A blueprint.

[LeftSideOfOz]

It is not our task to write recipes for the kitchens of the future. - Karl Marx

So Marx was against writing up a blueprint of what he thought society should look like.

I've already read it here on this forum many times in the many 'under communism is ....... allowed' threads that it is up to the future society to create this blueprint.

A change in society is started by a few who will convince the many that their is a better alternative out there.

How do we expect to persuade people that we are fighting for a change that will benefit everyone. When we're basically saying 'oh we know the theory behind what we want society to change into but the specifics we'll leave up to you once we get there.'

I think it's madness to think that we would be able persuade people to follow us in the dark with not a clear idea of where we are taking them.

Their is a reason that politicians of today are sometimes grilled on the specifics. It's because the general public want to know what the outcome will look like if they are elected.

Unfortunately until a plan is put forth for the proposed outcome of a change to socialism/communism I cannot see a future where it will happen no matter how bad things get.

Does anybody else share this opinion? Anybody who completely disagrees?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What good is a plan if it has to be abandoned because the people who crafted it had no clue what the actual future conditions would be? Marx was correct.

[Blackscare]

I think that there's value in outlining a method of political organization and decision making that can be used to create a cohesive, large scale form of working-class governance. Outlining specific policy is pointless because such decisions often are subject to historical contingency.

[LeftSideOfOz]

What good is a plan if it has to be abandoned because the people who crafted it had no clue what the actual future conditions would be? Marx was correct.

By that's my point. How can we expect people to follow if we can't provide a reasonable outline of what our plan of action is and what can be expected of the outcome.

Just because a plan may not go entirely to script it doesn't mean you should not have one. I don't know anyone who would begin any sort of undertaking without some sort of blueprint of how they expect it to turn out.

Their is a reason this forum keeps getting 'under socialism how does' threads. It's because that is the sort of information people need before they can truly follow a person or an idea.

[thefinalmarch]

It is not our task to write recipes for the kitchens of the future. - Karl Marx
Actually that was Kautsky in The Social Revolution.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-1.htm


I've already read it here on this forum many times in the many 'under communism is ....... allowed' threads that it is up to the future society to create this blueprint.
We can speculate, but ultimately it will be the workers for themselves who decide the fate of society. Only the material circumstances in a future society will determine whether or not certain proposals we make today ever materialise. Even then, many of our proposals today will, in the future, be made independently of us.


A change in society is started by a few who will convince the many that their is a better alternative out there.
Not exactly, no:


…the Communists know only too well […] that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.
I'd argue that, at this particular point in time, the aforementioned circumstances most likely to precipitate a revolution are the massive government spending cuts, the austerity programs, and the debt crises striking many countries. The working class has mobilised against these circumstances, most notably in Greece, but also in other places such as Wisconsin, USA.


How do we expect to persuade people that we are fighting for a change that will benefit everyone. When we're basically saying 'oh we know the theory behind what we want society to change into but the specifics we'll leave up to you once we get there.'

I think it's madness to think that we would be able persuade people to follow us in the dark with not a clear idea of where we are taking them.

"We" are not "fighting for change" independently of the working class -- and communism isn't a commodity to be "sold" to the working class. Social revolution will be the culmination of the organic struggles of the working class acting in and for itself.

Come any working class revolution, I have my doubts that it will even be referred to by its participants as 'communist' or 'socialist', or that it will be led by any of the countless communist parties and organisations currently fading in and out of existence and obscurity.

As pro-revolutionary militants and activists, our role in class struggle is limited to "education, agitation, and organisation", albeit on an individual scale -- as opposed to doing so as representatives for X, Y or Z party.

[Leftsolidarity]

By that's my point. How can we expect people to follow if we can't provide a reasonable outline of what our plan of action is and what can be expected of the outcome.



We already have a "we are against: this, this, this, etc." stance and different tendencies/groups have ideas of how they think we should try to go about things. So I would say we (speaking of Leftists in general) already have an outline. We just don't have an exact "how too" plan for future society and it would be foolish to try to make one, seeing as that we have no idea what different societies would face and how they should best deal with their unknown needs.

I understand the want for a plan like that but it would really be silly and a waste of time to try to make one.

[Tim Cornelis]

Outlining what society might look like under communism/socialism is not wrong, but going into too much detail is.


Talk of “blueprints” is often careless. It is important to recall that Marx was grappling with some honest-to-goodness blueprints of a future society. Fourier, for instance, stipulated how large each community (Phalanx) will be, how it will be laid out, how people will dine and with whom they will sit, and who will do the dirty work (a legion of “youngsters aged nine to sixteen, composed of one-third girls, two-thirds boys”). There is a great chasm between such blueprints, which Marx rejected, and what Dunayevskaya, in her final presentation on the dialectics of organization and philosophy, called “a general view of where we’re headed.” As Olga’s report suggests, the difference is not essentially a matter of the degree of generality, but a matter of the self-development of the idea.

(source: http://thecommune.co.uk/2010/01/08/alternatives-to-capitalism-what-happens-after-the-revolution/ )

Obviously, Fourier's ideas were a nonsensical blueprint, but outlining what kind of society we want is not.

[ZeroNowhere]

A change in society is started by a few who will convince the many that their is a better alternative out there.Well, yes, of course a utopian socialist is going to disagree with Marx on this matter. Marx was focused not on what would form an ideal state, but upon what is real and will in fact take place; of course, if you reject this then you may well require blueprints to make your propaganda convincing.

[Rooster]

We already know how society will pan out. The capitalist system produces it's own gravediggers; the proletariat. We workers already know how to produce and run society, we do it every day.

[ericksolvi]

It is not our task to write recipes for the kitchens of the future. - Karl Marx

So Marx was against writing up a blueprint of what he thought society should look like.

I've already read it here on this forum many times in the many 'under communism is ....... allowed' threads that it is up to the future society to create this blueprint.

A change in society is started by a few who will convince the many that their is a better alternative out there.

How do we expect to persuade people that we are fighting for a change that will benefit everyone. When we're basically saying 'oh we know the theory behind what we want society to change into but the specifics we'll leave up to you once we get there.'

I think it's madness to think that we would be able persuade people to follow us in the dark with not a clear idea of where we are taking them.

Their is a reason that politicians of today are sometimes grilled on the specifics. It's because the general public want to know what the outcome will look like if they are elected.

