Vanguardism within occupy?

[ellipsis]

The working class, when it decides to changes things on its own accord, will surpass even the most "radical" actions of the OWS movement.

You read Marx way to closely. "Nobody do anything! the working class will develop class consciousness when they feel like it and spontaneous have a revolution.":rolleyes:

[The Douche]

You read Marx way to closely. "Nobody do anything! the working class will develop class consciousness when they feel like it and spontaneous have a revolution.":rolleyes:

Kadir would probably say that it is the task of pro-revs to engage in real working class struggle alongside the class and engage with communist ideas/solutions.


I mean, ultimately it doesn't matter how many activists can be assembled, how loud they shout, or how many buildings they occupy, it is only the working class that makes revolution, and I think its foolish to pretend that our screaming and shouting will somehow inspire it.

And thats not even getting into the idea of "consciousness".

[ellipsis]

Kadir would probably say that it is the task of pro-revs to engage in real working class struggle alongside the class and engage with communist ideas/solutions.


I mean, ultimately it doesn't matter how many activists can be assembled, how loud they shout, or how many buildings they occupy, it is only the working class that makes revolution, and I think its foolish to pretend that our screaming and shouting will somehow inspire it.

And thats not even getting into the idea of "consciousness".

No doubt the underclasses are the engine of revolution. The question raised is whether or not they will all realize the need for and path of revolution, as a single unified group, as it seems Kadir would believe.

[Kadir Ateş]

No doubt the underclasses are the engine of revolution. The question raised is whether or not they will all realize the need for and path of revolution, as a single unified group, as it seems Kadir would believe.

Yes, they will. You have a very poor understanding of class dynamics and probably think that all they need is a good political education to set them free, when in fact history has proven over and over again how wrong-headed and patronising such an idea really is.

[ellipsis]

when in fact history has proven over and over again how wrong-headed and patronising such an idea really is.

Not that I believe what you said, but has history in fact proven your point of view to be correct?

[The Douche]

Not that I believe what you said, but has history in fact proven your point of view to be correct?

Yes it has, does communism exist?

[ellipsis]

Yes it has, does communism exist?

I think we may be confused at what each other are talking about.

History has proven "they will all realize the need for and path of revolution, as a single unified group"?

I am certainly not under the impression that all people need is the proper information, nor an adherent to Marx's ideas of inevitable creation of class consciousness and ergo revolution due to the development of capitalism/class antagonism and the inherent contradictions therein.

[The Douche]

I think we may be confused at what each other are talking about.

History has proven "they will all realize the need for and path of revolution, as a single unified group"?

I am certainly not under the impression that all people need is the proper information, nor an adherent to Marx's ideas of inevitable creation of class consciousness and ergo revolution due to the development of capitalism/class antagonism and the inherent contradictions therein.

I think what Kadir is arguing, is that "consciousness" is not what determines revolution.

But it would appear that you support the notion that pro-revolutionaries can contribute to "making revolution happen"?

[ellipsis]

But it would appear that you support the notion that pro-revolutionaries can contribute to "making revolution happen"?

Somebody has to and I'd like to believe with have agency, even within a historical context. Also I don't see working-class and pro-revolutionaries as being mutually exclusive.

I am still not sure what exactly we are debating, if anything...

[Kadir Ateş]

What I said:


You have a very poor understanding of class dynamics and probably think that all they need is a good political education to set them free, when in fact history has proven over and over again how wrong-headed and patronising such an idea really is.

What you thought I meant:


History has proven "they will all realize the need for and path of revolution, as a single unified group"?

Notice anything different between these two statements? I do. No go and think about what you've just done.

[A Marxist Historian]

I think what Kadir is arguing, is that "consciousness" is not what determines revolution.

But it would appear that you support the notion that pro-revolutionaries can contribute to "making revolution happen"?

Revolutionary situations happen when the objective forces push society in general and the working class in particular onto the path of revolution.

But then what happens is determined by the level of consciousness of the working class, and the actions of the most conscious sector of the working class, its vanguard.

So groups of revolutionaries, and even individual revolutionaries, can't make revolution happen. But they can play the key role in whether revolutions win or lose.

Greece being the perfect contemporary example. How could you possibly have a more revolutionary situation than the situation Greece is in? And the Greek working class has been going on a general strike every week and twice on Sundays lately.

But since you don't have an organized, conscious revolutionary organization above phone booth size that has the right program and knows what to do... the Greek Revolution just isn't happening, and the working class is by now just getting tired and demoralized. I'm afraid the reactionaries are gonna start coming to the fore any day now.

-M.H.-

[Kadir Ateş]

But since you don't have an organized, conscious revolutionary organization above phone booth size that has the right program and knows what to do... the Greek Revolution just isn't happening, and the working class is by now just getting tired and demoralized. I'm afraid the reactionaries are gonna start coming to the fore any day now.

Right, for Trots its always a matter of "lack of leadership" for the proles, which for some reason petty bourgeois intellectuals take it to mean themselves. And when it slows down, like vultures, the Trots come in to rally the exhausted into some ridiculous plan that always sounds something a left-wing Keynesian wrote (the precepts of 1938 are transhistorical, I guess).

Moreover, with your kind of fossilized logic, pray tell what was Hungary '56 all about if not for the fact that there was no party to be found in sight...

[ellipsis]

Yes, they will. You have a very poor understanding of class dynamics and probably think that all they need is a good political education to set them free, when in fact history has proven over and over again how wrong-headed and patronising such an idea really is.



What I said:

What you thought I meant:

Notice anything different between these two statements? I do. No go and think about what you've just done.

but in the same post you quoted as "what I said" you also agreed with "what you thought I meant". Don't accuse me of misinterpreting what you said when you agreed with my alleged misinterpretations.

I don't appreciate your snotty, condescending tone.

[Kadir Ateş]

No, I didn't. And I had a feeling you wouldn't have appreciated my tone, because I didn't appreciate your views on whether or not the working class needs help from outsiders such as yourself.

[ellipsis]

Off-topic discussion split from occupy thread.

/trollfeeding

[Kadir Ateş]

Does taking down your arguments suffice as troll-feeding? I guess so. And it is "vanguardism" and not "vangardism" just so you know.

[ellipsis]

Does taking down your arguments suffice as troll-feeding? I guess so. And it is "vanguardism" and not "vangardism" just so you know.

You seem intent on provoking a negative reaction from me because you feel that you are right and have handily won our little debate. Seems like trolling to me and here I go again feeding it.

