WANTS AND NEEDS

[redstar2000]

I will quote here (partially) from the fashion pages of a current issue of a popular American magazine...


At left, Mr. X is in a suit by Hickey Freeman ($1,095), a shirt by Cerruti ($150) and a pair of Harry's Shoes ($508). Mr. Y wears a Jack Victor suit ($695), a Canali shirt ($185), and Bostonian shoes ($135). At right, Mr. Z is in a suit ($550) and shirt ($50) by ck, a tie by Lee Allison ($60), and a belt ($155) and boots ($420) by Toschi.

Miss A is in a dress by Marc Bouwer ($4,200) and stilettos by Zang Toi ($600). Mr. B is in a jacket ($1,130) and pants ($806) by Roberto Cavalli, a shirt ($195) and vest ($185) by Sabato Russa, a belt by Andrea D'Amico ($200) and boots by Paul Smith ($450). Miss C is wearing a skirt by Etro USA ($2,470), a bustier ($1,300) and shrug ($4,900) by Zang Toi, and boots by A. Testoni ($850). Mr. D. is in a jacket ($1,430) and pants ($755) by Roberto Cavalli, a tux shirt by NYBased ($98), a T-shirt by D&G ($130), a belt by Andrea D'Amico ($215), and shoes by A. Testoni ($795).

He's in a paisley shirt ($145), wool vest ($225), and velvet blazer ($750), all by Joesph Abboud. She's in a satin gown by Valentino ($11,590)...

The hymns of monopoly capitalism have different tunes, but one of the most seductive has been that of the "free market". Many people who call themselves socialists, Marxists, Leninists, etc. have joined the chorus: "a free market provides the most efficient mechanism of satisfying the varying "wants and needs" of the population." Their version of "socialism" would really be a kind of "pure" state-capitalism; state-owned enterprises would have to compete with one another in a "free market"...the winners would grow and the losers would perish.

That monopoly capitalist markets are "not really free" has actually been taken up by some "leftists" as a criticism...they propose a market that is far "freer"--less monopolistic--than that which exists now and claim it would be even more "efficient".

"Efficiency" is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. If they don't have what you want at a price you can afford, the "efficiency" of the free marker is a big fat zero in your eyes.

The "virtue" of the "free market", as Adam Smith pointed out in 1776 and as countless Viennese economists have elaborated on since, is that large numbers of individual decisions will "cause" capital and labor to "flow" from unprofitable economic activities into "profitable" ones...thus producing what people "want" at a price they can "afford".

We have to put words like "want" and "afford" in quotation marks because these values can be, to some extent, manipulated. The psychological effects of monopoly and advertising are a substantial "tax" on free market transactions...rendering "efficiency" as metaphysical, on occasion, as "intellectual property". How many people actually "want" Windows©? Try and buy a new PC without it!

The pure state-capitalists would prohibit both (presumably); without sanctioned monopolies or seductive advertising, consumers would choose a mixture of goods and services according to their personal preferences, price, and quality.

There are some obvious objections to this idea, not least of which would be the tendency of such a system to devolve back into regular capitalism (just as state-monopoly capitalism has devolved back into monopoly capitalism).

Any time you create a situation in which people are permitted and indeed encouraged to "act like capitalists", you may be sure that--sooner or later--they will become capitalists. Being determines consciousness.

But in this essay, I'd like to take a look at what we really mean when we talk about what people "want" and "need", not so much as abstractions but in terms of the situations people will actually face in the transition from capitalism to communism.

For example, it is likely that the working class will be in pretty bad shape economically on the morrow of proletarian revolution. In that context, will people "want" the baroque plethora of "consumer goods & services" presently "available", at least to the upper middle class and beyond? Will there be a large "unmet demand" for pet psychologists, aroma therapy, designer jock-straps, etc.?

We know that the first priorities will be much more basic: restoration of electricity and natural gas for heating and cooking, reliable availability of food in sufficient quantities, public transit, communications (especially the internet), housing for the homeless, etc.

At the very beginning, we communists expect all of these basic needs to be fulfilled for the asking...that is, free. Rationing will be the rule.

Of course, private capitalists will attempt to continue to function in a money economy that will parallel the quasi-spontaneous moneyless (communist) economy. You can get food to cook for yourself for free; but if you want to eat in a privately owned restaurant, you still have to pay.

Thus it will be in the interests of the working class to "squeeze" the private sector. The privately-owned restaurant begins to have trouble acquiring raw materials; the new chain of workers' restaurants has plenty on the menu...all free.

Let's assume that the workers win these initial struggles and that, some years into the future, there is a flourishing communist (moneyless) economy providing basic goods and services for free and a "semi-legal" private economy supplying other "wants". Where will they find their customers and how will they be paid?

Fewer and fewer people will work for wages as time passes...thus they will not be customers of the private sector. Those areas where the private sector is doing well are likely at any moment to run into competition from a workers' collective that distributes the same or a similar product or service for free.

What's a capitalist to do?

Moreover, what will people actually want? Baseball trading cards? Tropical fish? Gas-guzzling SUV's? Private yachts? Or, as illustrated above, "high fashion"?

The upper classes in the Roman Empire dined on hummingbird's tongues...is there much demand for that dish these days?

In other words, what people "want" adjusts itself to the kind of society that exists and what it is reasonable to expect. One of the disadvantages that the state-monopoly capitalist societies like the USSR suffered in competition with the monopoly-capitalist west, was that Russians could not see any reasonable explanation why they couldn't have what westerners apparently had.

Communist societies in advanced countries should not face this difficulty, since workers will understand that basic necessities come first...for everyone, a lesson painfully learned in the last decade or two of the old capitalist system.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I must agree with you, comarde. Very well-writen this is.
:)

[The Feral Underclass]

Thus it will be in the interests of the working class to "squeeze" the private sector.

Squeeze comrade? I am not sure "squeezing" will be in the workers interests! The private sector is not something we want to squeeze into non-existance it is something that has to be destroyed. This seems to imply that private ownership would be accepted. Surely ownership of private property is what we are trying to destroy. These restuarants would have to employ waiters and chef's, it would have a manager :angry: This is not acceptable. These waiters and chef's are our brothers and sisters. They should be liberated not allowed to be exploited for some "owner" to make money. The point of th erevolution would not be to squeeze private ownership it would be to stop it, unequivocally.

Fewer and fewer people will work for wages as time passes...thus they will not be customers of the private sector. Those areas where the private sector is doing well are likely at any moment to run into competition from a workers' collective that distributes the same or a similar product or service for free.

You confuse me comrade. Wages are alienation. To fight for a revolution which continues this alienation is not a "revolution to dance too." This idea of time passing is the same excuse the Leninists use to justify the need for a state.

You give to reason why wages would be necessary, except for private owners to exploit others.

Maybe I have misunderstood. Please correct me if this is the case.

[redstar2000]

Your questions relate to the details of the "transition period"...which are tough to predict, especially far in advance.

What I anticipate is the end of wage-slavery and the production of commodities for sale first in the "big ticket" areas of the economy...the list of things I mentioned required to restore a technological economy.

Why? Because I'm anticipating that the workers in those important areas will be more politically advanced and more likely to see the gains to be made from a "quick" transition to communism.

Will the same be true of small businesses and the people employed by them? Well, you know that the "petty bourgeoisie" have a different class outlook on things...and there will be a lot of them (not as many as now but still quite a few).

The folks who work for small businesses also have a different outlook...they often think of the boss as a "personal friend" and even socialize with him.

Now, imagine what these folks are likely to do when the power is back on...they will try to function as they always have (not all, but most).

I don't think there's anything we can do to "stop that" all at once. Not even the Leninists could do it with all the police powers that they had.

That's why I suggest "squeezing" them out of existence...where we find that they are doing something genuinely useful, we organize a collective to do the same thing for free.

They can't compete with "free". They either have to reorganize their enterprise into a wage-free collective or quit altogether.

Over time, people will stop working "for" them...the wages are useless except in a steadily shrinking private sector. And people will "look down" on them: "What? You're still a wage-slave? You poor bastard!"

The main point, I think, is to pay attention to the private sector...if they are doing something that people really want, we have to step in and organize that production or service along communist principles. We don't want to allow a situation to arise in which people are leaving the collectives to work for wages so that they can buy this greatly desired good or service. That would destroy our whole project and ultimately lead back to class society.

I agree, of course, that a "magic wand" would be quite useful in these circumstances...wave it and capitalism is instantly transformed into communism. As a practical matter, I don't think it will be that easy...though it will be much easier than the Leninists think.

But remember, we have abandoned the strategy of a centralized state apparatus with draconian police powers (because it doesn't work); that means we have no choice but to rely on the political consciousness of the whole working class.

And they will not all be communists or anarchists on the day after the revolution. There will still be a lot of work to do.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 09:14 AM
There will still be a lot of work to do.
Precisely!
So why do you call yourself an anrchist?

[redstar2000]

So why do you call yourself an anarchist?

Actually, I've never "called myself an anarchist". The terms I've usually used are "marxist" and "communist"--sometimes, "real communist".

The problem with "anarchism" in my opinion is that it is "too broad"...there are too many completely contradictory ideas that are using that label.

Anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists--sometimes called "class struggle anarchists" or "platform anarchists"--are folks I would get along with just fine (if they'd be willing to "forgive" my on-going assertions that Marx was essentially right...).

But I don't like "market anarchists" (Proudhon, etc.) at all. The Blanqui-ists strike me as Leninists without Lenin. The Stirnerites and the neo-primitivists seem to me to be outright nutballs. I don't want to be identified with any of that crap.

And anarchism as a broad "movement" has this really flabby tradition of accepting anyone who calls himself an anarchist as "legitimate".