Unfortunately until a plan is put forth for the proposed outcome of a change to socialism/communism I cannot see a future where it will happen no matter how bad things get.

Does anybody else share this opinion? Anybody who completely disagrees?

I agree with you.

We need a plan for a communist system, that is at least as detailed as the US constitution. Only then will we have concrete ideas to show people.

I've spent most of my day today pushing the idea that some of what we believe might be holding us back. The rejection of concrete post revolutionary models derives from a deep seeded fear of authoritarianism, the fear must be overcome. I believe freedom and justice are one and the same, this allows me to say that there are appropriate uses of force.
Some here have a concept of freedom that is a bit hippy. My concept of freedom has rational restrictions on it, no running around stoned and naked (you can say it's not hurting anyone, but you're wrong). Rationality creates true justice. True freedom is the acceptance of rational restriction, not the total absence of restriction.
Rational government (very different from existing government, but any time people vote on decision making in a formal setting I call it government) will serve the needs of the greatest number of it's people. It will write rational laws, that will be enforced by police that will serve the proletariat, and not the ruling elite. Some people will still get locked up, but it will be for the greater good. A drunk driver will still need to be taken off of the road, and child molesters will probably be executed upon proof of their actions beyond reasonable doubt.

[Leftsolidarity]

I agree with you.

We need a plan for a communist system, that is at least as detailed as the US constitution. Only then will we have concrete ideas to show people.

I've spent most of my day today pushing the idea that some of what we believe might be holding us back. The rejection of concrete post revolutionary models derives from a deep seeded fear of authoritarianism, the fear must be overcome. I believe freedom and justice are one and the same, this allows me to say that there are appropriate uses of force.
Some here have a concept of freedom that is a bit hippy. My concept of freedom has rational restrictions on it, no running around stoned and naked (you can say it's not hurting anyone, but you're wrong). Rationality creates true justice. True freedom is the acceptance of rational restriction, not the total absence of restriction.
Rational government (very different from existing government, but any time people vote on decision making in a formal setting I call it government) will serve the needs of the greatest number of it's people. It will write rational laws, that will be enforced by police that will serve the proletariat, and not the ruling elite. Some people will still get locked up, but it will be for the greater good. A drunk driver will still need to be taken off of the road, and child molesters will probably be executed upon proof of their actions beyond reasonable doubt.

No

[thefinalmarch]

Some here have a concept of freedom that is a bit hippy. My concept of freedom has rational restrictions on it, no running around stoned and naked (you can say it's not hurting anyone, but you're wrong).
Fuck your morality.


True freedom is the acceptance of rational restriction, not the total absence of restriction.
That doesn't make any sense.


any time people vote on decision making in a formal setting I call it government
Probably the only thing I agree with you on.


Some people will still get locked up, but it will be for the greater good.
You don't understand the communist opposition to prisons, do you?


child molesters will probably be executed upon proof of their actions beyond reasonable doubt.
We are against capital punishment. The proletarians have the right to self-defence, but the state has no right to execute its citizenry. You're probably a psychopath.

[aristos]

Failing to plan is planning to fail (as they say).

Capitalists are getting more vicious by the day and more successful in their viciousness because they are planning, very thoroughly, not in spite of it.

A major part of why the Bolshevik revolution ultimately degenerated, was their failure to plan and put through a comprehensive system of checks and balances, that emphasized competence above dogma, and that could realistically pave the way for eventual rational self-determination of the populace, instead of the Stalinist takeover and the entrenching of bureaucracy.

Also, because revolution will not occur worldwide simultaneously there need to be all sort of plans and multiple backup plans on how to effectively spread it.

Finally there is nothing wrong with actually designing the future even in detail (infrastructure, education, catastrophe management, etc.), because it will have to be done at some point, so better sooner than later.

[ericksolvi]

Fuck your morality.
That doesn't make any sense.
Probably the only thing I agree with you on.
You don't understand the communist opposition to prisons, do you?
We are against capital punishment. The proletarians have the right to self-defence, but the state has no right to execute its citizenry. You're probably a psychopath.

My morality as you call it has nothing to do with morality. It's all a math equation, a rejection of emotion based thinking.

My idea of freedom makes no sense to you. Have you considered that the ruling elite may have found a way to plant a concept of freedom that is not practical, and in fact hinders the movement by causing you to seek something so variable that you will never be able to get a group consensus on it. Basically they have tricked you into thinking freedom is something personal, and not something that can be objectively defined. So now when you hear an objective definition of freedom you reject it. In so doing you unwittingly serve the very interests of the people you consciously fight against.

I understand that all communists should reject the use of prisons as a tool of the ruling class. Do you understand that the post revolution use of prisons as a way of punishing the worst offenders is in no way out of line with anything I've ever read from Marx?

I should clarify that when I say freedom exists within rational justice. I'm only rationally justifying the use of force/imprisonment in instances where one person unprovoked does bodily harm to another. I can also justify the use of force (but not imprisonment) to defend property held in public trust. Also a basic standard of public behavior that allows everyone to co exist (really all I mean by this is keep your clothes on, don't start shouting matches with random people on the streets, and don't stagger around intoxicated because doing so can make you a danger to yourself and others) is rationally defensible as being in the best interests of society as a whole, violators of public behavior rules should be given warnings and only ever taken into temporary (less than 24 hours) custody if they refuse to comply, or become combative, and possibly given psychological evaluations if they make a pattern of their behavior. If these rules are to many and to harsh for you then you must have an absolutely horrible time of it in the current system.

We are not against capital punishment, you are. I can be in favor of anything I like, including capital punishment for pedophiles.

We don't live in a black and white world. There is a middle ground between totally permissive hedonism, and moralistic prudish repression. If you can't stand the idea of ever having to follow any rules, then you may have come to communism for the wrong reasons. Hating the unjust bourgeois authorities that exist now is communistic. Hating all authority period is a psychological disorder.

[Leftsolidarity]

My morality as you call it has nothing to do with morality. It's all a math equation, a rejection of emotion based thinking.