ZOMG, I made a typo! You got me. Good for you.:rolleyes:

Also why do you assume I am not a member of the working class? Do you know me?

[Renegade Saint]

I assumed that most people on this forum are members of the working class[?]...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I assumed that most people on this forum are members of the working class[?]...

Why?

[Renegade Saint]

Why?
Because the working class is the largest class in modern society to begin with, and furthermore that ideals like 'Workers Power' attract a disproportionate share of workers.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Have you ever been around a leftist group?

[The Douche]

In all fairness, I don't think either of you (kadir or trs) are making clear statements, and appear to be dancing around each other/making assumptions.

For instance, I don't think kadir ever said you weren't a member of the working class, trs, what he implied was that you are a "leftist", I believe.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Right, for Trots its always a matter of "lack of leadership" for the proles, which for some reason petty bourgeois intellectuals take it to mean themselves.There's plenty of leadership for workers in capitalism and Stalinism, so that's not the issue, the issue is lack of working class leadership.


Moreover, with your kind of fossilized logic, pray tell what was Hungary '56 all about if not for the fact that there was no party to be found in sight...So your model for us is what people living under totalitarian conditions where they could not organize independent parties did - and ultimately failed in achieving self-emancipation? Besides people in that uprising did organize councils and so on and tried to form a network for organizing the movement after the USSR occupied the country - so there was an organic vanguard and I'm sure the people fighting against the USSR had wished they were organizationally prepared beforehand.

Anyway, if the subjective actions of people who've already come to radical conclusions don't matter, why are you posting on this site, why argue this, why do anything at all?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No doubt the underclasses are the engine of revolution. The question raised is whether or not they will all realize the need for and path of revolution, as a single unified group, as it seems Kadir would believe.

Sorry, you call yourself a libertarian Socialist, yet you describe the 'underclasses' (whatever that means) as not being capable of revolution without a vanguard. Right.

[Kadir Ateş]

Because the working class is the largest class in modern society to begin with

Nice try. Although you did provide an excellent example of what is known as a logical fallacy,: just because the working class is the largest class doesn't then lend any credence to your claim that therefore those on RevLeft are workers.[/quote]


and furthermore that ideals like 'Workers Power' attract a disproportionate share of workers.

Really? Actually I hate my job and really don't want much to do with it at all, if anything I'd love to see work as a category abolished, which Marx wanted also.

[RedGrunt]

Sorry, you call yourself a libertarian Socialist, yet you describe the 'underclasses' (whatever that means) as not being capable of revolution without a vanguard. Right.

Vanguard could be interpreted in various ways. Such as the most prepared section of the proletariat. And he called them underclasses because in capitalism they're the underclass, the oppressed class. The bourgeoisie sit upon their backs.

[Kadir Ateş]

There's plenty of leadership for workers in capitalism and Stalinism, so that's not the issue, the issue is lack of working class leadership.

No, it isn't. Trotsky was wrong. I mean, how many flavors of Trotsky are there today? What, the workers have yet to possess the common to join the ISO? Or Socialist Action? Or Solidarity? etc..


So your model for us is what people living under totalitarian conditions where they could not organize independent parties did - and ultimately failed in achieving self-emancipation? Besides people in that uprising did organize councils and so on and tried to form a network for organizing the movement after the USSR occupied the country - so there was an organic vanguard and I'm sure the people fighting against the USSR had wished they were organizationally prepared beforehand.

Anyway, if the subjective actions of people who've already come to radical conclusions don't matter, why are you posting on this site, why argue this, why do anything at all?

Wow, is that what you read into Hungary of 1956? Funny how the issue is always party organization and not, you know, Value production and worker self-activity. It's almost as if you've never read Marx or something.

Another thing to point out is that I asked how does a Trotskyist explain 1956 when nothing from 1938 had anything to do with it. I didn't say it was a model to follow, but an example of where Leninism fell flat on its face. Things develop spontaneously and workers have gone beyond that cute little quip of Lenin's about "narrow trade-union consciousness" etc. There is no demonstrable proof of some sort of organic vanguard or whatever term you want to use to make Trotskyist analysis relevant in a given historical context.

[ellipsis]

working class needs help from outsiders such as yourself.
Seems to me like he is saying I'm not a part of the working class. I could be reading it wrong.


Sorry, you call yourself a libertarian Socialist, yet you describe the 'underclasses' (whatever that means) as not being capable of revolution without a vanguard. Right.

I never said that. The position that I was trying to argue was that I don't think the underclasses, including the working-class will have a spontaneous, collective realization of the need for and path of revolution and then just have a revolution.

As a lib soc, I don't think autonomous people and groups need to wait for anything and can simply self organize into social/political/economic organisms, blocs/syndicates, etc. If these groups are more powerful politically than the general working class and work to build and expand revolution, I don't think they/I can be accused of vanguardism.

[blake 3:17]

Rather than totally abstract strategy, maybe it`d be more useful to think of how to build bridges between the labour movement and the Occupy movement.

We need to build the 99% but we also need to get rid of the 1%.

In Toronto we were lucky enough to have a number of prominent unions and union leaders support Occupy very quickly both in statement, in the streets, and providing financial support.

I work with a group called the Greater Toronto Workers Assembly which has members from a bunch of different organizations, including socialist and anarchist groups, various unions, and people active in a bunch of different causes. We had a series of public discussions at the Occupy site where we invited people that were either on strike or in some kind of labour conflict to come and tell us what was going on and to share ideas and co-operate with people carrying out the occupation.

Overall it was very positive. Some of the Occupy newbies were really grateful to talk to folks with a lot more experience, and the union activists were all very clear that Occupy had given a lot more energy to union movement in general.

I chaired or facilitated one session and it was a bit challenging because people were coming from very different backgrounds, levels of experience, and especially for those camping, exhaustion. We have to be patient with one another. People organize and participate in very different ways, and some of those are due to existing or past organizations, or have slightly different priorities.

My own inclination is to have people make their points quickly and clearly, then shut up, and then speak again if they need or want to. I kept a speakers list, which was basically in order of when people asked to speak, but I did move women forward in the list. Some one got pissed off about this, but didn`t articulate their issue til much later.

I found the use of hand signals amongst the people who`d been doing most of the Occupying really interesting. I kept thinking they were asking to talk, but rather they were doing jazz hands to silently indicate their approval of what someone was saying.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Vanguard could be interpreted in various ways. Such as the most prepared section of the proletariat. And he called them underclasses because in capitalism they're the underclass, the oppressed class. The bourgeoisie sit upon their backs.