They, of course, criticize Marxists (not altogether unfairly) from the opposite view--"you guys will split from each other at the drop of a footnote".

Like much else, I expect realignments with the passing of time and the fading of old disputes. I hope that the real communists and the class-struggle anarchists will perceive their common aims in the course of practical work...while the reformists and nutballs that mis-use both labels will fade into insignificance.

But in the meantime, I do not "tremble in my boots" because some Leninist calls me an "anarchist". They call anyone that who declines to submit to their "leadership" from the left.

Which makes it a kind of honor, don't you think?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

Now, imagine what these folks are likely to do when the power is back on...they will try to function as they always have (not all, but most).

You also say...

we have no choice but to rely on the political consciousness of the whole working class.

At what level do you anticipate the consciousness of the working class will be at. Can we agree that to have a revolution you must first have class consciousness? Does it not then follow that to have class consciounsess you have to understand what "function[ing] as they always have" is what causes alienation and exploitation?

So if we agree on that then surly relying on the consciounsess of the whole working class would mean they wouldnt function as they always have. The whole point of the revolution would be to destroy the old ways and create new ways.

The folks who work for small businesses also have a different outlook...they often think of the boss as a "personal friend" and even socialize with him.

This is not a reason to continue "funtion[ing] as they always have". if this is the case then these "bosses" will either join their employees in the revolution, or have their business' expropriated from them.

The main point, I think, is to pay attention to the private sector...if they are doing something that people really want, we have to step in and organize that production or service along communist principles.

I do not think that at the time of the revolution, as you have already pointed out, people will be wanting things that are not of vital importance. Resturants etc will not be necessary. Nice clothes and shoes are probably not going to be the top priorities for peoples wants. This means that once the revolution has been won things such as these can be organized again. Resturants or eating places can be set up by those who want them. Nice clothes and shoes maybe more complicated to organize but it is something I am sure we will have the opporuntity too do.

As for communist principles, I am not sure what you mean by this? I maybe being a little perdantic but if you replaced the word communist with anarchocommunist then it would make me feel a little more comfortable.

Anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists--sometimes called "class struggle anarchists" or "platform anarchists"--are folks I would get along with just fine (if they'd be willing to "forgive" my on-going assertions that Marx was essentially right...)

I think that most Anarcho-communists, or at least myself, and those I have read would agree with some of Marx's theories. I find insperation in my own ideals from Marx as I know Sean M Sheehan does by reading his book. Bakunin also said that Marx had alot to offer to the Anarchist movement although he never called himself an Anarcho-communist.

I would safly say from what I have read that you are an anarcho-communist. Anyone who refutes Marx's theories of organizing a revolution and the dictatership of the prolateriate are principle anarchists, if not fundamentally so.

Like much else, I expect realignments with the passing of time and the fading of old disputes. I hope that the real communists and the class-struggle anarchists will perceive their common aims in the course of practical work...while the reformists and nutballs that mis-use both labels will fade into insignificance.

I am not sure what you mean by real communist. Please explain?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Don't mind me changing the subject a tad, but Redstar, how do you plan to have a dictatorship of the proletariat without a revolutionary communist party to wield power and bring the working class to power?

[BuyOurEverything]

OK, after the transition period, how would we go about distributing 'wants' to people? At this point I'm assuming that everyone will have all the basic neccessities but what if someone wanted say a guitar, a bike a skateboard or some chocolate? Would that state just create them and make them available for free to whoever wanted them? That seems somewhat idealistic to me.

[redstar2000]

Don't mind me changing the subject a tad, but Redstar, how do you plan to have a dictatorship of the proletariat without a revolutionary communist party to wield power and bring the working class to power?

If there is a party "wielding power" then it won't be a dictatorship "of" the proletariat...it will be a dictatorship over the proletariat.

We've seen where that leads...back to capitalism.


At what level do you anticipate the consciousness of the working class will be at?

Pretty damn high, much higher than the Leninists anticipate but perhaps not as high as you anticipate. Remember that we are speculating here about the details of events that may still be quite far into the future.

The more advanced the class has become, the more deep and thorough-going the proletarian revolution will be.

But I would be very surprised if, even within the revolutionary movement, there was not a "left" and a "right"...and a conflict between them on "how fast and how far" to go.

You and I would hopefully find ourselves on the "left" of that dispute...but it would be foolish to think that "everyone" will be there.


Restaurants etc will not be necessary.

I wouldn't bet the rent money on that one; people will be working pretty hard to restore basic services and relieving them of the necessity of individual cooking might be a very useful thing to do.

A chain of workers' restaurants (with real food, of course) might be something that would be greatly appreciated by the class.


I would safely say from what I have read that you are an anarcho-communist. Anyone who refutes Marx's theories of organizing a revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are principled anarchists, if not fundamentally so.

Here, of course, you touch on one of the problems that surround the traditional labels.

Marx, for example, never suggested the need for a "vanguard party" and, indeed, a literal reading of the Communist Manifesto suggests that he saw no need for a separate communist party at all. (Yes, that's what it says, folks.)

Nor did he ever suggest that "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant dictatorship over the proletariat by a self-appointed elite of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois origins. In fact, I believe there is a letter he wrote to the effect that communists should be suspicious of those who join the movement from outside the working class and that such persons should be watched closely to prevent the intrusion of bourgeois ideology into the workers' movement.

But if you'd like to refer to me as an "anarcho-communist", that's fine with me.


I am not sure what you mean by real communist. Please explain.

A real communist rejects the entire Leninist paradigm--vanguard party, "professional" revolutionaries, "democratic" centralism, imperialism as a special "stage" of capitalism, etc., etc., etc. A real communist throws the whole 20th century "communist" movement (with a few obscure exceptions) into the dumpster of history.

Not simply because it was "un-Marxist" in a theoretical sense (it was)...but because it failed the test of real world practice. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Tito, Mao, Ho, etc., etc. all had their chances to show what they could do...and what they all did was restore capitalism.

Saddest of all is the fact that modern Leninists of all varieties have learned nothing from their own histories. They don't see fundamental theoretical errors; all they can do is blame one another for "treachery", "corruption", etc. And all the modern Leninists can do now is promise us that they will be "good" if we only give them "another chance".

Real communists will not give them "another chance".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

...what if someone wanted say a guitar, a bike, a skateboard or some chocolate? Would that state just create them and make them available for free to whoever wanted them? That seems somewhat idealistic to me.

There would be no "state" as such; the idea that the "state" will "exist" to "do nice things for us" is a holdover from 20th century Leninism.

There will be groups of workers who make all these things (and many others) and give them away. There might be some form of rationing involved or there might be a waiting list or both...but sooner or later, you'd get the product or service you wanted or a reasonable approximation thereof.

If you're aware of the history of Linux and freeware, you know there's nothing "idealistic" at all about the practice...and no "state" need be involved at all. There are simply ordinary people, doing what they enjoy, proud of the quality of their efforts, and happy that people want to use what they've created.

It "works".

So will communism.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Blackberry]

Anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists--sometimes called "class struggle anarchists" or "platform anarchists"--are folks I would get along with just fine (if they'd be willing to "forgive" my on-going assertions that Marx was essentially right...)

But I don't like "market anarchists" (Proudhon, etc.) at all. The Blanqui-ists strike me as Leninists without Lenin. The Stirnerites and the neo-primitivists seem to me to be outright nutballs. I don't want to be identified with any of that crap.

I think that most Anarcho-communists, or at least myself, and those I have read would agree with some of Marx's theories. I find insperation in my own ideals from Marx as I know Sean M Sheehan does by reading his book. Bakunin also said that Marx had alot to offer to the Anarchist movement although he never called himself an Anarcho-communist.

I would safly say from what I have read that you are an anarcho-communist.

I can assure you that Comrade RedStar2000 is not an anarchist. I can already name one principle he contradicts, and that is in his determination to see religion suppressed.

I am not disputing you won't have anarchists who do not like religion (I don't), but to advocate the suppression of religions is contradicting the principle of freedom of speech for all. Of course, you see examples of the Spanish Revolution, where the Church was not allowed to survive. They "mucked up" by supporting by their rejection of the revolutionaries -- I cannot think of an example where they have accepted revolutionaries either. In Cuba they stood up for Batista -- right up to the last straw, and continue to do so. It is the same in USSR, and other places. Thus it is my own belief that they needn't be worried about anyway.

I agree with RedStar2000's rejection of the market variant of anarchism, and individualist anarchism (but not necessarily for the same reasons). I don't hold much belief in any sort of market, and the individualist anarchists ("stirnerites", etc.) refuse to participate in class struggle, nor believe there is a class war. But their numbers are very small, and are thus very rarely ever heard from.

The reason why anarchism is so broad is because there are only a few main principles that have to be adhered to. From the top of my head, these include a rejection of hierarchy, capitalism, prejudices (racism, homophobia, etc.), reformism, and must advocate direct democracy.


This has gone off-topic. <_<

[BuyOurEverything]

There would be no "state" as such; the idea that the "state" will "exist" to "do nice things for us" is a holdover from 20th century Leninism.

There will be groups of workers who make all these things (and many others) and give them away. There might be some form of rationing involved or there might be a waiting list or both...but sooner or later, you&#39;d get the product or service you wanted or a reasonable approximation thereof.

If you&#39;re aware of the history of Linux and freeware, you know there&#39;s nothing "idealistic" at all about the practice...and no "state" need be involved at all. There are simply ordinary people, doing what they enjoy, proud of the quality of their efforts, and happy that people want to use what they&#39;ve created.