My idea of freedom makes no sense to you. Have you considered that the ruling elite may have found a way to plant a concept of freedom that is not practical, and in fact hinders the movement by causing you to seek something so variable that you will never be able to get a group consensus on it. Basically they have tricked you into thinking freedom is something personal, and not something that can be objectively defined. So now when you hear an objective definition of freedom you reject it. In so doing you unwittingly serve the very interests of the people you consciously fight against.

I understand that all communists should reject the use of prisons as a tool of the ruling class. Do you understand that the post revolution use of prisons as a way of punishing the worst offenders is in no way out of line with anything I've ever read from Marx?

I should clarify that when I say freedom exists within rational justice. I'm only rationally justifying the use of force/imprisonment in instances where one person unprovoked does bodily harm to another. I can also justify the use of force (but not imprisonment) to defend property held in public trust. Also a basic standard of public behavior that allows everyone to co exist (really all I mean by this is keep your clothes on, don't start shouting matches with random people on the streets, and don't stagger around intoxicated because doing so can make you a danger to yourself and others) is rationally defensible as being in the best interests of society as a whole, violators of public behavior rules should be given warnings and only ever taken into temporary (less than 24 hours) custody if they refuse to comply, or become combative, and possibly given psychological evaluations if they make a pattern of their behavior. If these rules are to many and to harsh for you then you must have an absolutely horrible time of it in the current system.

We are not against capital punishment, you are. I can be in favor of anything I like, including capital punishment for pedophiles.

We don't live in a black and white world. There is a middle ground between totally permissive hedonism, and moralistic prudish repression. If you can't stand the idea of ever having to follow any rules, then you may have come to communism for the wrong reasons. Hating the unjust bourgeois authorities that exist now is communistic. Hating all authority period is a psychological disorder.

Still: No

[Commissar Rykov]

My morality as you call it has nothing to do with morality. It's all a math equation, a rejection of emotion based thinking.

My idea of freedom makes no sense to you. Have you considered that the ruling elite may have found a way to plant a concept of freedom that is not practical, and in fact hinders the movement by causing you to seek something so variable that you will never be able to get a group consensus on it. Basically they have tricked you into thinking freedom is something personal, and not something that can be objectively defined. So now when you hear an objective definition of freedom you reject it. In so doing you unwittingly serve the very interests of the people you consciously fight against.

I understand that all communists should reject the use of prisons as a tool of the ruling class. Do you understand that the post revolution use of prisons as a way of punishing the worst offenders is in no way out of line with anything I've ever read from Marx?

I should clarify that when I say freedom exists within rational justice. I'm only rationally justifying the use of force/imprisonment in instances where one person unprovoked does bodily harm to another. I can also justify the use of force (but not imprisonment) to defend property held in public trust. Also a basic standard of public behavior that allows everyone to co exist (really all I mean by this is keep your clothes on, don't start shouting matches with random people on the streets, and don't stagger around intoxicated because doing so can make you a danger to yourself and others) is rationally defensible as being in the best interests of society as a whole, violators of public behavior rules should be given warnings and only ever taken into temporary (less than 24 hours) custody if they refuse to comply, or become combative, and possibly given psychological evaluations if they make a pattern of their behavior. If these rules are to many and to harsh for you then you must have an absolutely horrible time of it in the current system.

We are not against capital punishment, you are. I can be in favor of anything I like, including capital punishment for pedophiles.

We don't live in a black and white world. There is a middle ground between totally permissive hedonism, and moralistic prudish repression. If you can't stand the idea of ever having to follow any rules, then you may have come to communism for the wrong reasons. Hating the unjust bourgeois authorities that exist now is communistic. Hating all authority period is a psychological disorder.
The problem here is you take 19th Century Political Theory as pure gospel something which Marx did not want anyone to do. Just because Marx doesn't mention rehabilitation or the like doesn't mean it should not be used. Marx outlined a method and a type of analysis of society he did not write holy writ that you seem to have a hardon for.

[ericksolvi]

The problem here is you take 19th Century Political Theory as pure gospel something which Marx did not want anyone to do. Just because Marx doesn't mention rehabilitation or the like doesn't mean it should not be used. Marx outlined a method and a type of analysis of society he did not write holy writ that you seem to have a hardon for.

My position is pro prison, as a tool. If rehabilitation of the prisoners is the goal of the imprisonment through therapy and the like, all the better.
In the past you've given me a hard time for being to soft, and not having a grasp of communist ideology. Now you're accusing me of treating Marx as gospel. I really feel like you have a predisposition to be critical of me.
Now I would like to ask what about me bothers you so much? If you could avoid acting like a child and mocking me, saying condescending things wa wa poor baby, I would appreciate it.
You should know that if you asked me not to comment on anything that you write, I would politely comply. So I would also like to know why you refuse to give me the same consideration?

[Leftsolidarity]

Marx outlined a method and a type of analysis of society he did not write holy writ that you seem to have a hardon for.

Fun Fact: I have masturbated while reading Karl Marx

[Commissar Rykov]

My position is pro prison, as a tool. If rehabilitation of the prisoners is the goal of the imprisonment through therapy and the like, all the better.
In the past you've given me a hard time for being to soft, and not having a grasp of communist ideology. Now you're accusing me of treating Marx as gospel. I really feel like you have a predisposition to be critical of me.
Now I would like to ask what about me bothers you so much? If you could avoid acting like a child and mocking me, saying condescending things wa wa poor baby, I would appreciate it.
You should know that if you asked me not to comment on anything that you write, I would politely comply. So I would also like to know why you refuse to give me the same consideration?
You told me not to comment because I called you on your liberal bullshit and every time I have offered a legitimate argument you whine and cry about how ebil and mean I am to you. Get the fuck over it a ton of people gave you shit in this thread and at least I was constructive and you still whine like a goddamn dipshit.

[Commissar Rykov]

Fun Fact: I have masturbated while reading Karl Marx
Welcome to the One Man Vanguard, Comrade!:thumbup1:

[CommunityBeliever]

As socialists we should only be involved in creating redprints.

[Commissar Rykov]

As socialists we should only be involved in creating redprints.
Indeed, blueprints are utterly counterrevolutionary. Death to Blueprints!

As to the OPs question though as I haven't had a chance to address it yet with the other bullshit in the thread. I don't know of anyone who has laid out actual blueprints for how a socialist or communist society will interact or work exactly. Sure we get questions here and speculate on them but I doubt anyone claims to have a "blueprint" for how the revolution will end up mostly because that would completely invalidate Materialist thinking as it would lack any proper analysis. I see no harm in speculation as it is harmless and at many times pointless but I don't see it as a threat or some kind of utopian pipedream.