No, the working class is the oppressed class. The underclass is often the bourgeois term used for the lumpen proletariat, and is pretty derogatory.

[RedGrunt]

I think you're choosing to read into things for ammo.

[ellipsis]

No, the working class is the oppressed class. The underclass is often the bourgeois term used for the lumpen proletariat, and is pretty derogatory.

By underclasses I mean all oppressed people, regardless of their formal or informal relation to Capital. e.g. wards of international agencies or national government, workers in informal sectors like trash dump mining, etc.

Think multitude.

[Frank Zapatista]

No, it isn't. Trotsky was wrong. I mean, how many flavors of Trotsky are there today? What, the workers have yet to possess the common to join the ISO? Or Socialist Action? Or Solidarity?

How many flavours of anarchism is there? Of Stalinism? You're doing nothing but flamebaiting at this point. If you don't believe the people need a vanguard or any kind of party/leadership, why are you even here? Just to troll? Why don't you just go sit on the couch, watch some t.v and wait for the workers to wake up and revolt?

[Robespierre Richard]

Wow, is that what you read into Hungary of 1956? Funny how the issue is always party organization and not, you know, Value production and worker self-activity. It's almost as if you've never read Marx or something.

Another thing to point out is that I asked how does a Trotskyist explain 1956 when nothing from 1938 had anything to do with it. I didn't say it was a model to follow, but an example of where Leninism fell flat on its face. Things develop spontaneously and workers have gone beyond that cute little quip of Lenin's about "narrow trade-union consciousness" etc. There is no demonstrable proof of some sort of organic vanguard or whatever term you want to use to make Trotskyist analysis relevant in a given historical context.

To be fair, it was only in mid-1917 that Lenin saw the light and became a Trotskyist in his views. Before that he was on his own horse, which is why Trotsky stayed with the Mensheviks and later the Mezhraiontsy.

[Frank Zapatista]

To be fair, it was only in mid-1917 that Lenin saw the light and became a Trotskyist in his views. Before that he was on his own horse, which is why Trotsky stayed with the Mensheviks and later the Mezhraiontsy.

Really? Aren't you a Marxist-Leninist?

[Robespierre Richard]

Really? Aren't you a Marxist-Leninist?

No, I'm an undercover Trotskyite sent to destroy Marxism-Leninism from the inside through the treacherous lie that is Anarcho-Stalinism.

[Kadir Ateş]

How many flavours of anarchism is there? Of Stalinism? You're doing nothing but flamebaiting at this point. If you don't believe the people need a vanguard or any kind of party/leadership, why are you even here? Just to troll? Why don't you just go sit on the couch, watch some t.v and wait for the workers to wake up and revolt?

I'm here because I think you and those who think like you have no idea of the reality of working class dynamics or struggles, to be honest. If you don't believe in the worker's self-activity when it comes to revolution, then you're probably not a Marxist.

[Frank Zapatista]

I'm here because I think you and those who think like you have no idea of the reality of working class dynamics or struggles, to be honest. If you don't believe in the worker's self-activity when it comes to revolution, then you're probably not a Marxist.

So, what, you're here to educate me with your godly knowledge of class dynamics? Thanks, I guess. You're the one thats not a Marxist, your views go against the views of Marx, Engels, Lenin and well, every Marxist Ive ever met. You sound like some left-comm, council communist nutjob. Or maybe some kind of crazy fringe anarchist. Seriously if you don't even want to organize, you're useless to the working class. Useless.

[Rafiq]

To a certain extent Kadir is spot on. "communists" shouldn't be trying to convert the proletariat - that is pure opportunism.

If you're materialist, you understand that a genuine class.based movement forms organically within the working class as a reflection of already existing conditions. This movement is what we as communists can help, join and support. But I tell you, it's not OWS.

Material conditions precede the communist movement. Remember that. Class conciousness is not formed by a third party external force.

[Rafiq]

So, what, you're here to educate me with your godly knowledge of class dynamics? Thanks, I guess. You're the one thats not a Marxist, your views go against the views of Marx, Engels, Lenin and well, every Marxist Ive ever met. You sound like some left-comm, council communist nutjob. Or maybe some kind of crazy fringe anarchist. Seriously if you don't even want to organize, you're useless to the working class. Useless.

Piss off troll

[Red Noob]

The debate wages on the irrelevant internet forum: Which theoretical methods should the left use to achieve worker emancipation?

[Kadir Ateş]

So, what, you're here to educate me with your godly knowledge of class dynamics? Thanks, I guess. You're the one thats not a Marxist, your views go against the views of Marx, Engels, Lenin and well, every Marxist Ive ever met. You sound like some left-comm, council communist nutjob. Or maybe some kind of crazy fringe anarchist. Seriously if you don't even want to organize, you're useless to the working class. Useless.

Yes, I came to liberate you from your backwards, petty bourgeois mentality. We can go blow-for-blow with the works of Marx and Engels (sorry, Leninism is not Marxism) and I promise to destroy every single one of your arguments, rendering that "Average" to mediocre. Now better get back to writing that college essay before your mom calls you for dinner (or is it high school?).

[ellipsis]

Yes, I came to liberate you from your backwards, petty bourgeois mentality. We can go blow-for-blow with the works of Marx and Engels (sorry, Leninism is not Marxism) and I promise to destroy every single one of your arguments, rendering that "Average" to mediocre. Now better get back to writing that college essay before your mom calls you for dinner (or is it high school?).

Verbal Warning for trolling. You are not better or smarter than everybody else here, so quit acting like it.

If this thread continues to go off topic, i will close the thread.

[Kadir Ateş]

Close it I could care less.

[Rafiq]

Verbal Warning for trolling. You are not better or smarter than everybody else here, so quit acting like it.

If this thread continues to go off topic, i will close the thread.

Are you joking? So average marxist wasn't trolling, then?

[Renegade Saint]

So nothing that I or any other leftist can do will have any effect on whether a revolution happens or on whether a revolution suceeds/fails?

What a relief, now I can go back to playing League of Legends.

[Kadir Ateş]

So nothing that I or any other leftist can do will have any effect on whether a revolution happens or on whether a revolution suceeds/fails?

What a relief, now I can go back to playing League of Legends.

Yeah, I think you got the general idea, so go back to your video games and wait for that warmed milk you were promised before bedtime.