I agree but my point was, rationing works with things like food, housing, electricity and such where everybody requires about the same amount but with luxeries, people want different things. How would you ration things like musical instruments and recreational things (bikes, skateboards etc.) People have different interests so they&#39;d want different things. But what if someone has a lot of hobbies and requests a lot of these items? Could this not incite jealousy among other people? What kind of system if any would you sue to regulate this?

[The Feral Underclass]

The more advanced the class has become, the more deep and thorough-going the proletarian revolution will be.

i think this is a given. What do you think the characteristics of the advancement of class consciousness be? As the class become more and more conscious what will be the signs? And what do you think the ruling class will do at these stages? Do you not think that it will be impossible to advance class consciousness to the point in which we can have a true and functioning anarchist/real communist revolution because of the retaliations of the bouregoisie?

But I would be very surprised if, even within the revolutionary movement, there was not a "left" and a "right"...and a conflict between them on "how fast and how far" to go.

I dont really understand this. A revolutionary movement which did not want to advance the consciousness of the working class to a point that an anarchist/real communist revolution can be safe-guarded is not a revolutionary movement I would want to be apart of. Any revolutionary movement that deviated from the principles of anti-state and anti-hierarchy is in my oppinion a hindurance on the process of freeing the workers and would not be a movement I would want to be a part off&#33;


I wouldn&#39;t bet the rent money on that one; people will be working pretty hard to restore basic services and relieving them of the necessity of individual cooking might be a very useful thing to do.

A chain of workers&#39; restaurants (with real food, of course) might be something that would be greatly appreciated by the class.

In a post-revolutionary situation these restaurants maybe be wanted. but what we are talking about is whether or not they would be privatly owned. In a revolutionary situation these restuaransts would not be needed and all property expropriated. These chain of workers restaurants, after the revoluion could be started, but they would not be privatly owned by "bosses" and people would not work there for a wage. They would be collevtivly owned and it would be run by volunteers.

[Pete]

I dont really understand this. A revolutionary movement which did not want to advance the consciousness of the working class to a point that an anarchist/real communist revolution can be safe-guarded is not a revolutionary movement I would want to be apart of. Any revolutionary movement that deviated from the principles of anti-state and anti-hierarchy is in my oppinion a hindurance on the process of freeing the workers and would not be a movement I would want to be a part off&#33;

I think I might be able to explain this using a Leninist example (only because that, as Redstar said, is what most of the 20th Century revolutions where, but put that aside) where there where two factions inside of the Revolution that then had to struggle for supremacy after the battle with the Czarists was over. The "left" with Lenin and the "right" with the Menshiviks. Bad example, but also a good one at the same side. I, if you have not realized yet, reject Leninism.

To go a bit off topic, because of the recent outburst around what a green is, I think I could fit it into this conversation. Most of my "comrades" (in quotes because they are more apolitical and need a stimulus to act on their beliefs) hold more or less anti-state and anti-hierarchial values, but also integrate environmentalism into their personal platform. The leftists I know in person all believe that just where the ruling class needs to fall, so does all their attitudes towards destroying the world around us, since if we are to live in smaller groups, we will have to do some of that hard work ourselves and thus learn how to utilize it so that we can survive, but also so it can survive and continue to produce what we need to survive. (I am proud of that sentences... off topic) Basically, the fundamental green policy&#39;s - forget all of that liberal doctrinal things that some try to bring to the movement, it is illegitamate and selfdefeating - are the same as the anti-state anti-hierachy. For the most part.


I can already name one principle he contradicts, and that is in his determination to see religion suppressed.

Religion is mostly illogical. Judaism for example is based upon a set of scriptures that promotes and glorifies genocide and fear. The Hebrew worshipped Yhwh out of fear for their lives, seeing how he slaughtered the Egyptians countless times (well 11 or so) because he wanted to prove his might. This religion, although evolved fromt hat point, has its very foundings in submission to an arrogant overlord. After all a covenant is a vassal treaty, which is inherent in feudal societies. Religion, in the western sense, is a feudal bond between superpowerful, although not omnicent (spelling error) god and the people. (If anyone takes this as anti-semitism I will be upset at their ignorance. I use Judaism, as I am currently studying it, and the more I study it the more laughable it becomes in my eyes, I&#39;m sure when I get to the other Western religions I will be able to say the same. Eastern religions hold slightly more respect, because of Hinduisms many denials of its supreme power and all the contridictions that make it more of a mind game to me) There fore, religion is hierarchial in nature and must be fought against in the battle against "secular" hierarchy. Allowing these practices of submission and blatant hierarchy to survive is where the contradiction lies, not in wishing to see them gone.

-Pete

[redstar2000]

...but with luxuries, people want different things. How would you ration things like musical instruments and recreational things (bikes, skateboards etc.)? People have different interests so they&#39;d want different things. But what if someone has a lot of hobbies and requests a lot of these items? Could this not incite jealousy among other people?

Well, it&#39;s true that if someone has material object X and you want one too...and have to wait some considerable period of time before you get one, you&#39;re apt to be a little pissed, to say the least.

And just to aggravate you even more, the production of luxuries will probably be dominated initially by small privately-owned companies...still hoping to survive the revolution and the arrival of communism. It will take some time for workers&#39; collectives to replace them. (How much time? I don&#39;t know&#33;)

Then, of course, there are wide differences in perceived quality in some things. Factory-made musical instruments are considered "inferior" to hand-crafted instruments made one at a time.

I&#39;m not a musician and my "ear" is not well-enough trained to tell the difference, but I&#39;ve heard musicians speak of such things with considerable vehemence.

If you really "need" a hand-crafted musical instrument, you are probably going to have to convince some very skilled craftsman that you are such an excellent musician that s/he will want to make an instrument for you.(&#33;) And then you will wait a year for the work to be done.

But at least with regard to "mass-produced" luxuries--industries that can be readily converted to communist principles--I don&#39;t really see any long-range difficulty in satisfying any reasonable want.

As to someone who is "greedy"...who fills their house with possessions not for use but for "display" and "status", I would expect a couple of consequences. The first is that such displays will have a negative effect on their status...they will meet with social disapproval from neighbors and friends. Secondly, there will undoubtedly be some sort of central data base that collects information on consumption patterns...and greedy folks will "stand out". The central super-computer might well be programmed to send their names to the bottom of all waiting-lists for some period of time to give everyone else a chance to "catch up". (There&#39;s an interesting possible corollary: if you consume "too little", you might get an email from the central data bank suggesting some consumer goodies that you might want to check out. :lol: )


What do you think the characteristics of the advancement of class consciousness [will] be? As the class become more and more conscious, what will be the signs? And what do you think the ruling class will do at these stages? Do you not think that it will be impossible to advance class consciousness to the point in which we can have a true and functioning anarchist/real communist revolution because of the retaliations of the bourgeoisie?

Well, the short answer is that, unlike the Leninists, I don&#39;t "believe" in the "infinite power" of the bourgeoisie. I think that when the time comes for proletarian revolution, the old ruling class itself will be demoralized and, in many respects, ready to surrender. Dying ruling classes do fight to the end, but with less and less self-confidence as the end approaches. Their policies become erratic, they fall to squabbling among themselves, etc.

It is just the opposite with rising classes; their confidence in their forthcoming victory steadily increases as the moment of revolution approaches...their demands on the old order sharply increase in scope and depth until even the most sweeping "concessions" are rejected as hopelessly inadequate. They begin to grasp the idea that they really are a class, that "an injury to one is an injury to all", that class-wide solidarity makes sense. Even some people who are not members of the working class are "attracted" by this, the sense of adventure in "making a new world".

The clearest sign that we are really "on our way" is when the class struggle intensifies to the point that "everyone" (members and lackeys of the old ruling class) begin whining that "the workers are never satisfied&#33;".


I don&#39;t really understand this. A revolutionary movement which did not want to advance the consciousness of the working class to a point that an anarchist/real communist revolution can be safe-guarded is not a revolutionary movement I would want to be a part of. Any revolutionary movement that deviated from the principles of anti-state and anti-hierarchy is, in my opinion, a hindrance on the process of freeing the workers and would not be a movement I would want to be a part of&#33;

Well, those are good intentions and I hope you stick to them. But you have to remember that real revolutions involve millions of people with wide differences in political consciousness. All may agree that the old ruling class must go...but the shape of the new society will be widely and vigorously disputed.

When you stop and think about it, how could it be any other way? Millions and even tens of millions of people who were always taught to be politically silent and deferential to their "superiors" now have a voice.

And I don&#39;t think they&#39;ll be real shy about using it.


In a revolutionary situation these restaurants would not be needed and all property [would be] expropriated.

Expropriation is not just a padlock on the door and a cardboard sign taped to the window "Property of the Municipal Workers Council of Paducah, Kentucky--No Trespassing".

Expropriation to be meaningful involves workers actually taking possession of and operating the existing facility on communist principles.

Naturally, we&#39;d like that to happen as quickly as possible everywhere...but realistically, that seems unlikely to me.

To arbitrarily shut down any small business that is producing something useful simply in order to padlock the door with no thought of replacing its useful function seems to me to be very short-sighted and will cause unnecessary hardship for those workers who actually relied on that business.

To put it crudely, we have to knock off "the big dogs" first...and, then, in due time, clean up the little dogs later.

Much as we might like it, we can&#39;t do everything at once.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

You talk about the advancement of class consciousness in a general way. I am talking about specific stages in advancement. Gaining consicousness will be a long process for the workers, but what effect will it have on society to start with and how do you think the ruling class will react. Do you not think that the revolution will come before full consciousness because of the attacks that will be made by the bouregoisie during that process.

As for expropriation...i never said that it would be about putting a padlock on the doors of business. You said that we would still need pretty-bouregois bosses to run small business. When I talk about expropriation i talk about exactly what you said. The workers going into those business&#39; and running them along [anarcho-] communist principles.