[ericksolvi]

You told me not to comment because I called you on your liberal bullshit and every time I have offered a legitimate argument you whine and cry about how ebil and mean I am to you. Get the fuck over it a ton of people gave you shit in this thread and at least I was constructive and you still whine like a goddamn dipshit.

No you're delusional. Others argued with me. You give me S**t. You may not have noticed but I avoid vulgar statements at all cost. So when you say things like "Get the fuck over it" I get offended. You are the only person who has ever given me a negative rep point or whatever there're called.
To me you always seem overly aggressive and you never answer a single question I pose to you. You probably think "I don't have to explain myself to this winning idiot". The simple fact is you're the only person that gives me such a hard time. I don't know how to explain it to you any more clearly that your way of writing to me is offensive to me.
Can't we just reach a deal where we leave one another alone? Or are you just always going to try and get under my skin?
You assume that I'm the one with a problem.
The first response you gave me in this thread seemed like you hadn't even read what I had written. I said post revolution we will need prisons. You get that I'm pro using prison as a punishment/rehabilitation. I'm in favor of imprisoning and rehabilitation people who commit acts of violence against others.
So I'll ask you one more direct question that you won't answer. Are you in favor of imprisoning murderers?
I am in favor of Imprisoning murderers.

[Commissar Rykov]

Blah Blah Blah I am whining and crying about being called on my Liberalism and lack of understanding of Marxism blah blah blah.
So I'll ask you one more direct question that you won't answer. Are you in favor of imprisoning murderers?
I am in favor of Imprisoning murderers.
No I am not because your whole stupid fucking scenario has no specifics. No I would not imprison murderers as in actual Criminology something you obviously know fuck all about there are actual reasons people commit crime it isn't in a vacuum. You need to analyze their socio-economic conditions, mental health, neighborhood, and even the reasoning given behind the murder thus a prison won't do shit for someone you need professionals versed in both psychology and criminology to analyze the individual and see what lead up to the crime and the reason for the commitment of the crime. You can't just throw people in cells and go that will fix you. It hasn't nor will it ever it just institutionalizes a person for the rest of their lives as you treat them like cattle.

This also has fuckall to do with the thread so stop derailing it to cry about how mean the Revolutionary Left is to your stupid ideas.

I also lol at your reporting this post. Get over yourself.

[ericksolvi]

Your right there are no specifics. I was trying to add thoughts to the blueprint of how the criminal justice system would work post revolution. Since I focused on the laws that I feel are called for, justifiable, and not on the punishment/rehabilitation that is justifiable one must assume that I have no thoughts on it. So clearly I was just saying that the same old same old kind of prison would be a part of the post revolutionary system. Oh wait I wasn't you twat.
Did it ever occur to you to ask me, "And in this hypothetical criminal justice system what would the prisons be like?". No you just assume you know what I mean and go on the attack based on your misconception.
Of course the post revolutionary prison will be different from the ones we have now. For one thing they won't be overcrowded because there will be fewer offenses that will be punishable with prison. I never said that the prisons would be hard time. I certainly never said throw them in a cell to wrought. I'm only defending the right of society to take away a persons liberty in extreme circumstances. I leave it to the post revolutionary Workers council to come up with ways of rehabilitating people who do end up needing to be imprisoned.
Personally I'd like the prison of the future to be a bit more like the drug rehab of today. Lot's of group therapy, maybe some mood stabilizers when a psychiatrist thinks they are called for. But as I am not in any way qualified to come up with a rehabilitation strategy, I will leave it to future mental health and criminology experts to come up with something concrete.

[Commissar Rykov]

Your right there are no specifics. I was trying to add thoughts to the blueprint of how the criminal justice system would work post revolution. But clearly I was just saying that the same old same old kind of prison would be a part of the post revolutionary system. Oh wait I wasn't you twat.
Of course the post revolutionary prison will be different from the ones we have now. For one thing they won't be overcrowded because there will be fewer offenses that will be punishable with prison. I never said anything about what they would be like on the inside. I'm only defending the right of society to take away a persons liberty in extreme circumstances. I leave it to the post revolutionary Workers council to come up with ways of rehabilitating people who do end up needing to be imprisoned.
There is no blueprint get over it. Unless you are claiming to be a prophet and you seem to be ever since your intro thread. The idea of a blueprint spits in the face of Materialist Analysis. You can not possibly ever fucking know how the situation will work in a post-revolutionary society, ever.

Once again your posts lack any kind of critical anaylsis and are based more on the Liberal school of the Status Quo than it is in reality. That you support the Crime Control school of thought in Criminology whether you realize it or not speaks volumes on how uneducated the opinion you are making is. Crime Control leads to excesses and is the current basis for the US Criminal Justice system and led to wonders such as Rodney King. Imprisonment does not work and only accomplishes one thing turning people into career criminals because they no longer have options. You have to look at the Critical Criminology school about the reasons for the commitment of crime and thus you can get the logical answers that are needed. Crime is driven by the stratification of society and thus will always be apart of society until that gap is completely closed. You think people kill for fun? I mean what is the point of imprisonment unless you assume people can be inherently irrational.

[Zav]

Does anybody else share this opinion? Anybody who completely disagrees?
I agree. You can't make a revolutionary situation even when there are riots constantly and people demand change if you lack a plan. A good plan is like a good steel, hard enough to hold an edge and flexible enough to hold under stress.

[ericksolvi]

There is no blueprint get over it. Unless you are claiming to be a prophet and you seem to be ever since your intro thread. The idea of a blueprint spits in the face of Materialist Analysis. You can not possibly ever fucking know how the situation will work in a post-revolutionary society, ever.

Once again your posts lack any kind of critical anaylsis and are based more on the Liberal school of the Status Quo than it is in reality. That you support the Crime Control school of thought in Criminology whether you realize it or not speaks volumes on how uneducated the opinion you are making is. Crime Control leads to excesses and is the current basis for the US Criminal Justice system and led to wonders such as Rodney King. Imprisonment does not work and only accomplishes one thing turning people into career criminals because they no longer have options. You have to look at the Critical Criminology school about the reasons for the commitment of crime and thus you can get the logical answers that are needed. Crime is driven by the stratification of society and thus will always be apart of society until that gap is completely closed. You think people kill for fun? I mean what is the point of imprisonment unless you assume people can be inherently irrational.