[Rafiq]

So nothing that I or any other leftist can do will have any effect on whether a revolution happens or on whether a revolution suceeds/fails?

An organic revolutionary movement will not be propped up from the Earth by some kind of enlightened third party. It will organically organize itself within the proletariat itself.

None of the famous communists "founded" the movement. They merely hitched a ride on a movement that's material power far exceeded the ideas or "theories" presented by any leftists. This is the basis for materialism.

So no, you aren't going to be some kind of gaurdian angel or special "chosen one" who is going to create the revolution. This is a site for Revolutionary Leftists to discuss, debate, etc. If you're just here because you want immediate action on behalf of the intellectuals than I would start to take into consideration why you even bother posting here.

Even though I (to some extent), unlike Kadir (whose reasons for opposing it are among the best I have came across) support the concept of a revolutionary vangaurd party, I still firmly believe that even something like a Vangaurd party has to sprout out from a working class movement. If there is no movement to begin with, all the "vangaurd parties" are Bourgeois-opportunistic:

1. Historically Nostalgia

2. Theoretically stuck in the past, dead, i.e. Does not apply to modern times

3. "Fukoyama Leftists", basically ones who only focus on social issues, rather than striking the very root core of those issues themselves.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, what do you think, then, of the German worker-class movement that emerged due to the political activism of Ferdinand Lassalle and his ADAV (General German Workers Association)? Keep in mind that Kadir doesn't subscribe to the position that real parties are themselves real movements and vice versa, instead preferring the "historical party" with an "invariant program" to be an invisible guide to ad hoc workers organs.

[Rafiq]

^^^ Comrade, what do you think, then, of the German worker-class movement that emerged due to the political activism of Ferdinand Lassalle and his ADAV (General German Workers Association)? Keep in mind that Kadir doesn't subscribe to the position that real parties are themselves real movements and vice versa, instead preferring the "historical party" with an "invariant program" to be an invisible guide to ad hoc workers organs.

what Lassalle did applied and was organically a direct material reflection of the material conditions of Germany, and of the interests of the proletariat themselves.

The parties we see today have not adjusted their positions radically to modern times, therefore I mean it when I say these third party external forces that have no working class background trying to "Spread Ideas" are really just opportunists.

Besides, don't you think a proletarian-based conscious was already taking form, and that Lassalle simply helped in organizing this, rather than letting it plunge into chaos (I'm just guessing).

Then, with that in mind, couldn't we come to the conclusion that a proletarian based consciousness (Angry, upset workers who have already drawn a line between them and owners of private property) must precede a form of organizing them politically?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for clarifying.

As an aside, just recently I acquainted myself further with left-com polemics against "voluntarism," only to find that those behind the polemics side with something called "determinism." By left-com standards, Lassalle and Schweitzer, and also their foils Bebel and W. Liebknecht, were all "volunteers." My view of "determinism" is that it is vulgar "materialism."

[Rafiq]

My view of "determinism" is that it is vulgar "materialism."

Well determinism isn't necessarily a form of Materialism (not even mechanistic) it could actually be interpreted as a form of Bourgeois-thought, or Idealism (that a conscious being pre determined all of history). Unless you mean a "dynamic determinism" that deals with the several things that determine the behaviors of people.

[Martin Blank]

But it would appear that you support the notion that pro-revolutionaries can contribute to "making revolution happen"?

Working-class communists can contribute, but only insofar as they have an active dialogue and interrelationship with their class brothers and sisters, and from that develops a political guide to achieving the revolution -- a program, in other words.


I'm here because I think you and those who think like you have no idea of the reality of working class dynamics or struggles, to be honest. If you don't believe in the worker's self-activity when it comes to revolution, then you're probably not a Marxist.

It really shouldn't come as a surprise anymore that most self-described "Marxists" don't understand the principle that "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves".


If you're materialist, you understand that a genuine class-based movement forms organically within the working class as a reflection of already existing conditions. This movement is what we as communists can help, join and support. But I tell you, it's not OWS.

Material conditions precede the communist movement. Remember that. Class consciousness is not formed by a third party external force.

Agreed. The #Occupy movement is not and will not be the revolutionary movement, but I do think that #Occupy will have an effect on that future movement. Workers will learn lessons from #Occupy, both positive and negative, and will apply those lessons in the future.

[The Douche]

Working-class communists can contribute, but only insofar as they have an active dialogue and interrelationship with their class brothers and sisters, and from that develops a political guide to achieving the revolution -- a program, in other words.


I think the real revolutionary upsurge is going to take any group into making programs by surprise, and leave them in the dust. Furthermore, I think any institution which is in the position to make programs is only going to limit the revolutionary fervor of the disposessed.

[manic expression]

I think the real revolutionary upsurge is going to take any group into making programs by surprise, and leave them in the dust. Furthermore, I think any institution which is in the position to make programs is only going to limit the revolutionary fervor of the disposessed.
You say you want a revolution without "any group into making programs", but that is nothing but a riot, and they hardly result in lasting progress. You claim that programs limit revolutionary fervor, but the point of a genuine program is to give that fervor direction and consciousness; all the fervor in the world comes to very little without those two assets.

[The Douche]

You say you want a revolution without "any group into making programs", but that is nothing but a riot, and they hardly result in lasting progress. You claim that programs limit revolutionary fervor, but the point of a genuine program is to give that fervor direction and consciousness; all the fervor in the world comes to very little without those two assets.

Here we go again with "consciousness"...


But as to "program", if the direction it provides leads us to the same result of previous attempts, then I'd just assume leave it behind.

[Kadir Ateş]

^^^ Comrade, what do you think, then, of the German worker-class movement that emerged due to the political activism of Ferdinand Lassalle and his ADAV (General German Workers Association)? Keep in mind that Kadir doesn't subscribe to the position that real parties are themselves real movements and vice versa, instead preferring the "historical party" with an "invariant program" to be an invisible guide to ad hoc workers organs.

What do you mean by "real party" and a "real movement", because judging from the organizers you sympathize, it doesn't sound like the kind that are actually built by the workers (or have now become subsumed by their "representatives". And please don't refer me to one of your other threads.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Without referencing, the model I have in mind is none other than the pre-war SPD (and also the inter-war USPD).

It was a real party. [It organized way more than mere electoral activity and typical left "activism."]

It was a real movement. [Its size and the way this size was organized are key. One component is the alternative culture of cultural societies, recreational clubs, and more.]