Why do you not think it could happen straight away?

[redstar2000]

You talk about the advancement of class consciousness in a general way. I am talking about specific stages in advancement.

Well, I&#39;m not sure how "specific" we can be at this point...nor am I even sure that "stages" is the right word to use in this context.

It&#39;s often convenient and sometimes useful to divide the progress of a movement by "stages"...as if they were "steps" up the side of a mountain.

But we should know that social developments are so complex and occasionally so chaotic that such divisions are inevitably crude descriptions of what is actually happening...and sometimes actually misleading.

Consider Lenin&#39;s famous work on imperialism...which he described as "the highest stage of capitalism". We know now (or ought to) that there is actually a rather seamless path from the rise of proto-capitalism in northern Italy and in Flanders (c.1300CE) to the present...in which imperialism was more or less present all the way.

We can make distinctions between different periods of capitalism--there are some real differences along the way--but to describe them as "stages" really concludes too much.

And we know that capitalism has developed far "higher" now than it had in 1914.

So I don&#39;t feel particularly comfortable with the idea of trying to anticipate "specific stages" in the development of the revolutionary movement.


Do you not think that the revolution will come before full consciousness because of the attacks that will be made by the bourgeoisie during that process.

No, I don&#39;t think the last spasmodic attacks of the old ruling class will have any negative effects and may have positive effects...accelerating the development of class consciousness.

But I do think that post-revolutionary society will be faced with a potentially serious problem: people do not develop identically. There will doubtless be many conscious anarchists and communists, and many more who are strongly or weakly sympathetic to those ideas.

But there may be many others who did not feel that badly off under the old order and who are dubious or even unsympathetic to the new society. Many small businessmen will fall into that category and a lot of the "experts" as well.

So class struggle will continue after the revolution...in a different way, to be sure.


When I talk about expropriation I talk about exactly what you said. The workers going into those businesses and running them along [anarcho-] communist principles.

Why do you not think it could happen straight away?

Because, as I explained above, not every worker will immediately see the need to do that.

Workers in small businesses have a marked tendency to "identify" with the "good boss"--who they see as a "human being" and not a faceless, greedy, bloodsucking corporation.

Thus, I think it&#39;s reasonable to conclude that their class consciousness will be "less developed" than that of workers in major corporate/government bureaucracies...who have fewer illusions, even now, about the nature of the capitalist class.

I think those "backward" workers will need to see, with their own eyes, that communism is better...before they&#39;ll be willing to do it themselves.

Of course, I wouldn&#39;t mind at all if I was wrong about that.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 08:04 PM
If there is a party "wielding power" then it won&#39;t be a dictatorship "of" the proletariat...it will be a dictatorship over the proletariat.

We&#39;ve seen where that leads...back to capitalism.
Then how do you suppose inequality will be avoided if there is no central government to oversee an equal distribution of goods? How do you suppose the reactionary plans of the bourgeoisie will be thwarted is there is no central governmnt to do so?

[redstar2000]

Then how do you suppose inequality will be avoided if there is no central government to oversee an equal distribution of goods?

I actually expect considerable inequality in the early days, decreasing as things get organized, but never reaching anything much more than a reasonable approximation of equality.

Remember, "to each according to her needs"...and some needs are legitimately greater than others.


How do you suppose the reactionary plans of the bourgeoisie will be thwarted is there is no central government to do so?

I expect most of the old ruling class to flee for their lives. Those that remain will be keeping their heads down...hoping not to be noticed.

The only real danger, if it exists, will be from one or more of the remaining capitalist powers (if any).

And when proletarian revolution has just taken place in Western Europe, that suggests that global capitalism is in pretty bad shape...I think it unlikely that they will be able to mount more than a token and easily defeated intervention. (Remember that the U.S. and the U.K. are still unable to conquer Iraq.)

Of course, it&#39;s possible to create some pretty horrendous scenarios...the massive use of nuclear weapons to exterminate major revolutionary cities like Paris and Berlin, for example.

Should something like that happen, we are fucked&#33; No Leninist state or party is going to keep that from happening, if capitalists elsewhere are so deranged as to choose that alternative. Hopefully, we&#39;ll have at least a few nukes to toss back...and, likewise hopefully, such an atrocity will simply result in massive revolutions in the guilty countries.

But who knows? One thing is for sure: it makes no sense at all to "plan" to re-fight the Russian civil war...any more than it made sense for French generals to plan to re-fight World War I on the eve of World War II.

Whatever forms proletarian revolutions take in this century, it&#39;s practically certain they will be different than they were in the last century.

Things change.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Who will ensure the prevention of any appropriation of labor for organizations aside from the government?
Because the inequality you seem to condone could easily result in that, eh?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Redstar, I knwo you&#39;re around here, answer the damn post post alreday... or admit deafeat&#33; :lol:

[Pete]

Who will ensure the prevention of any appropriation of labor for organizations aside from the government?

The workers themselves. That is why a Leninist system fails: since there are the "professional revolutionaries" who take power, the workers concious (sp) has little chance to develop. Under a worker led revolution they would be capable of stopping this before it happens, as they have the ability to see it occuring and act.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What are they gonna do about it?
Redstar just said that it&#39;s okay for economical inequality to occur, and without a central government to evenly distribute goods and wealth, it certainly will, since many activities are far more lucrative that others, those who work for high-profiting industries will make more than those who work for low-profiting industries. A large income disparity will occur, and some rich dude could easily go over to some little town and employ everyone to make money for himself. Bam, the revolution has just gone down the drain. Thanks a lot anarchists.

[redstar2000]

Who will ensure the prevention of any appropriation of labor for organizations aside from the government? Because the inequality you seem to condone could easily result in that, eh?

Redstar, I know you&#39;re around here, answer the damn post already... or admit defeat&#33;

Redstar just said that it&#39;s okay for economical inequality to occur, and without a central government to evenly distribute goods and wealth, it certainly will, since many activities are far more lucrative that others, those who work for high-profiting industries will make more than those who work for low-profiting industries. A large income disparity will occur, and some rich dude could easily go over to some little town and employ everyone to make money for himself. Bam, the revolution has just gone down the drain. Thanks a lot anarchists.

I trust you will forgive me, VC, as I am involved in quite a few threads and sometimes I have to respond twice before I get the chance to move on.

I did not say that economic inequality was "ok".

I said I expected that there would be quite a bit of economic inequality in the early days after the revolution as things will likely be very chaotic and disorganized.

Conscious workers--anarchists and real communists--will make every effort to steadily reduce inequalities. I mentioned both rationing and waiting lists as methods for doing that.

Certainly, any effort to establish a little economic mini-empire would be met with outrage and hatred...and, if necessary, violence.

You should make at least an effort to realize that anarchists and anti-Leninist communists are just as determined to prevent counter-revolution (open or covert) as Leninists are...and maybe more so.

It wasn&#39;t "anarchists" who handed the USSR over to Yeltsin and capitalism, thank you very much.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

But in a Leninist dictatorship fo the proletariat, this would not at all be a danger to the revolution. Nor would corruption of power of the members of the communist party. Remember, the government will merely be an organization of the working class. The people will still administer power effectively and still centraly.

[redstar2000]

Nor would corruption of power of the members of the communist party [be a danger]. Remember, the government will merely be an organization of the working class. The people will still administer power effectively and still centrally.

In the light of history, your assertions are unsupported by the evidence.

All of the Leninist parties that attained power exercised a dictatorship over the proletariat. All became corrupt. All ended up restoring capitalism...with leading members of the old party becoming the new capitalists.

Once again I remind you: being determines consciousness. When you function "as if" you were a boss, then, in time, you begin to think like a boss. When you function "as if" you were a manager in a capitalist enterprise, then in time, you start to think like one...you become one.

In history, good intentions don&#39;t count.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

But the working class will have collective ownership of the means of production, making them the ruling class, subjecting the governmrnt to their will.

[truthaddict11]

redstar, a few quick questions would repairs and new parts be available for things such as cars and bicycles (flats do happen and parts do wear) would people have to wait on a waiting list in able to recieve a new innertube or tire?
plus what if someone refused a good such as a television or radio or whatever would they be able to exchange it for another item?

[redstar2000]

Any society that didn&#39;t make spare parts widely and immediately available would find itself in the shit fairly quickly...although, it&#39;s interesting to note that in "replace, don&#39;t repair" cultures like American, getting something fixed is often the more expensive alternative.

When a friend of mine wanted to have her computer repaired, the manufacturer told her bluntly that it would be cheaper for her to buy a new one...and they&#39;d even give her a small trade-in allowance on her old one. (&#33;)

I think "repair, don&#39;t replace" makes more sense and imposes far less stress on the environment.

In practical terms, the most sensible thing to do with a "consumer goodie" that you decided that you didn&#39;t want/need would be to give it to someone who wanted/needed it. Indeed, there might be large "centers" in every city where unwanted/unneeded stuff is there for the asking...no waiting list or ration card required. (&#33;)

Something like the way that people do "garage sales" now, only all in one place and no money is needed.


But the working class will have collective ownership of the means of production, making them the ruling class, subjecting the government to their will.

VC, I don&#39;t want to discourage you or anyone from expressing your point-of-view...but you are not raising serious arguments. You are muttering an incantation, a ritual formula without regard to the historical record.

It does not matter who "the ruling class" in law is...what counts is who the ruling class really is.

If does not matter if the working class "owns the means of production" if a small elite actually manages the means of production as if they owned them. Material reality prevails over ideological pretensions and legal fictions.

To suggest that the working class "subjected the government to its will" in any country where Leninist parties ruled is so utterly at variance with the historical facts as to be more appropriate for a Harry Potter movie than for Che-Lives.

