would group that "what we should do differently" into categories:

1) no class collaboration whatsoever - Popular Front tactics have proven themselves to be utterly incapable of creating conditions for proletarian political and social supremacy

2) no intra-proletarian violence whatsoever - no bloody purges, no repression directed against other proletarian political organizations, no matter the current political conjuncture (which organization wields relative political supremacy);

3) no forced expropiration of small business - but they must not be afforded the possibility of accumulation of surplus value (the organs of proletarian power should most clearly influence these businesses and institute a certain degree of workers' control) and the petit bourgeoisies must not be granted sufficient political power over urban and rural workers; the same goes for small peasants

4) internationalism should be pursued to the maximum - this means that the international communist (and anarchist) movement, with its organizations, must not be degraded to the status of the puppet org of an existing social formation (which is undergoing the revolutionary process) and its own strategic interests

5) as far as culture is concerned, I would not encourage total supremacy, by means of political decree, of phenomena such as proletkult; no repression directed against artists and artistic movements which do not conform to a narrowly conceived notion of proletarian art

6) no mercy towards fascists - they may be given the possibility of exile, at best.

[bcbm]

you'd still have to work if there was no government

40 hours a week or more at shitty jobs on pain of homelessness and starvation?

--


There is difference between paying taxes and rent, and being arrested by Tsarist secret police, or gunned down by genocidal thugs. Although we mightn't like the society we live in, at least we have the legal right to express that dislike.

the us has the largest prison population in the world and entire communities leave in fear of the police, who act like an occupying army. and, of course, the people of iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere do have to deal with our society sending secret police and genocidal thugs after them.

i think its also important to consider that prison, police occupation, homelessness, poverty, hunger, unemployment, foreclosures, etc are forms of violence.


If our situation were really that grim, would the ruling classes allow us to form communist parties to fight openly for a better world? As long as we have that right, I believe we should utilize it and attempt a democratic path to socialism. It will give our movement more legitimacy.

they allow us to have such parties precisely because they cannot hope to accomplish their goals while giving the illusion of "expressing dissent." you can express whatever you like, as long as it has no consequences.


And if all else fails, we still have the option of grabbing our AKs and heading for the hills

not really.


What we mustn't do, however, is oppress the classes that oppressed us. If we do, we become no better then them, and we may even push them to rebel against us. What we should instead do is treat them with respect and dignity, to show them just how better off the world will be under socialism. We mustn't play into their stereotype as ruthless genocidal oppressors

They can either join our Socialist Utopia, or they can die of starvation. Because he who does not work, neither shall he eat

isn't this the same threat leveled at us every day?