It was the German worker-class-for-itself. [The usual "Substitutionist!" arguments don't apply. On the contrary, turn instead to Marx's dictum about a class-for-itself emerging only through a political party.]

[manic expression]

Here we go again with "consciousness"...
OK, to be more specific perhaps we can replace "consciousness" with "the vaguest idea of what we should do when the capitalist state falls". Revolutionaries need to have some notion of the society they seek to create, post-revolutionary society doesn't just happen out of the blue. Plus, how do we expect a revolution to succeed (or even amount to more than just a riot) if no one has any real concept of what they're striving for?


But as to "program", if the direction it provides leads us to the same result of previous attempts, then I'd just assume leave it behind.I would say that there won't ever be the same result, revolutions happen on their own terms and programs don't change immediate circumstances from what they are. Further, even if that wasn't the case, not all programs are the same, there are good programs and flawed programs and those differences are usually teased out when push comes to shove.

[Kadir Ateş]

OK, to be more specific perhaps we can replace "consciousness" with "the vaguest idea of what we should do when the capitalist state falls". Revolutionaries need to have some notion of the society they seek to create, post-revolutionary society doesn't just happen out of the blue. Plus, how do we expect a revolution to succeed (or even amount to more than just a riot) if no one has any real concept of what they're striving for?Seems as if you're speaking outside of the movement--which given your party affiliation, maybe you should--and the question of "when" the capitalist state falls is an incorrect approach anyway. First, the state is a historically-determined social relation that is bonded to capital, that one cannot exist without the other. The question of "What is to be done" is not really a question to ask if we consider communism as activity, just as Marx did. Revolutionaries as external agitators probably should reconsider their jobs, since it is the working class itself that abolishes its own conditions, not the job of a revolutionary.


I would say that there won't ever be the same result, revolutions happen on their own terms and programs don't change immediate circumstances from what they are. Further, even if that wasn't the case, not all programs are the same, there are good programs and flawed programs and those differences are usually teased out when push comes to shove.

To repeat: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

- Marx/Engels, The German Ideology.

[The Douche]

OK, to be more specific perhaps we can replace "consciousness" with "the vaguest idea of what we should do when the capitalist state falls". Revolutionaries need to have some notion of the society they seek to create, post-revolutionary society doesn't just happen out of the blue. Plus, how do we expect a revolution to succeed (or even amount to more than just a riot) if no one has any real concept of what they're striving for?

Kadir, pretty much sums up my feelings on your statements here.

I will add this short link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communization

Communism happens out of necessity, not out of the actions of pro-revolutionaries.

[manic expression]

Seems as if you're speaking outside of the movement--which given your party affiliation, maybe you should--and the question of "when" the capitalist state falls is an incorrect approach anyway. First, the state is a historically-determined social relation that is bonded to capital, that one cannot exist without the other. The question of "What is to be done" is not really a question to ask if we consider communism as activity, just as Marx did. Revolutionaries as external agitators probably should reconsider their jobs, since it is the working class itself that abolishes its own conditions, not the job of a revolutionary.
Marx wrote an interesting program called The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Perhaps you can lecture that external agitator about how he should "reconsider his job". Any other career advice you'd like to throw our way would be swell, too.


To repeat: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."Bolded portion I echoed very clearly in my last post. Further, are we talking about communism, classless society, or are we talking about the immediate tasks of revolution? Those are two very different things, so make sure you let me know what you decide you're not talking about.


Communism happens out of necessity, not out of the actions of pro-revolutionaries.
That's like saying breathing happens out of necessity. No, it happens because the components necessary for breathing are functional.

Regardless, I'm not at all sure how a revolution is to happen without "the actions of pro-revolutionaries", perhaps someone can point me to the last example of a revolution of inactive persons.

[Kadir Ateş]

Marx wrote an interesting program called The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Perhaps you can lecture that external agitator about how he should "reconsider his job". Any other career advice you'd like to throw our way would be swell, too.

What is with your crypto-Stalinists? The Manifesto was written for a party that was being established by the working class, not Marx. Marx, as I'm sure you know (that is, don't) never himself aspired to be a leader of any workers movement. You, on the other hand, would prefer to bark out orders to the working class. To arrogantly come into a warehouse or factory and start telling people what to do and that they should obey "party discipline". Your idea of the working class is that they need to be led by pathetic bourgeois individuals who are too cowardly to do the same at their own workplace.


Bolded portion I echoed very clearly in my last post. Further, are we talking about communism, classless society, or are we talking about the immediate tasks of revolution? Those are two very different things, so make sure you let me know what you decide you're not talking about.

Allow me to bold the whole thing:

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

Communism is activity, the self activity of the working class to go beyond anything that wants to stand in its way--people like you. To divorce "communism" and "classless society" and "immediate tasks" is to 1) completely misunderstand the quote and 2) to have a bourgeois understanding of class dynamics...or do I repeat myself?

[The Douche]

Further, are we talking about communism, classless society, or are we talking about the immediate tasks of revolution? Those are two very different things, so make sure you let me know what you decide you're not talking about.

I disagree, communism is activity, as somebody said earlier. Revolution is communism, communism is revolution...

Like that link I posted, communization is revolution and it is communism, at the same time, and its the only way forward successfully.

[manic expression]

Revolution is communism, communism is revolution...
Which is why it's a good idea to figure out what those two things mean. Otherwise they're just two words with a conjugated verb in the middle.

If communism is activity then that activity must be directed somewhere, must have some idea of how to produce and distribute bread after the capitalists have been smashed. Otherwise it's just a riot that leads to no lasting progress.

I'll check out your link later on.


What is with your crypto-Stalinists? The Manifesto was written for a party that was being established by the working class, not Marx. Marx, as I'm sure you know (that is, don't) never himself aspired to be a leader of any workers movement.
Enthralling stuff. So tell me, is that why he didn't take a place on the General Council of the First International? Is that why he didn't become one of the leading voices of that organization for years?

You seem to think political activity just happens...by itself...with no people involved. Your politics is such a third-rate mysticism that you probably think Marx didn't actually write the Manifesto, he just found the manuscript one day sitting on a desk in London...the working class already wrote it for him!


You, on the other hand, would prefer to bark out orders to the working class. To arrogantly come into a warehouse or factory and start telling people what to do and that they should obey "party discipline". Your idea of the working class is that they need to be led by pathetic bourgeois individuals who are too cowardly to do the same at their own workplace.Well, which orders have I barked on this thread? The "order" to have those old quaint things we used to call "principles" and "political ideas" instead of expecting riots to turn into classless society? How cowardly of me.