I don&#39;t mind disputing these issues with you at as much length as you desire...but I&#39;m growing a bit impatient with the lack of substantive argument in your posts.

How many times will I have to say it: where is the evidence that any Leninist group has given up its pretensions of superiority to the working class?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

To tell you the truth, my knowlege of 20th century communsim is very shallow, so i can&#39;t present to you much substantial evidence of past Leninist regimes. All I know is what is rational when reasoning proggressively from capitalism to communism. It&#39;s rational, following the capitalist example (which is what has existed for centuries past), to place in power a party that acts in function of the interests of an interest group. This group is the working class.

I frankly see nothing inhibiting the people from democraticaly influencing a central government. To me, the personal interests of the policy-makers pose no threat to the peoples&#39; rule. Only if they constitute as an individual class, but they will not.

The government officials will not be an elite ruling the people from above. They are members of the working masses like everyone else. The people will have representatives who too are subject to their own rule, as they do not stand above any law. They do not form a ruling class.

No Leninist regime has given up its so-called "pretentions of superiority" because they were/are all in danger of being over run by counter revolutionaries if they were/are to give up their positions.

Perhaps you can forget the fact that I&#39;m a Leninist and actualy use things gathered from what I&#39;ve said and not from was done in the past. Maybe?

[redstar2000]

To tell you the truth, my knowledge of 20th century communism is very shallow, so I can&#39;t present to you much substantial evidence of past Leninist regimes.

Do you not feel that this imposes an obligation upon you? If you are going to defend the Leninist paradigm, then don&#39;t you have a duty to understand it well enough to argue its "merits"?


I know what is rational when reasoning progressively from capitalism to communism. It&#39;s rational, following the capitalist example (which is what has existed for centuries past), to place in power a party that acts in function of the interests of an interest group. This group is the working class.

So it would seem...except for one "tiny detail". When past ruling classes rose to power, they were minorities. They needed strong parties and strong states to protect and expand their interests vs. their competitors.

The working class will be the overwhelming majority of the population (it is now and will be even more so)...it does not need a political party or a powerful centralized state to enforce its will as a class.


I frankly see nothing inhibiting the people from democratically influencing a central government.

Why should the working class settle for "influencing" a central government when it can be the "government" everywhere?

If the class has all power in its own hands as a consequence of proletarian revolution, why delegate it?

And if some things, as a practical matter, must be delegated, why delegate them to members of a political party who have publicly declared that they have "a right to rule"? That&#39;s suicidal&#33;

You might as well "elect" an emperor.


To me, the personal interests of the policy-makers pose no threat to the peoples&#39; rule. Only if they constitute [themselves] as an individual class, but they will not.

Are you gifted with the gift of prophesy? How can you possibly know that?


The government officials will not be an elite ruling the people from above. They are members of the working masses like everyone else...They do not form a ruling class.

They may "start out" as members of the "working masses", but will they stay that way? Are you planning to rotate them out of office before they "get comfortable"?

Indeed, what makes you think that once they get "up there" that they will even "accept" the idea that they should give up their lofty position & perks? If the army and police are loyal to them, why shouldn&#39;t they just stay in power forever?


No Leninist regime has given up its so-called "pretensions of superiority" because they were/are all in danger of being over run by counter revolutionaries if they were/are to give up their positions.

In other words, the working class itself is entirely powerless to resist counter-revolution...only the Leninist parties can "do that".

Which utterly trashes your contention that the working class has any "power or influence". Because if it did, then "the party" would not be concerned about counter-revolution. The "party" would rely on the class, rather than the other way around.


Perhaps you can forget the fact that I&#39;m a Leninist and actually use things gathered from what I&#39;ve said and not from was done in the past. Maybe?

If I understand you correctly, you don&#39;t want to be held responsible for all the "bad stuff" in the past--which is fair enough. I know that you weren&#39;t alive then, didn&#39;t live in those places, didn&#39;t write those books, didn&#39;t run those prison camps, etc.

But consider: in the many threads about religion on this board, both of us have tried to make the "believers" understand the historical consequences of their reactionary views; we&#39;ve appealed to human experience to show what happens when people start down the path of superstition.

I have exactly the same motivation when I criticize the views of people on this board who proclaim themselves to be Leninists. I want them to think very seriously about where that road leads.

And the inescapable conclusion is that it leads back to capitalism.

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any reasonable way to get around that.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Do you not feel that this imposes an obligation upon you? If you are going to defend the Leninist paradigm, then don&#39;t you have a duty to understand it well enough to argue its "merits"?

I have read Leninist literature. I merely have not studied particular regimes. I suppose I ought to. And I will. For now I&#39;m not deeply set in my ways, but I have, as you know, labeled myself as a Marxist-Leninist because that is what I agree with most at this point. It may inhibit my open-mindedness to already associate myself with a group, but the truth is that this is what I feel is the only successful road to communism. I try to keep an open mind, however.


So it would seem...except for one "tiny detail". When past ruling classes rose to power, they were minorities. They needed strong parties and strong states to protect and expand their interests vs. their competitors.

The working class will be the overwhelming majority of the population (it is now and will be even more so)...it does not need a political party or a powerful centralized state to enforce its will as a class.

The working class will need a state to enforce its will. The very nature of counter revolutionary movements and of the bourgeoisie is to concentrate power. If this is at any point successful, then the people will not have the ability to thwart their intentions, since their power (in stateless society) is only only individual. A collective wielding of power is necessary to increase the magnitute of the people&#39;s power. For its will as a class to be acted upon, it must be organized centraly.


Why should the working class settle for "influencing" a central government when it can be the "government" everywhere?

If the class has all power in its own hands as a consequence of proletarian revolution, why delegate it?

And if some things, as a practical matter, must be delegated, why delegate them to members of a political party who have publicly declared that they have "a right to rule"? That&#39;s suicidal&#33;

You might as well "elect" an emperor.

...to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class
K. Marx & F. Engels
So the government will be an organization fo the working class.
Not so the working class is subject to its own will, but so the bourgeoisie and its tools are subject to the wrath of the working class.


They may "start out" as members of the "working masses", but will they stay that way? Are you planning to rotate them out of office before they "get comfortable"?

Indeed, what makes you think that once they get "up there" that they will even "accept" the idea that they should give up their lofty position & perks? If the army and police are loyal to them, why shouldn&#39;t they just stay in power forever?

George Bush could put congress in martial law, but that is not productive to his interests and those of the ruling class. The interests of the government will be the same as those of the people. The government will represent the working people. All the characteristics that constitute a working man as a member of the proletariat will be present in the party representatives, aside from the fact, of course, that they will be leaders. Unfortunately, leadership is needed to confront the bourgeoisie.


In other words, the working class itself is entirely powerless to resist counter-revolution...only the Leninist parties can "do that".

Which utterly trashes your contention that the working class has any "power or influence". Because if it did, then "the party" would not be concerned about counter-revolution. The "party" would rely on the class, rather than the other way around.

Like I&#39;ve said before, it is in teh interest of the working class to destroy oppression, and thus prevent unpopular counter revolutions.

[redstar2000]

The very nature of counter revolutionary movements and of the bourgeoisie is to concentrate power. If this is at any point successful, then the people will not have the ability to thwart their intentions, since their power (in stateless society) is only individual.

Oh, come on. There must have been at least a hundred posts on this board about organization in stateless societies...you have, by sheer chance, seen none of them? Look at the two threads on this page--"Demarchy" and "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

The idea that stateless societies consist of nothing but atomized individuals is just silly.


A collective wielding of power is necessary to increase the magnitude of the people&#39;s power.

True premise.


For its will as a class to be acted upon, it must be organized centrally.

False conclusion.

The mistake is one that goes "if a little is good, then a lot is even better".

No one disputes that organization is a necessary ingredient of human society. The questions are how much and what kind.

The danger, as we have seen from the experience of Leninist regimes, is that a centralized state apparatus promotes the creation of a new ruling class. That&#39;s history...and we don&#39;t want that to happen again, do we?

So we propose that power be dispersed to smaller collectives--perhaps in the hundreds of thousands--that federate into larger collectives on a functional basis.

That is, if job X requires the cooperation of N collectives, then they federate for the purpose of doing job X...and that purpose only. There&#39;s no need for a "general governing authority" to make "general laws" covering "anything" that might occur to them.

The "efficiency" of such a mechanism is arguable--having a divine emperor is the "most efficient" way of commanding that things get accomplished (as long as people obey and carry out the emperor&#39;s orders).

But, efficiency aside, it does have the virtue of liberating us from emperor-wannabes.


...to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class

Yes, that is what Marx and Engels thought in 1847. What people rarely take into consideration is that those guys lived in the era of bourgeois revolutions and how much that fact shaped their own views.

In the era of proletarian revolution--this century or the next--things will be far more advanced than they were in the time of Marx and Engels...and we can go much faster and more directly to what we really want than they would have thought possible.

Have you thought about the material reasons why Marx and Engels ever came up with the idea of a "period of transition" between capitalism and communism?

In 1847, the working class was a minority in every country and a very small minority in most. In most countries, the working class was illiterate. In all countries, the most reactionary organized superstitions still had a powerful grip on nearly everyone, including the working classes.

Consider the fact that Marx & Engels themselves called for "working men of all countries" to unite...the female half of the human species was still politically invisible even to them. This in spite of the fact that there were already many women (and children) factory workers in England while the Manifesto was being written.

Whatever people write--including whatever revolutionaries write--is subject to the time in which it was written. Prophesy is for charlatans.

It is clear from the totality of the works of Marx and Engels that they were for communism and that any measures short of that were temporary and only recommended out of compelling material circumstances.

We are not under those conditions or those compulsions. There&#39;s no reason to settle for less than what we want.