I'm only speculating, so you get over it yourself. Did you miss the part where I said that rehab strategies should be left up to mental health experts and criminologists? I have no real knowledge of these matters.
I have an ideological concept of justice based on the work of Plato. Is it really that offensive to you for me to come up with hypothetical solutions that I think might work in a post revolutionary system?
Do you really believe that the removal of the social injustice that is capitalism will end all acts of violence? If you do, then I will admit my argument is moot from your perspective.
I think that even if there is no stratification in society whatsoever, there will still be the occasional crime of passion.

[Leftsolidarity]

This thread is so fucking pointless

[ericksolvi]

This thread is so fucking pointless

I would have been finished after my first comment. I've been known to beat a dead horse. One word responses like "No" to long thought out argument are not the best way to get me in particular, and people in general to back off.

[Leftsolidarity]

I would have been finished after my first comment. I've been known to beat a dead horse. One word responses like "No" to long thought out argument are not the best way to get me in particular, and people in general to back off.

You actually never responded to my comments. You always responded to other peoples'.

[thefinalmarch]

I agree. You can't make a revolutionary situation even when there are riots constantly and people demand change if you lack a plan.
“…the Communists know only too well … that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.” – Engels


A good plan is like a good steel, hard enough to hold an edge and flexible enough to hold under stress.
why does this sound like a Mao quote?

[Zav]

“…the Communists know only too well … that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.” – Engels


why does this sound like a Mao quote?
Engels is the ultimate authority on Communism now? I disagree with the quote. It's true for revolutionary situations, to be sure, but not for actual revolutions. If you don't plan, your attempt will fail or degenerate.

I said that as a knife maker, but yes, it does sound oddly Mao-ish. I think it's because of the heroism and hyper-masculinity that is associated with both my craft and Maoist propaganda, as well as the simplistic, yet paradoxically grandiose, language I used which matches the stereotype of the Chinese language when translated into English. Now that I think about it it does sound like a Chinese proverb.

[thefinalmarch]

Engels is the ultimate authority on Communism now? I disagree with the quote. It's true for revolutionary situations, to be sure, but not for actual revolutions.
yeah man, I mean, fuck historical materialism.
:rolleyes:


If you don't plan, your attempt will fail or degenerate.
Upon what empirical evidence do you base this claim?

[ericksolvi]

We already have a "we are against: this, this, this, etc." stance and different tendencies/groups have ideas of how they think we should try to go about things. So I would say we (speaking of Leftists in general) already have an outline. We just don't have an exact "how too" plan for future society and it would be foolish to try to make one, seeing as that we have no idea what different societies would face and how they should best deal with their unknown needs.

I understand the want for a plan like that but it would really be silly and a waste of time to try to make one.

I disagree. While no plan/blueprint made now is likely to survive to the end of the revolution there is value in having one.
Something concrete we can show to the more analytical and detail oriented of our potential proletariat brothers will help in the building of support.
A well thought out blueprint/model can be altered as the revolution unfolds. During the revolution and in the reconstruction aftermath having something from which to start could prove invaluable.
A hypothetical Communist Constitution written now would be a work of fiction, but after the fall of capitalism it could be set forth in a council meeting and used as a first draft in what would be a long process of negotiation/debate to agree on a final draft.
In all the papers I've ever written it has never hurt me to have an outline to start from.
Maybe revleft should make it a group project. The site could set up a mock Communist Constitutional Committee. Harness the collective potential of all these users to begin a process that may not culminate, but I see no harm in trying.

[Leftsolidarity]

I disagree. While no plan/blueprint made now is likely to survive to the end of the revolution there is value in having one.
Something concrete we can show to the more analytical and detail oriented of our potential proletariat brothers will help in the building of support.
A well thought out blueprint/model can be altered as the revolution unfolds. During the revolution and in the reconstruction aftermath having something from which to start could prove invaluable.


Ever read the Manifesto?



Maybe revleft should make it a group project. The site could set up a mock Communist Constitutional Committee. Harness the collective potential of all these users to begin a process that may not culminate, but I see no harm in trying.

I've thought and still think the same thing, though this will unfortunately get laughed away.


A blueprint like you are talking about will just further isolate ourselves from people who don't 100 percent agree.

[Commissar Rykov]

Ever read the Manifesto?



I've thought and still think the same thing, though this will unfortunately get laughed away.


A blueprint like you are talking about will just further isolate ourselves from people who don't 100 percent agree.
Lets ignore the fact that all the various tendencies agreeing on one program is beyond hilarious and naive.

[ericksolvi]

Ever read the Manifesto?



I've thought and still think the same thing, though this will unfortunately get laughed away.


A blueprint like you are talking about will just further isolate ourselves from people who don't 100 percent agree.

the manifesto is a bit vague on purpose, helps to make in universally applicable. Marx could have written something specific to his time and place, but he left it open adaptation.

I know it's not easy to reach consensus, but is saying it's impossible, and refusing to try really the answer.

Let me say it differently. A communist constitutional debate on this site would be entirely hypothetical. If we can't overcome our differences even in a hypothetical setting imagine the awful brawl that will ensue post revolution.

People who can't compromise will either always be outsiders or assume power themselves and become dictators. Sometimes I think the Commissar actually wants to live in a brutal dictatorship. Or more specifically he wants to be the dictator.