Communism is activity,Jumping jacks are activity, therefore jumping jacks are communism.

Maybe you should amend your definition.

[The Douche]

If you don't know what communization is you can't effectively engage me or Kadir in this discussion, because we're both coming, from some degree, from the communization school.

And you complaints of a "lack of definition" would be cleared up if you familiarized yourself with communization theory. Essentially it suggests that workers naturally engage in communist activity because it is necessary for them to stay alive in the world.

[Rafiq]

Communism isn't some kind of end goal society. It is a process in itself.

[Kadir Ateş]

Enthralling stuff. So tell me, is that why he didn't take a place on the General Council of the First International? Is that why he didn't become one of the leading voices of that organization for years?

I don't think you understood the focus of the First International and why your implicit comparison of that with say some bullshit crypto-Stalinist party for the PSL is nonsense. Marx's role was not to direct or lead workers to go here and there, but his participation was mostly of a theoretical nature that was witnessing significant upsurge in working class activity in the mid-19th century.


Well, which orders have I barked on this thread? The "order" to have those old quaint things we used to call "principles" and "political ideas" instead of expecting riots to turn into classless society? How cowardly of me.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I refuse to believe that you're that much of a fool. Or maybe you are.


Jumping jacks are activity, therefore jumping jacks are communism.

Maybe you should amend your definition. \

And yet again (third time's a charm):

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

Now, really really try to think of what that means and maybe you'll understand why communism is activity and not program. Oops, maybe I gave you too much of a hint there.

[Kadir Ateş]

because we're both coming, from some degree, from the communization school.

That is to say, Marxists. Unlike manic expression, who is coming from Stalinism.

[manic expression]

If you don't know what communization is you can't effectively engage me or Kadir in this discussion, because we're both coming, from some degree, from the communization school.

And you complaints of a "lack of definition" would be cleared up if you familiarized yourself with communization theory. Essentially it suggests that workers naturally engage in communist activity because it is necessary for them to stay alive in the world.
Like I said, I'll read up on it, but your claims to "natural engagement" are greatly weakened if I can't effectively engage with you because I haven't read about your school of thought.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is even if we accept that "workers naturally engage in communist activity", there's still the matter of what immediate goals to work towards, how to organize and communicate and plan, what to do when the workers take power. This stuff doesn't just happen "naturally" like so much rainfall, it happens because people are able to figure them out.

[manic expression]

I don't think you understood the focus of the First International and why your implicit comparison of that with say some bullshit crypto-Stalinist party for the PSL is nonsense. Marx's role was not to direct or lead workers to go here and there, but his participation was mostly of a theoretical nature that was witnessing significant upsurge in working class activity in the mid-19th century.
Ah, yes, the ejection of the anarchists was "mostly of a theoretical nature". Good theoretical nature, that.


Did you actually read what I wrote? I refuse to believe that you're that much of a fool. Or maybe you are.
I'll ask you again: specifically which "orders" did I "bark" in this thread?


Now, really really try to think of what that means and maybe you'll understand why communism is activity and not program. Oops, maybe I gave you too much of a hint there.
So you still think jumping jacks are communism, and that Marx didn't do anything practical for the movement. Incredible logic there, "inside agitator".

[manic expression]

That is to say, Marxists. Unlike manic expression, who is coming from Stalinism.
Ah, but that's where you're mistaken. You see, according to you, you can't be a Marxist because it's only an activity. You have to do Marxism...and by that is meant doing nothing because it's all supposed to happen naturally. Yes, naturally, like the sun rising in the morning.

Kadir hates programs, so they look to the program written by Karl Marx. It's silly enough to make your head spin, which is activity, which is communism.

[The Douche]

Like I said, I'll read up on it, but your claims to "natural engagement" are greatly weakened if I can't effectively engage with you because I haven't read about your school of thought.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is even if we accept that "workers naturally engage in communist activity", there's still the matter of what immediate goals to work towards, how to organize and communicate and plan, what to do when the workers take power. This stuff doesn't just happen "naturally" like so much rainfall, it happens because people are able to figure them out.

Bro, its not my fault if you don't know about communist theory. I know about your party and its theory, I even have you party's program. So I don't think its to much to expect you to have a passing familiarity with communism as viewed by Marx himself.

[Kadir Ateş]

Like I said, I'll read up on it, but your claims to "natural engagement" are greatly weakened if I can't effectively engage with you because I haven't read about your school of thought.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is even if we accept that "workers naturally engage in communist activity", there's still the matter of what immediate goals to work towards, how to organize and communicate and plan, what to do when the workers take power. This stuff doesn't just happen "naturally" like so much rainfall, it happens because people are able to figure them out.

Should we literally start quoting Marx or is that not your strong suit either? I don't understand how else to make it clear that communism is not a program. And Marx never said it was either.

I'll ignore your other comments because at this point even the author of The German Ideology will come out and yell at you too for not paying attention to his words.

[manic expression]

Bro, its not my fault if you don't know about communist theory. I know about your party and its theory, I even have you party's program. So I don't think its to much to expect you to have a passing familiarity with communism as viewed by Marx himself.
I'm not saying it's your fault, but I don't think Marx himself viewed communism as (and I'm quoting the link you posted) the "mixing-up of insurrectionist anarchism, the communist ultra-left, postautonomists, anti-political currents, groups like the Invisible Committee, as well as more explicitly ‘communizing’ currents, such as Théorie Communiste and Endnotes."

[manic expression]

Should we literally start quoting Marx or is that not your strong suit either?
I'll start:

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

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

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

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

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

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

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

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

-----------------------------

Oh, no! All this talk of organization and public power and actual political goals (the worst sin of all) and centralization is making me light-headed. How could Marx bark such terrible demands upon the workers!? How dare he be so cowardly! :rolleyes:

OK, first explain to us why Marx wrote that (or did he just find the Manifesto pre-written by the working class one day?) and then realize that you can't explain it because your program won't let you.

[The Douche]

I'm not saying it's your fault, but I don't think Marx himself viewed communism as (and I'm quoting the link you posted) the "mixing-up of insurrectionist anarchism, the communist ultra-left, postautonomists, anti-political currents, groups like the Invisible Committee, as well as more explicitly ‘communizing’ currents, such as Théorie Communiste and Endnotes."