Communism.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Even if power is organized localy, differences in interests and power will arise and create classes. For total equality, centralization is necessary. You acuse Marxism-Leninism of creating classes, but your de-centralized loosely-organized anarchy is what will create classes.

What makes you think that local party leaders are imune from becoming a new ruling class like you say that a central ruling class would?

For classlessnes, equality is necessary, and you seem to be missing that point&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Just to add my little bit in response to what VC has said...


Even if power is organized localy, differences in interests and power will arise and create classes.

The interests of the these local areas will be to exist. Different interests would arise of course, but why should these lead to a power struggle or create classes. People in different areas will have the opporuntities to share the same interests as any other collective. Classes only arise when a group of people use their power to control another group of people for their own interests. There will be no power, only co-operation.

You seem to be talking within the context of capitalist pyshology. human beings will function differently in a post revolutionary situation. They will have fought to live in a co-operative, collective way. Why would they threaten it by getting jealous over the interests of other people.


You acuse Marxism-Leninism of creating classes, but your de-centralized loosely-organized anarchy is what will create classes.

de-centralization does not constitue neglect of organization. Society will not be loosly organized, it will be highly organized, without a central government or hierarchies.


What makes you think that local party leaders are imune from becoming a new ruling class like you say that a central ruling class would?

There will be no party leaders. There will be collectives with individuals inside them working together.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Without central organization, classes will arise from income disparity. If income and/or goods are not evely distributed, inequality will occur. It is naive of you to expect every locality to produce the same worth or amount of goods. With this inequality will come classes. With different economical classes, those with more will use their power to control and oppress for their own interests.


There will be no party leaders. There will be collectives with individuals inside them working together.

The same could be said for a central government.

[The Feral Underclass]

Without central organization, classes will arise from income disparity. If income and/or goods are not evely distributed, inequality will occur.

The practical logic of your argument is fine and I understand the need to have some place to focus on in order to produce and distrabute goods. of course you can not have factories everywhere, to start with, so factories woiuld collectivised and run by workers. Each collective would provide the factory with details on what was needed and the appropriate needs would be produced and distrabuted accordingly. This could be seen as being some kind of central command but it isnt. The difference being the workers have control over the factory and not a commisar or a central food committee.


The same could be said for a central government.

I dont think it can. What you are advocating is a vanguard of intellectuals control the means of production in the interest of the working class and that society is organized accordingly. What I am advocating is that society is controlled by the collectives and organized through co-operation. There is a vast difference in the organization of society.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The practical logic of your argument is fine and I understand the need to have some place to focus on in order to produce and distrabute goods. of course you can not have factories everywhere, to start with, so factories woiuld collectivised and run by workers. Each collective would provide the factory with details on what was needed and the appropriate needs would be produced and distrabuted accordingly. This could be seen as being some kind of central command but it isnt. The difference being the workers have control over the factory and not a commisar or a central food committee.

I&#39;m talking about the the output of the factory. Any factory will produce more per worker than a farm, for example. Without a central government to collect and redistribute the products and goods, the workers of a farming community or district would be left with only the relatively low worth of goods in comparison to the workers of an industrial city or district. There is nothing you can do to make unprocessed goods worth as much as manufactured goods.


I dont think it can. What you are advocating is a vanguard of intellectuals control the means of production in the interest of the working class and that society is organized accordingly. What I am advocating is that society is controlled by the collectives and organized through co-operation. There is a vast difference in the organization of society.

...to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class.
K. Marx & F. Engels

[redstar2000]

Any factory will produce more per worker than a farm, for example. Without a central government to collect and redistribute the products and goods, the workers of a farming community or district would be left with only the relatively low worth of goods in comparison to the workers of an industrial city or district. There is nothing you can do to make unprocessed goods worth as much as manufactured goods.

It seems to me that you&#39;re still thinking in terms of a market economy, with collectives of workers and farmers producing commodities for sale.

In a communist society, stuff is produced for use...and there&#39;s no reason that a farmer would not take what s/he needs with the same ease as an urban worker.

It will not be a case of "worker-owned" factories trying to be "more profitable" than one another or than farmers. The concept of "ownership" and the concept of "profit" belong to the old era...they won&#39;t have any meaning at all in communist society any more than feudal concepts have any meaning today (except for historians, how many people even recall the old words, much less their meanings?).


Without central organization, classes will arise from income disparity.

There&#39;s no question that, abstractly at least, classes do arise (in part) from income disparity.

But central organization not only has not prevented income disparity but actually introduced it and promoted it. The leaders of Leninist parties have always lived better than their followers and better than the working class.

Now consider the situation in the immediate aftermath of proletarian revolution.

Will people not be hyper-sensitive to material inequality...and, indeed, to institutionalized privileges of all kinds? Will they not be predisposed to take immediate steps to change that? And will there not be real communists and many anarchists present to demand that those steps be taken immediately?

Of course, there will be struggles over the specifics; I can imagine some folks saying things like "It&#39;s true that inequality is bad in general, but my own particular privilege is really justified".

But others will be quick to expose such self-serving hypocrisy...the supporters of inequality in any form are always going to be on the defensive.

As they should be.

:redstar2000:

PS: I note that in your last response to Anarchist Tension that you reproduce the same quotation from the Communist Manifesto that I analyzed in an earlier post...without making any effort to refute my criticism.

That&#39;s not discussion...that&#39;s muttering a ritual incantation--like "Get thee behind me, Satan". You cannot use the works of Marx and Engels as books of magic...to ward off "evil ideas" that make you uncomfortable.

They themselves would be appalled at such mis-use of their ideas.

So am I.

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It seems to me that you&#39;re still thinking in terms of a market economy, with collectives of workers and farmers producing commodities for sale.

In a communist society, stuff is produced for use...and there&#39;s no reason that a farmer would not take what s/he needs with the same ease as an urban worker.

It will not be a case of "worker-owned" factories trying to be "more profitable" than one another or than farmers. The concept of "ownership" and the concept of "profit" belong to the old era...they won&#39;t have any meaning at all in communist society any more than feudal concepts have any meaning today (except for historians, how many people even recall the old words, much less their meanings?).

Whether or not goods are marketed, they will still have value, even if not monetary. And some means of production will be more efficient in producing valued goods. The value of goods is based on the resources used to manufacture or make it and the work put into it. A steel mill will always be more lucrative (again, noe necssarily monetarily) than a corn farm.

Unless the profits (not monetary ones) are evenly distributed, some individuals will become more wealthy (not necessarily monetarily) than others.

This, however, is just one example of how the bourgeoisie can destroy the revolution if the intruments of production and its fruits are not centralized.


There&#39;s no question that, abstractly at least, classes do arise (in part) from income disparity.

But central organization not only has not prevented income disparity but actually introduced it and promoted it. The leaders of Leninist parties have always lived better than their followers and better than the working class.

Now consider the situation in the immediate aftermath of proletarian revolution.

Will people not be hyper-sensitive to material inequality...and, indeed, to institutionalized privileges of all kinds? Will they not be predisposed to take immediate steps to change that? And will there not be real communists and many anarchists present to demand that those steps be taken immediately?

Of course, there will be struggles over the specifics; I can imagine some folks saying things like "It&#39;s true that inequality is bad in general, but my own particular privilege is really justified".

But others will be quick to expose such self-serving hypocrisy...the supporters of inequality in any form are always going to be on the defensive.

As they should be.

The fact that Leninist leaders have ended up better-off than the rest of the people is missmanagement and corruption of the past. Whether or not those with the ability to increase their gain are able to or not, is not something that de-centralized governments can assure either, eh?


PS: I note that in your last response to Anarchist Tension that you reproduce the same quotation from the Communist Manifesto that I analyzed in an earlier post...without making any effort to refute my criticism.

That&#39;s not discussion...that&#39;s muttering a ritual incantation--like "Get thee behind me, Satan". You cannot use the works of Marx and Engels as books of magic...to ward off "evil ideas" that make you uncomfortable.

They themselves would be appalled at such mis-use of their ideas.

So am I.

In your rebutal to my quotation of the Manifesto, you completely failed to tell me why the working class&#39;s status as a minority, society&#39;s disregard for women, and the proletariat&#39;s illiteracy changes anything at all about what Marx and Engels wrote.

So you didn&#39;t really refute my argument, and since TAT used the same argument, I used the same rebutal that you couldn&#39;t seem to refute.

[redstar2000]

The value of goods is based on the resources used to manufacture or make it and the work put into it.

No, in communist society there are only use-values...there are no exchange-values.

I can imagine communist society "keeping track" of resources and labor-hours of producing this or that good or service...simply in order to suggest changes or improvements.

But there&#39;s no "value" in the sense that you are using the word.

When you "take" something for "use", that&#39;s the only "value" it has. If you "take" something for "use" but don&#39;t actually use it (attempt to accumulate for the sake of accumulation, in other words), people will stop you from doing that.


Whether or not those with the ability to increase their gain are able to or not, is not something that de-centralized governments can assure either, eh?

The only "guarantee" that history offers (thus far) is what has happened, can happen.

All you can do is pick "the best odds" and roll the dice.


In your rebuttal to my quotation of the Manifesto, you completely failed to tell me why the working class&#39;s status as a minority, society&#39;s disregard for women, and the proletariat&#39;s illiteracy changes anything at all about what Marx and Engels wrote.

How many dots must I connect for you? Is it not clear that these weaknesses in the working class might suggest to Marx and Engels that an immediate transition to communism, however much they might have wished for that, was at that time and under those conditions a practical impossibility?

Look at the famous 10 points in the Manifesto: they actually speak of "gradually" taking over the means of production from the capitalist class. Do you think for a second that that is how they wanted to proceed? Or did they accommodate themselves to the material reality of the era?