[Commissar Rykov]

As far as I understand it you Marxist-Leninist guys believe in a vanguard party. A group of people that have a better understanding of how things really should be and therefor lead the rest of us helpless fools into Utopia. You're worse then capitalists. You're wolves in sheep's clothing.
Anytime I mention attempts at consensus building you call me naive, and tell me how uneducated I am. I can only assume that you think consensus will never need to be built because once the revolution starts your vanguard party will force everyone to conform the its ideals.
You're a condescending extremists. You probably think you're helping me to see the world as it truly is. I would sooner gouge my eyes out then look upon the world as you see it.
You want to liberate the proletariat at the point of a gun. There will be no need for any kind of debate leading to consensus in your revolution. The vanguard party will make all the decisions, at least at the beginning. Naive morons like me and the 99% of people who won't be in the vanguard party will have no say in things. 1% of people ruling over everyone else, why does that seem so familiar? Oh that's right that's how things already are.
Marxist-Leninists seek to overthrow the richest 1% and install themselves as the ruling elite.
You think that since your goal is to bring equality, liberation, and an end to class stratification, that you are somehow noble and justified in taking the reigns of the oppressors. You've already learned to dehumanize your opponents, once you have power it will be easy for you to treat everyone not in your little ruling club as less than human. You Commissar and your vanguard party would become the next stage of human evil.
I hope that when the revolution starts people have enough sense to shoot anyone who even utters the word vanguard party in the back. Place their heads upon spikes as a warning to all that would make themselves dictators, and in so do continue the cycle of oppression and injustice.
I can't tell if you are just stupid or if you really are that logically inconsistent. You want to shoot everyone who believes in a Vanguard? How nice you have shown what a immature little Bonaparte you wish to become. Congrats on showing your true colors you fucking piece of shit. Once again though you show how you know absolutely fucking nothing about the Revolutionary Left with your postings as the various tendencies wouldn't agree with much in regards to the others that simply isn't just a problem of those whose ideologies derive from Lenin. I am also not a Marxist-Leninist but you can continue to flail and show what an authoritarian fuck you are with your postings. Hopefully you can even get restricted for demanding the deaths of your fellow Leftists. It is amusing how people like you never mean solidarity you mean for people to follow your line and you will enact with with Bonapartist Terror to do so.

[Zav]

yeah man, I mean, fuck historical materialism.
:rolleyes:


Upon what empirical evidence do you base this claim?
Engels was a major Communist thinker. This does not make him necessarily right. He's like Freud in that regard. I could also throw in a couple quotes, but that doesn't make for a good argument.

I have historical and logical evidence. If you don't have a plan that everyone understands, what is the likelihood that everyone will suddenly just make the system work? It won't likely happen. What you'll get is a mass of people with no clear direction, like the Wall Street protestors, the rioters in Greece, the protestors in the Middle East, or a multitude of Communist, Anarchist, religious, and Utopian experiments, for example. In a bottom-up system, like Communism, all the cogs need to fit, or society doesn't work. Have you any evidence that a revolution can be made without a plan?

[Zav]

I can't tell if you are just stupid or if you really are that logically inconsistent. You want to shoot everyone who believes in a Vanguard? How nice you have shown what a immature little Bonaparte you wish to become. Congrats on showing your true colors you fucking piece of shit. Once again though you show how you know absolutely fucking nothing about the Revolutionary Left with your postings as the various tendencies wouldn't agree with much in regards to the others that simply isn't just a problem of those whose ideologies derive from Lenin. I am also not a Marxist-Leninist but you can continue to flail and show what an authoritarian fuck you are with your postings. Hopefully you can even get restricted for demanding the deaths of your fellow Leftists. It is amusing how people like you never mean solidarity you mean for people to follow your line and you will enact with with Bonapartist Terror to do so.
All this ignores everything but the argument's last sentence, which was obviously hyperbolic. Rykov, you do remember that there is pretty much zero solidarity between Authoritarian and Libertarian Communists, yes? I could say that advocating the elimination of Capitalists is a betrayal of your fellow authoritarians, but because there is no solidarity and comradeship between the two of you, you would say that that is preposterous because you advocate totally different ideologies. I've said it before that there is no Leftist movement, but rather two. I hate to sound like the Political Compass, but its division of the Left is accurate.
I haven't been following Ericksolvi's posts, but if hating a Vanguard Party can get you banned, then this board has really decayed.

[aristos]

“…the Communists know only too well … that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.” – Engels

Aha, so instead of constructive thoughts you offer us canned quotes.
A sure way to bring about communism


"If you don't plan, your attempt will fail or degenerate."

Upon what empirical evidence do you base this claim?

Yes because if you go building a house without a plan you will totally not fail. :rolleyes:

(but then again building communism seems like a piece of cake to some here as compared to constructing a house. I mean, history has shown us the truth of this one, right? Right guys?)

[aristos]

The idea of a blueprint spits in the face of Materialist Analysis.

What about materialist synthesis. :D

[ZeroNowhere]

Aha, so instead of constructive thoughts you offer us canned quotes.
A sure way to bring about communism
The thing is, though, that we're communists rather than utopian socialists, so this does not matter to us. As such, his point is perfectly valid.

[aristos]

Wait, so the official communist strategy for transforming society is through... canned quotes?

I have to admit very materialist.

[ZeroNowhere]

Wait, so the official communist strategy for transforming society is through... canned quotes?
The official communist strategy for transforming society doesn't involve posting in arguments on Revleft.

[aristos]

How is this pertinent to the discussion?

[ZeroNowhere]

How is this pertinent to the discussion?
The response must be appropriate to the question.

[Mr. Natural]

LeftSideOfOz, Welcome to RevLeft and thanks for the thread. I'll attempt to get back on topic.

Leftists shouldn't "expect" or "persuade people to follow" as you suggest. People must learn to self-organize their lives--together. All of the living systems of life--cells to ecosystems--are self-organized forms of community, as is communism. "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Manifesto)

Communism is humanity consciously realizing its nature. Communism is natural and must be naturally organized. Engels: "We have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn [nature's] laws and apply them correctly." (Dialectics of Nature)

Leftists must therefore foster the popular development of revolutionary minds that will create red-green forms of community--communities that birth themselves and develop in nurturance of their members and in opposition to capitalism.

Communism and communist revolution, as is life, are bottom-up, grassroots processes within which human social individuals (who are naturally "workers") realize their human nature, and it is our human nature to create our lives and live together in democratic forms of community. That's communism and that's life.

[ZeroNowhere]

LeftSideOfOz, Welcome to RevLeft and thanks for the thread. I'll attempt to get back on topic.

Leftists shouldn't "expect" or "persuade people to follow" as you suggest. People must learn to self-organize their lives--together. All of the living systems of life--cells to ecosystems--are self-organized forms of community, as is communism. "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Manifesto)

Communism is humanity consciously realizing its nature. Communism is natural and must be naturally organized. Engels: "We have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn [nature's] laws and apply them correctly." (Dialectics of Nature)

Leftists must therefore foster the popular development of revolutionary minds that will create red-green forms of community--communities that birth themselves and develop in nurturance of their members and in opposition to capitalism.