Those are organizations which are making developments and expanding on Marx, much like you are a member of an organization which flows from Lenin, who interpreted Marx in a specific way.

[The Douche]

Dude... the ten planks? For real, that shit was outdated almost by the time the manifesto came out.

[Red Noob]

Communism isn't some kind of end goal society. It is a process in itself.

So when the state is abolished, classes cease to exist, workers are in control of the means of production, and freedom and equality exist, how can it still be a process?

[manic expression]

Those are organizations which are making developments and expanding on Marx, much like you are a member of an organization which flows from Lenin, who interpreted Marx in a specific way.
Point taken, but I don't say that my analysis of imperialism is "communism as viewed by Marx himself", because it's taken from a view that responded to the development of capitalism into a new form. If we're looking at communism as Marx saw it, it definitely included programs, the guy penned the program.

Now you might very well disagree, but short of reading a lot about this specific school of thought, I'd honestly like to hear your reasons for disagreement.


Dude... the ten planks? For real, that shit was outdated almost by the time the manifesto came out.
Exactly my point. Marx very wisely said that demands and goals would differ from situation to situation, and history bore that out. Does it mean that putting together a program with a view to revolutionary change is wrong? No, it simply means that programs change depending upon what conditions they're faced with, what tasks they have and so on and so forth.

Having a program isn't the problem, it's the matter of honing a useful and relevant program for one's time and place. Otherwise we're just hoping for riots to become revolutions, no?

[The Douche]

I dunno why you keep talking about riots, thats not really what communization is about, communization, in a nut shell, suggests that workers naturally begin to create communism when the situation calls for it. (see, for instance, greek power workers distributing free electricity to people who can't afford to pay for it)

If you wanna talk about programs, I guess I have one, its "communism, now".

[Kadir Ateş]

The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto were not ends in and of themselves, which Stalinist think is the end point of socialism. But more than that, Marx himself never elaborated or even mentioned then again when he started his critique of political economy starting with the Grundrisse onwards. Oh no, indeed!


So when the state is abolished, classes cease to exist, workers are in control of the means of production, and freedom and equality exist, how can it still be a process?

M-C-M'

[Red Noob]

M-C-M'

I'm still in the learning phase. Mind explaining what M-C-M is? (or linking, I guess)

A quick Google search didn't help.

[manic expression]

Giving out electricity isn't communism, it's working-class solidarity but it's not communism.

Riots are a product of working-class fury at the ruling class, as far as the activities of the dispossessed they're as natural as you'll find...and yet they lack all manner of direction, immediate goals, sense of purpose (to say nothing of actual purpose) and the like. Without that, they quickly burn out, leaving little to show for it.

That's what I see as the need for a program. Working-class anger isn't enough, working-class organization is also required. Without that, what can we look forward to? You can free electricity and an idea of what to do in the short and long-terms.


"communism, now"OK, cool. Now how do we do that?

[manic expression]

The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto were not ends in and of themselves,
Did I say they were? Try explaining them again.

[Kadir Ateş]

ME, could you explain to me what is Marx's concept of Value is?

[manic expression]

Is Marx's concept of Value an activity?

[Kadir Ateş]

What is Marx's concept of Value? Answer the question.

[manic expression]

Marx's concept of Value is not an activity, therefore according to you it has nothing to do with communism.

[A Marxist Historian]

Right, for Trots its always a matter of "lack of leadership" for the proles, which for some reason petty bourgeois intellectuals take it to mean themselves. And when it slows down, like vultures, the Trots come in to rally the exhausted into some ridiculous plan that always sounds something a left-wing Keynesian wrote (the precepts of 1938 are transhistorical, I guess).

Moreover, with your kind of fossilized logic, pray tell what was Hungary '56 all about if not for the fact that there was no party to be found in sight...

I see. It's too bad us Trotskyists didn't notice that the Hungarian working class successfully overthrew Stalinism and established a healthy workers state that has been the beacon to the oppressed ever since.:D

Seriously, yes, that was exactly the problem in Hungary. It was not by the way a leaderless revolution, in fact the leaders of the revolution by and large came out of the Hungarian Communist Party, and their political vision was more or less left-Titoism. The leaders of the workers were disappointed and surprised when Tito supported the Soviet intervention. (BTW, I am *not* referring to the reform-minded official head of the Hungarian Communist Party, a helpless bureaucrat shot by Khruschchev, but people like Pal Maleter.)

What was needed was an internationalist revolutionary party, whose visions was not just some sort of deStalinized Hungarian communism, but world revolution, that could effectively appeal to the rank and file Soviet troops on a more effective basis than just the democratic right of Hungarians to run their own country.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

No, it isn't. Trotsky was wrong. I mean, how many flavors of Trotsky are there today? What, the workers have yet to possess the common to join the ISO? Or Socialist Action? Or Solidarity? etc..



Wow, is that what you read into Hungary of 1956? Funny how the issue is always party organization and not, you know, Value production and worker self-activity. It's almost as if you've never read Marx or something.

Another thing to point out is that I asked how does a Trotskyist explain 1956 when nothing from 1938 had anything to do with it. I didn't say it was a model to follow, but an example of where Leninism fell flat on its face. Things develop spontaneously and workers have gone beyond that cute little quip of Lenin's about "narrow trade-union consciousness" etc. There is no demonstrable proof of some sort of organic vanguard or whatever term you want to use to make Trotskyist analysis relevant in a given historical context.

Read what Marx has to say about the revolutions of his time, in which he and Engels even participated in 1848. When did he *ever,* in any of his writings about '48 or the Paris Commune or the American Civil War or the continual revolutions and coups in Spain or what have you did he *ever* talk about "value production" or for that matter even "worker self-activity"? Never ever.

What happened after 1938 in Hungary that explained '56? I should think everybody knows the answer to that. Capitalism was overthrown in Hungary in 1945, when the Soviet troops marched in, and a bureaucratically-deformed workers state was established.

And in 1956, this peculiar entity disintegrated under the weight of its internal contradictions, and a whole big stratum of the state apparatus at every level went over to the workers! Including state bureaucrats, party bureaucrats, army officers and even police!

Not something you could expect to see happening in a capitalist state.

So yes, what happened after 1938 in Hungary had *everything* to do with the Hungarian Revolution.