Do you still wish to take into account the conditions of 1847 when making proletarian revolution in the 21st or 22nd centuries?

Why?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Okay, I may have missjudged what value will be based on.... but the goods will still have differing values.
Not everything will be valued equaly, comrade.
...obviously.
And not every working man will produce the same amount of goods in terms of value.

Today, an immediate leap into communsim is also impossible because of the material conditions.
Why?
The revolution cannot be secure from counter revolutionary movement without a central government.

[Faceless]

The suggestion that there should be tollerance of some bourgeoisie seems absurd to me. Once Communism is achieved then we have the ability to stop a resurgence of capitalism through &#39;squeezing&#39; the rebels. In the meantime the overthrow of the bourgeois government will have little meaning if it does not overthrow the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois democracy is the creation of the bourgeoisie; not the other way round. What is the meaning of the &#39;real communist&#39;s&#39; revolution then? How are these &#39;collectives&#39; started if not as a result of an attack on the bourgeoisie? Communists should offer liberation to the bourgeoisie but should they choose to refuse it then we simply take their property. Leninists were wrong in their centralisation of power, not their centralisation of the economy. Democracy can be maintained, thus stopping corruption, surely, with the decentralisation of power. The problem is not haste in essentially disbanding the bourgeoisie. As I see it, with decentralisation of power, the workers can choose their own priorities.

[The Feral Underclass]

The revolution cannot be secure from counter revolutionary movement without a central government.

Why?

[Faceless]

QUOTE
The revolution cannot be secure from counter revolutionary movement without a central government.


Why? That depends upon the nature of the revolution. The more traditional Marxist (/Leninist though I would argue otherwise) revolution is often vanguard based but the anarchist or menshevik revolution just requires a militant majority. Should the anarchist revolution be possible (though I&#39;m naturally a sceptic) then sure, no central govt. is necessary.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2003, 07:18 AM

The revolution cannot be secure from counter revolutionary movement without a central government.

Why?
Read almost any of the posts I&#39;ve made in this thread explaining how inequality and classes will develop from a de-centralized economy.

You anarchists are constantly acusing Marxism-Leninism of leading to corruption and capitalism, but how do you suppose local collectives and commitees will be immune from elitism? What makes you think that the central organizations of workers will be overcome by personal interests and local ones will not?


Leninists were wrong in their centralisation of power, not their centralisation of the economy. Democracy can be maintained, thus stopping corruption, surely, with the decentralisation of power. The problem is not haste in essentially disbanding the bourgeoisie. As I see it, with decentralisation of power, the workers can choose their own priorities.

Centralization of the economy is centralization of power. With the de-centralization of power, the local collectives will be too weak to thwart counter revolutions.

[redstar2000]

...but how do you suppose local collectives and committees will be immune from elitism? What makes you think that the central organizations of workers will be overcome by personal interests and local ones will not?

The "common sense" answer is that the "higher" up you get, the easier it becomes to disguise elitism and corruption. In the U.S., corrupt mayors are fairly easy to locate; corrupt governors more difficult, corrupt federal officials almost always "beat the rap".

Also, of course, the higher up you are, the more rewards you have to distribute to your supporters. A corrupt mayor can hand you a contract worth &#036;50 million; a corrupt governor &#036;500 million; a corrupt...er, Secretary of Defense or Vice-President, &#036;200 billion or more&#33;

Of course, things would certainly work differently in a "modernized" version of the old USSR or "People&#39;s" China. But the principle still applies. If you are one of the "higher ups" in such a regime, you have enormous opportunities to accumulate wealth and power virtually without limit...though you may be compelled to hide this from the working class.

Could there be corruption and elitism in a decentralized classless society? I&#39;m sure there will be people who will try.

But you can see the obvious difficulties they would face. Other people would know them, would see if they were trying to grab "more than their share" and would, presumably, protest vigorously.

Even in the old USSR and "People&#39;s" China, low-level corruption was, now and then, prosecuted vigorously...more than a few local party secretaries went to labor camps or in front of firing squads. It was the higher-ups who escaped retribution and, in fact, it&#39;s their sons and daughters who make up the backbone of the new capitalist ruling classes in those countries.

There will undoubtedly be people for a long time to come who will try, in one fashion or another, to "game" any system for their personal gain.

A communist society is a much more difficult environment for such people than a centralized "state-socialist" (Leninist) environment.


With the de-centralization of power, the local collectives will be too weak to thwart counter revolutions.

This is something you have repeatedly asserted...in fact, it&#39;s the most common Leninist argument in defense of the dictatorship of their party.

There&#39;s just no evidence to support that contention.

It relies, I think, on a conviction common to Leninists that the old ruling class will still be incredibly "powerful" and "resourceful" in trying to get back into power. History suggests that old ruling classes are, in fact, pretty demoralized. Some of them do indeed conspire to return to power as best they can, but most simply flee. After all, one of the underlying reasons for major class-based revolutions is that the old ruling class can no longer govern.

Think of those half-million or so Cuban "refugees" in Miami; how many of them are active counter-revolutionaries working towards the day when they can return to Havana on the back of an American tank? 5,000? 500? The data-entry clerk for the U.S. Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Cuban Affairs is a bigger threat to the Cuban Revolution than all the unreconciled elements of the old Cuban ruling class put together&#33;

In fact, I would go so far as to say that counter-revolution is only a real threat when you have made a "revolution" based on a minority of the population...as Lenin did. China&#39;s peasant-based "Marxism" was never under any serious threat of being overthrown...except by the "Marxists" themselves.

Proletarian revolutions of this and the next centuries will be massive upheavals in which the old ruling classes will have pretty close to zero chance of reversing.

The Leninist state is unnecessary.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In response to your criticism of argument about defense:
It is not the old ruling class (necessarily) that we (at least I) fear, it is those with personal interests conflicting with those of the collective. People who may try to appropriate the labour of his comrades for capital, people who may try to unite people for religous, racist, homophobic, chauvinistic, mysoginistic, or nationalistic assembly, or people who simply form military counter revolutions. Like I have said before, these things (aside from the military counter revolution) all result in a concentration of power which de-centralized collectives cannot defeat. Not only will societies lacking in centralization be feeble against counter revolutionary movements, they will also weak to prevent the acquisition of capital yielding to counter revolutions.

[Faceless]

Centralization of the economy is centralization of power. With the de-centralization of power, the local collectives will be too weak to thwart counter revolutions.
Not so. There can still be a central administration, which is accountable to the lower levels. What is a "dictatorship of the proletariat" if it is not accountable to the proletariat? I see no reason why Leninists should fear intra-party democracy. When I say a central economy, I mean that work should be co-ordinated by a body with little other authority for the benefit of the general population. Things like crime, power and the conscription into armies (what I consider power) should be in the hands of local bodies. That is to repeat, quite rightly, what Redstar2000 said:

The "common sense" answer is that the "higher" up you get, the easier it becomes to disguise elitism and corruption. In the U.S., corrupt mayors are fairly easy to locate; corrupt governors more difficult, corrupt federal officials almost always "beat the rap".
That does not make me anarchist though. I still favour a revolution through a vanguard and I also believe that to produce the above described society we should grasp the power from the current governments and shape society much more quickly and with greater immediacy than my Leninist friends. What I still stuggle to understand, Redstar2000, is what does the attack against the bourgeoisie initially manifest itself as in your revolution. You have repeatedly said that you wish to squeeze power from them by imitating their industry. What is your revolution? The bourgeois state is not causal of the bourgeoisie. Rather the other way round. The state is a tool of the bourgeoisie. You overthrow the state, then what? With such tollerance of the bourgeoisie, how do you take the means of appropriation from them? And, as you don&#39;t mind tollerating them, which ones do you tollerate? Will there even be a proletarian revolution in this said society? Do you mean to squeeze them from the start with the formation of collectives etc, without a revolution?

I seem to be getting the idea that you mean that the individual prolatarians will overthrow their own oppressor and not go out of their way to free their brothers. If the revolution occurs in dribs and drabs then then it can be isolated and annihilated. We will surely have to wait millenia for such spontaneous upheaval. Either your revolution will occur and be a success, with zero tollerance of the bourgeoisie or the revolutionaries will be isolated and destroyed, as they are daily being today. Do you envisige something like the Paris Commune? You may remember that they would have only succeeded by marching on Versailles. They did not. They failed.

[redstar2000]

What I still struggle to understand, Redstar2000, is what does the attack against the bourgeoisie initially manifest itself as in your revolution.

Perhaps I have been unclear. I sort of assumed that everyone "knows" that proletarian revolution involves a massive uprising of the working class.

This obviously means that the old bourgeois state apparatus is destroyed and the bourgeois politicians arrested (the ones who haven&#39;t already fled).

I would anticipate that all of the assets of the major corporations would be seized by the workers in those corporations...and that workers in most middle-sized corporations would do likewise. Only small businesses would remain and still attempt to operate "as usual" after the revolution (and some of them might be collectivized by their workers as well).

The main problem that the working class would then face is exactly how to convert from a market economy into a moneyless, classless society...and do so rapidly and with a minimum of fuckups.

Perhaps they would begin with a series of regional conventions of workers&#39; delegates to discuss the details of conversion within their respective regions. (I&#39;ll stick in a plug for demarchy here as the best way to select those delegates.)

Ultimately, there may or may not be a "national" convention...it&#39;s hard to say what meaning "nation" will even have at that point.

As time passes, and assuming the transition to communism doesn&#39;t run into unforeseen difficulties, it will be necessary to "squeeze" those small businesses out of existence...and there are various non-coercive ways that this could be done. Many might be voluntarily collectivized by the workers there; some will run into difficulties acquiring supplies or customers; some will shut down because they can&#39;t compete with "free", etc.