Communism and communist revolution, as is life, are bottom-up, grassroots processes within which human social individuals (who are naturally "workers") realize their human nature, and it is our human nature to create our lives and live together in democratic forms of community. That's communism and that's life.
Do you happen to know somebody named 'Lunacharsky', by any chance?

[aristos]

LeftSideOfOz, Welcome to RevLeft and thanks for the thread. I'll attempt to get back on topic.

Leftists shouldn't "expect" or "persuade people to follow" as you suggest. People must learn to self-organize their lives--together. All of the living systems of life--cells to ecosystems--are self-organized forms of community, as is communism.


And yet how much faster have we as species advanced once having developed our sophisticated tools, pushing our culture forward deliberately, as compared to biological advancements in nature that had taken millions upon millions of years to let an eye or an ear, or the brain to emerge.

[aristos]

The response must be appropriate to the question.

Which question was that?

[ZeroNowhere]

Which question was that?
The one which I was responding to.

[Commissar Rykov]

All this ignores everything but the argument's last sentence, which was obviously hyperbolic. Rykov, you do remember that there is pretty much zero solidarity between Authoritarian and Libertarian Communists, yes? I could say that advocating the elimination of Capitalists is a betrayal of your fellow authoritarians, but because there is no solidarity and comradeship between the two of you, you would say that that is preposterous because you advocate totally different ideologies. I've said it before that there is no Leftist movement, but rather two. I hate to sound like the Political Compass, but its division of the Left is accurate.
I haven't been following Ericksolvi's posts, but if hating a Vanguard Party can get you banned, then this board has really decayed.
He didn't get banned for hating the Vanguard he got banned for calling for the death and masskilling of anyone who followed Lenin's line. If you are ok with that though...

[Zav]

He didn't get banned for hating the Vanguard he got banned for calling for the death and mass killing of anyone who followed Lenin's line. If you are ok with that though...
I am certainly not. I thought the statement in which that was said was an attempt at humour.

[Mr. Natural]

aristos, ZeroNowhere, aristos wrote of the rapid development of humanity as compared to the slow development of nature.

Well, yes, there have been extraordinary, relatively hyper-fast developments of humanity as reflected in science and philosophy. And what is this science/philosophy now saying? My original post asserted that life has its roots in a bottom-up, material process of self-organization, and that human revolutionary processes must therefore be organized in such a manner. Are we not living, material beings?

What is the organization underlying life? What are the organizational "rules" by which life, humans, and aristos' "eyes, ear, and brains" develop and maintain their being? Marxists must learn these "rules of life" and apply them to social revolution and the communist societies to be created. Human beings and our social formations are self-organized matter, and this really, really matters.

The gist of this almost all of my posts is that human beings are natural beings who must learn to live naturally, and that the new sciences of organization contain the "rules of life, revolution, and communism."

I'm considering a long reply to ZeroNowhere's "Lunacharsky" remark. I consider it to be an honor to receive even a left-handed association with Lunacharsky and, by implication, Ernst Mach, Maxim Gorky, and Alexander Bogdanov, and their attempts (Mach excluded) to bring a nascent science of relations to the organization of communist revolution and society.

These new sciences have now matured and are available for use. Marx and Engels would have jumped all over these "new sciences" (they loved the first of them--evolution) and would have brought them into revolutionary praxis long ago.

But Marx and Engels have been mortally inconvenienced. Where are the "new Marxists"? Did Marxism die with its founders?

[Leftsolidarity]

All this ignores everything but the argument's last sentence, which was obviously hyperbolic. Rykov, you do remember that there is pretty much zero solidarity between Authoritarian and Libertarian Communists, yes? I could say that advocating the elimination of Capitalists is a betrayal of your fellow authoritarians, but because there is no solidarity and comradeship between the two of you, you would say that that is preposterous because you advocate totally different ideologies. I've said it before that there is no Leftist movement, but rather two. I hate to sound like the Political Compass, but its division of the Left is accurate.
I haven't been following Ericksolvi's posts, but if hating a Vanguard Party can get you banned, then this board has really decayed.

Yay for sectarian bullshit

[aristos]

Mr. Natural - nowhere did I say that we should not learn from natural systems, rather the opposite, I am fully convinced that we need an actual scientific, technical approach to our social problems, not vague philosophy.
However, the dichotomy running through this thread is between a blind social evolution and a deliberated social revolution. Ironically most of the self-described revolutionaries in this thread seem magnetically drawn towards the evolutionary approach.

[Yazman]

I can't tell if you are just stupid or if you really are that logically inconsistent. You want to shoot everyone who believes in a Vanguard? How nice you have shown what a immature little Bonaparte you wish to become. Congrats on showing your true colors you fucking piece of shit. Once again though you show how you know absolutely fucking nothing about the Revolutionary Left with your postings as the various tendencies wouldn't agree with much in regards to the others that simply isn't just a problem of those whose ideologies derive from Lenin. I am also not a Marxist-Leninist but you can continue to flail and show what an authoritarian fuck you are with your postings. Hopefully you can even get restricted for demanding the deaths of your fellow Leftists. It is amusing how people like you never mean solidarity you mean for people to follow your line and you will enact with with Bonapartist Terror to do so.

You're going to get shitcanned if I ever see you make posts like this again. All the flames you've made in this thread are just ridiculous. One post containing flames by itself is bad enough, but multiple?

Don't do this again, or it's your ass on the line. It's the only warning you get.

[Mr. Natural]

aristos, I misinterpreted your response. Oops! I thought you were separating human consciousness from natural organization. Consciousness is a most complex and complicated phenomenon that I have worked hard to understand. Not only are people blind to the organization of the things they perceive, but the "laws" of complex systems produce a human brain that "self-reflects," which results in an entrapment within a partial species and individual solipsism. Our human consciousness connects with itself as well as the external world, and so it subjectively interprets reality through a filter of species (evolutionary) and individual experience.

As a deeply committed Marxist, I have immersed myself in comprehending the new red-green sciences that, among other things, reveal human consciousness to be a reductive trap. These same sciences show that all life forms have a bottom-up self-organization that establishes higher levels of organization as complexity increases. The living systems of life have a roundabout, dynamic interdependent organization rooted in local, "base" relations. This is the organization of the communities of life and of communism.