In a way, it will very similar to the methodology that I proposed for eliminating religion from public life in post-revolutionary society. First, you demolish the big cathedrals, the most prominent symbols of superstition. Then you gradually put the remainder out of "business" until they are all gone.

I do think there will ultimately be some kind of centralized data bank--ultimately encompassing the entire world. It will track the use of every resource and, perhaps, suggest changes and improvements to different regions. But it won&#39;t be a "state"...it has no "power of command" or armed force to "make people obey".


Do you mean to squeeze them from the start with the formation of collectives etc, without a revolution?

No, that has been proposed from time-to-time, but I do not think it is realistic.


I seem to be getting the idea that you mean that the individual proletarians will overthrow their own oppressor and not go out of their way to free their brothers.

History suggests that once an uprising reaches a certain level, it spreads "like wildfire" and even folks that you&#39;d think would "never" rebel nevertheless find it within themselves to rise. One of the most interesting documents to emerge from the "May Days" of France in 1968 was "the revolt of the nerds"...the CERN physicists demanding the right of self-management for atomic researchers.

Truth is, once people realize that a new world is really possible, you don&#39;t have to help them much...they are quite willing to do it themselves.

And quite capable.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

Perhaps I have been unclear. I sort of assumed that everyone "knows" that proletarian revolution involves a massive uprising of the working class.

This obviously means that the old bourgeois state apparatus is destroyed and the bourgeois politicians arrested (the ones who haven&#39;t already fled). I do not know if you are being sarcastic here or just plain partronising. I have great difficulty determining tone over the internet. No, I do know what a "proletarian revolution" is but you seem to be able to tollerate certain levels of petty bourgeoisie. When you said something of pittying others and asking, "are you still a wage labourer? You poor thing." I do not remember exactly what it was that you said. I know what I think proletarian revolution is, I was worried that you did not. The question that I have been asking (if a little poorly phrased):

What levels of bourgeoisie (a reemergence perhaps) are you prepared to tollerate after the said revolution without attacking them from a more central position? (I must also assume that you dismiss vanguardism as leninist?)

[redstar2000]

Actually, I did not intend to sound either sarcastic or patronizing...and I apologize if I gave that impression. You must understand that we have a constant inflow of new people onto this board and I often have no way of knowing "how much" I have to explain and how much is already understood.

"How much" petty-bourgeois economic activity will actually exist after the revolution is clearly impossible to predict. I mentioned privately-owned restaurants as an example; other small businesses that are targeted directly at consumers might also exist for a considerable length of time.

What we want to "nail down" initially is the basic foundations of the economy, including all basic consumer necessities.

Then, as time passes, we can "squeeze" the remainder.

I make this point not out of any particular fondness for small business (I have worked for some and found them just as greedy and exploitative as large corporations...just not as sophisticated). It&#39;s a practical question; how much can you do and how quickly can you do it?

Yes, I do reject Leninist vanguardism and consequently I also reject the idea of shutting down everything that we can&#39;t immediately control...padlocks on storefronts does not commend itself to me as a viable economic policy.

On the other hand, there&#39;s nothing wrong about being honest about our intentions; the petty bourgeoisie should be under no illusions about their ultimate fate...and this in itself will demoralize many of them and cause them to gradually withdraw from whatever is left of "the market".

If we can get communism to work on "the big things" then I think the "little things" will mostly take care of themselves.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

I did not mean to bite your head off.

What we want to "nail down" initially is the basic foundations of the economy, including all basic consumer necessities. Absolutely.
What about things like agriculture, specialist and qualatitive work. Certain things might not be easily liberated.
On vanguardism, I&#39;ve been approaching this from the respect of your being non-anarchocommunist. I would not classify vanguardism and leninism as one myself. What of those less coherent revolutions (such as that of Cuba), guerrilla wars; do you (as an anarchist or otherwise) in anyway support such action? I know the saying that the guerrilla&#39;s are the fish and the peole the water but still... (we are both here after all because of a mutual admiration of Che). Such a revolution is born of discontent but it involves the grasping of central control, surely, followed by the engineering of society (too Leninist?)
Our ultimate difference is one of revolution (and not one I would like to conflict too greatly on in this thread).

[The Feral Underclass]

What of those less coherent revolutions (such as that of Cuba), guerrilla wars; do you (as an anarchist or otherwise) in anyway support such action?

Revolutions need to be organized to last. History proves that the conditions for revolutions have not been right. The revolution in cuba was not necessarily about destroying a world system which exploits and oppresses the workers. it was to overthrow a brutal dictater.

Any confrontation that the workers have must be with capitalism as a global system. It must be a an act of consciousness which means to replace the existing world order with a new one which will last forever.

That is why it is absolutly necessary to educate the masses and allow the people to lead themselves. If a small group of "consious" women and men lead a gurilla war to overthrow capitalism, what is this going to achieve. For a start the majority of working class people are not going to sympathise with your cause, the conditions are not as blatant as they were in Cuba under Batista. The bouregois media will spin what is happening and make you look like terrorists and even if you succeeded how will you govern. As Castro has done, leading a nation isolated from the world and hated by the majoirty of people. Because of these reasons the cuban revolution has failed. Cuba is isolated and Castro is old, any sniffle of revolutionary zeal has been wiped out completely and sooner or later Cuba will have to open up it&#39;s markets and capitalism will return. it has been the same with Russia and China.

Any armed struggle must be led by a mass of conscious workers. When i say conscious I mean people who understand what capitalism is and how it places them within society. When the workers have a material understanding of their conditions they will want to change it, i did, Redstar did and so do may other comrades in this message board. As I have said before we are no different to the average person who works in a factory etc, except that we understand what we are as human beings. Comodities, bought and used by the ruling class.

Once this has a wide understanding the ruling class will not be able to stop the anger and frustration felt by the masses. That is how a revolution should be led. Not by a small armed gurellia unit or by a vanguard of "professional revolutionaries" but by the people.

Excuse the rhetoric but I am happy to be more specific if you ask :P

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 09:08 AM

Centralization of the economy is centralization of power. With the de-centralization of power, the local collectives will be too weak to thwart counter revolutions.
Not so. There can still be a central administration, which is accountable to the lower levels. What is a "dictatorship of the proletariat" if it is not accountable to the proletariat? I see no reason why Leninists should fear intra-party democracy. When I say a central economy, I mean that work should be co-ordinated by a body with little other authority for the benefit of the general population. Things like crime, power and the conscription into armies (what I consider power) should be in the hands of local bodies. That is to repeat, quite rightly, what Redstar2000 said:
Whoever determines where the money goes does have quite a bit of power, comarde.

And I believe that what you said is not something that Redstar would agree with, is it?
Redstar?

[Faceless]

As Castro has done, leading a nation isolated from the world and hated by the majoirty of people. Because of these reasons the cuban revolution has failed. There are two ways to look at this. I would disagree with you. Castro&#39;s revolution inspired others to fight in (for example) Colombia. If the Soviet Union had not been so backstabbing and not demanded the support of Cuba in its various ventures (tarnishing Castro&#39;s reputation) his influence would have been significantly different; greater. The same goes for Allende, Abenz and numerous others. When they try to implement social democracy (a noble cause, I hope you would all agree) the United States stopped them in their tracks. The prospect of eurocommunism and "real socialism" (as I like to call it) was too much for the US and USSR. This foreign influence is the same foreign influence that anarchists fear (isn&#39;t it?) The might of the Guatemalan and Chillean armies did not scare the USA and Soviet Union. It was that they would export an idea (and a very tempting idea to the working classes). Besides the oppressive governments of USSR etc. the liberal and true commies, such as my self, face the same opposition as anarchists etc.

To Victorcommie: yes, economic contol can be a source of power (and a terrible one at that) hence the "dictator of the proletariat" has to be accountable to the proletarians, no? Lenin, Stalin, Mao; they were not. Power is also the ability to pass judgement. Hence, we must eliminate the economy as a source of power by democratising it and invest the ability to pass judgement (law and order) decentrally. In a hurry now, talk more later.

[redstar2000]

What about things like agriculture, specialist and qualitative work. Certain things might not be easily liberated.

I quite agree...and, in fact, agriculture in particular concerns me a good deal.

I don&#39;t see why demarchic collectivization would not work well enough on "factory farms". But we still have a substantial number of "rich peasants" in the U.S.--and, I suspect, a number of other advanced capitalist countries.

They are very productive...and reactionary to the core&#33;

I worry that they will give post-capitalist society a lot of grief.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also what&#39;s to stop these farmers refusing to give food other collectives?
How do we make sure that farmers don&#39;t hold all the cards? (As they would do now if it weren&#39;t for the market)

[Faceless]

Also what&#39;s to stop these farmers refusing to give food other collectives?
How do we make sure that farmers don&#39;t hold all the cards? (As they would do now if it weren&#39;t for the market) My sentiments precisely. There&#39;s no reason why they couldn&#39;t operate but, as I see it, such a self-sufficient and often reactionary class must (should it come to it) be assaulted directly and not necessarily by just those who they "directly" oppress. Vanguardism, RedStar? Is there any alternative. Historically Stalin and Mao suffered because of the vital agricultural sector.

[redstar2000]

What to do about the "rich peasants" in advanced capitalist countries is a problem for which I can offer no solution at the present time.

There are some questions to which I do not know the answers. This is one of them.

I&#39;m open to serious suggestions.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

Well, besides vanguardism, I can only suggest that you subsidise the work of collectives and disproportionatly raise the standard of living of cooperative peasants as a sort of bribary. Then slowly retract artificial support as the majority collectivise. By this time, any who choose to "go private" so to speak will be easily squeezed. With any luck there will be few who would choose to reject such a system.