So I'm saying that the new, radical sciences of organizational relations (evolution, the new physics, cosmology, cybernetics, chaos theory and, especially, systems-complexity science) in potential reveal the organization of life, communism, and revolution to a left that has been unable to organize, despite the urgency of doing so.

aristos, I firmly believe the process of "deliberated social revolution" you and I are pursuing is contained within the process of life. The phenomena of emergence, phase transitions, and bifurcation points are of this revolutionary, transformational nature.

And I agree, as you suggest, that most leftists are pursuing an "evolutionary approach"--a passive waiting for developments (or Godot).

The theoretical physicist Fritjof Capra's masterwork, Web of Life (1996) has been a revelation to me, and I have been following its tracks for a dozen years. The Marxist work I find to be of unending value is Helena Sheehan's Marxism and the Philosophy of Science (1983).

Got any books for me? My red-green best.

[thefinalmarch]

Engels was a major Communist thinker. This does not make him necessarily right. He's like Freud in that regard. I could also throw in a couple quotes, but that doesn't make for a good argument.
The problem I have with you is that you reject the message contained in the quote, which says that revolutions have always been the result of material conditions in the real world arising from contradictions within the system (such as the opposing interests of the capitalists and the workers, which necessarily leads to class conflict). What, if not economic circumstances found in reality, has been the cause of revolutions?

Great men? Grand ideas? Great men with grand ideas?


I have historical and logical evidence. If you don't have a plan that everyone understands, what is the likelihood that everyone will suddenly just make the system work?

Communism doesn't require people to want it. It just requires workers to acknowledge their role in the economic movement of society (the development of class consciousness) and to search for solutions to the problems facing them. Historically the workers have found these solutions within relatively short timeframes and have been quick to establish their own institutions of working class government as well as begin to abolish capitalism itself by putting control of production in their own hands.


It won't likely happen. What you'll get is a mass of people with no clear direction, like the Wall Street protestors, the rioters in Greece, the protestors in the Middle East, or a multitude of Communist, Anarchist, religious, and Utopian experiments, for example.
They simply haven't developed class consciousness. It is the role of communists to educate workers about their role in the economic movement of society.


Have you any evidence that a revolution can be made without a plan?
The bourgeoisie never made any real sort of plan detailing how to seize political power from the aristocracy and overthrow feudalism. No, the capitalist class rose up at various points throughout history (for examples see the French Revolution, and the English Civil War and ensuing Glorious Revolution of 1688) because the interests of the feudal aristocracy conflicted with their own interests. As an example, feudalism tied serfs to the land and prevented them from becoming industrial workers and wage labourers, which prevented the capitalist class from accumulating further profits.

Individual merchants and bourgeois came to the conclusions independently that the then-present social order could not adapt to their interests; that it had to be deposed by force, and that their interests should be represented in a permanent legislative assembly and protected by the state.

In the case of the French Revolution, an Estates-General (a meeting of representatives of the three estates of the realm: the clergy [first estate], the nobility [second estate], and the rest of the populace [the third estate, which was divided into two parts: urban and rural. The urban part was bourgeois (referring to the status of the bourgeoisie as historically being middle class capitalists who employed zero or only a handful of wage labourers -- "petit-bourgeoisie" today) and wage-labourers; the rural part was composed of serfs -- the peasant class of the feudal system]) was called by the king in 1789 to propose solutions for the aristocratic government's financial problems, which threatened all three estates. But the estates-general was practically powerless in terms of legislative and executive power and the fact that the third estate had double the representatives of the other two counted for nothing, so the dissatisfied representatives of the third estate deliberated amongst themselves and reformed the estates-general in the heat of the moment as a new legislative assembly of their own to represent and protect their own interests -- the National Assembly. Most of the first estate and some of the second estate soon joined. The National Assembly attached itself to the capitalists because they were the source of funds needed to pay off the new loan which was taken out after the National Assembly consolidated all public debt.

The aristocracy overthrew the slave-owning classes of an earlier epoch when it became problematic to continue conquering peoples to enslave them for their labour. The aristocracies found a solution to this problem in the vast reserves of labour back home in the existing territories of their empires: the serfs.

[robbo203]

Communism doesn't require people to want it. It just requires workers to acknowledge their role in the economic movement of society (the development of class consciousness) and to search for solutions to the problems facing them. Historically the workers have found these solutions within relatively short timeframes and have been quick to establish their own institutions of working class government as well as begin to abolish capitalism itself by putting control of production in their own hands.
.


I dont quite see how you can say communism doesnt require people to want it. I might be misreading you here but that could be construed as suggesting communism could be imposed on people (from above) without them wanting it. My point is that people have to want it in the sense that they have to embrace values congruent with the system in order for the system itself to function. They have to understand in broad terms what communuism means and accept its implications for human behaviour in such a society

[ZeroNowhere]

I dont quite see how you can say communism doesnt require people to want it. I might be misreading you here but that could be construed as suggesting communism could be imposed on people (from above) without them wanting it.
I'm not sure how you would derive this from the text quoted, the point of which seems to be rather that people don't have to accept various moral principles, 'good ideas' or ideal blueprints to bring about socialism, but simply to act in their own class interests, establishing organs of political power which come into necessary antagonism with the economic basis of society and hence lead to its eventual abolition through the heightening of these antagonisms themselves, rather than socialist propaganda, persuasion and so on. To be brief, that is.

[robbo203]

I'm not sure how you would derive this from the text quoted, the point of which seems to be rather that people don't have to accept various moral principles, 'good ideas' or ideal blueprints to bring about socialism, but simply to act in their own class interests, establishing organs of political power which come into necessary antagonism with the economic basis of society and hence lead to its eventual abolition through the heightening of these antagonisms themselves, rather than socialist propaganda, persuasion and so on. To be brief, that is.

I dont dispute it would involve all that but, still, there is the point that a communist society can't just mechanically arise behind our backs, so to speak, and without our awareness . Class interests have to crystallise around, or express themselves in and through, a definite conception of a goal and I am not talking here of a detailed blueprint but a broad conceptualisation of a communist future. How otherwise is such a future to be realised without the mediation of such a conception at some point in this process?