-M.H.-

[Rafiq]

People still have this mentality that a classless society is our end goal, and all actions by the proletariat are merely a means of attaining this end point. It's Utopian and completely amaterialist. When capitalism is abolished it is not as if "peace will return to the lands and everyone will just go about their buisness". Problems will persist, and society will be just as rapid, chaotic and explosive. Capitalism never sleeps, it requires a process, constant movement and action to sustain it (remember the day after 9/11, how the economy was slowing down because everyone just stood still?). Communism, if ever existing, will be no different.

[Rafiq]

Ah, but that's where you're mistaken. You see, according to you, you can't be a Marxist because it's only an activity. You have to do Marxism...and by that is meant doing nothing because it's all supposed to happen naturally. Yes, naturally, like the sun rising in the morning.

Kadir hates programs, so they look to the program written by Karl Marx. It's silly enough to make your head spin, which is activity, which is communism.

Marxism does not equate to communism.

[Robespierre Richard]

I dunno why you keep talking about riots, thats not really what communization is about, communization, in a nut shell, suggests that workers naturally begin to create communism when the situation calls for it. (see, for instance, greek power workers distributing free electricity to people who can't afford to pay for it)

If you wanna talk about programs, I guess I have one, its "communism, now".

That's nice. Tell me more. Tell me about this "situation" that "calls" for it and why it hasn't called for anything for the last 200 years. I mean aren't we supposed to have worldwide communism by now, with the workers being such a natural "force"? Why do workers need any theory at all if they are already natural communists? Hell, why are we even having this argument?

[Rafiq]

That's nice. Tell me more. Tell me about this "situation" that "calls" for it and why it hasn't called for anything for the last 200 years. I mean aren't we supposed to have worldwide communism by now, with the workers being such a natural "force"? Why do workers need any theory at all if they are already natural communists? Hell, why are we even having this argument?

The symbolic representations of society created by the Bourgeois class, their illusions, (ever since 1968) crush all forms of class struggle and concioussness. However, certain material conditions like economic crisis (Which is always inevitable in capitalism, along with eventual economic collapse), force the bourgeois illusions to collapse, ripping them apart one by one, as the material conditions required to uphold those illusions (a healthy capitalist economy) become no longer present.

Up until 1968 there was a healthy proletarian communist movement.

So it's not about workers being naturally "communist", it's about understanding that communism is merely a reflection of the interests of the workers themselves. 20th century communism died. But so long as the proletariat exists, it will always re invent itself and adjust itself as a movement to the present conditions.

The reason it has taken so long has to be analysed in a scientific sense, the world wars, etc.

[Robespierre Richard]

The symbolic representations of society created by the Bourgeois class, their illusions, (ever since 1968) crush all forms of class struggle and concioussness. However, certain material conditions like economic crisis (Which is always inevitable in capitalism, along with eventual economic collapse), force the bourgeois illusions to collapse, ripping them apart one by one, as the material conditions required to uphold those illusions (a healthy capitalist economy) become no longer present.

Ah so it's a war on illusions. Well, it's a good thing that we don't actually have to do anything and can let capitalism fall apart all by itself.


Up until 1968 there was a healthy proletarian communist movement.

Anarky ruin communism? :confused:


So it's not about workers being naturally "communist", it's about understanding that communism is merely a reflection of the interests of the workers themselves. 20th century communism died. But so long as the proletariat exists, it will always re invent itself and adjust itself as a movement to the present conditions.

So who cares exactly? I live a comfortable middle-class existence and have no interest of becoming a proletarian. In fact, I feel like it would be an insult to most working-class people for me to even try to be one. Think Good Will Hunting. I feel like there would be no point in me supporting such a movement. I am however pursuing a career that has very low starting pay but that I am really passionate about (archaeology), but it's academic, not value-creating.

I do, however, support the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat because its goal is classless society, aka the destruction of all classes, not some organic workers' communism or whatever where I don't seem to have a place unless I become one.


The reason it has taken so long has to be analysed in a scientific sense, the world wars, etc.

Any reason why this hasn't been approached yet then?

[Martin Blank]

I think the real revolutionary upsurge is going to take any group into making programs by surprise, and leave them in the dust. Furthermore, I think any institution which is in the position to make programs is only going to limit the revolutionary fervor of the dispossessed.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not talking about self-described socialist and communist organizations who present "finished programs" to the working class and expect them to be adopted in the same manner as Saul adopted Christianity on the Road to Damascus. Rather, I was talking about an organization where the "finished program" (if one could even call it that) is as much a product of the working class itself as it would be of the organization -- where the program is hammered out among workers both inside and outside of an organization, and the "revolutionary fervor of the dispossessed" is brought into an organization and transforms it.

[Rafiq]

Since fuck tapatalk(no quoting segments of a post) my response will have to wait. For now I'll have to let you ponder this thought:

1. Do you think that you will be able to maintain your stable life and living conditions forever? Capitalism is going to implode.

2. Right, well the proletariat doesn't need, in any way shape or form, members of other classes to support them. I'm sure they appreciate your opportunistic petite bourgeois support for them, so you can get the Utopia that you think is the best. However, this is the real world, where asses are not meant for having heads in them.

3. I said the destruction of capitalism is inevitable. I didn't say a better mode of production WILL replace it.

[bcbm]

That's nice. Tell me more. Tell me about this "situation" that "calls" for it and why it hasn't called for anything for the last 200 years.

there have been countless eruptions in the last 200 years but they were crushed


I mean aren't we supposed to have worldwide communism by now, with the workers being such a natural "force"?

no


Why do workers need any theory at all if they are already natural communists?

they probably don't


Hell, why are we even having this argument?

some leftists like to think they're important


Well, it's a good thing that we don't actually have to do anything and can let capitalism fall apart all by itself.

its doing a good job so far, we just need to be a little greedier in bringing it to its grave.


I live a comfortable middle-class existence . . .

I do, however, support the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat

well there's a shock


because its goal is classless society, aka the destruction of all classes, not some organic workers' communism or whatever where I don't seem to have a place unless I become one.

communism is the destruction of all classes, not sure wtf ur on about

[Ismail]

they probably don'tIs this the revelation of hipster/'nihilist' 'communism'? "Those dumb Marxist-Leninists, Trots and anarchists thought that workers needed to grasp theory, but apparently they... don't." I guess the entire purpose of writing the Manifesto, forming the International Workingmen's Association, and discussing things like the use of terror, the role of international organizations, the role of national organizations, the role of programs, etc. were just because Marx and Engels got bored waiting for the proletariat to somehow overthrow capitalism with no revolutionary theory.

[bcbm]

Is this the revelation of hipster/'nihilist' 'communism'? "Those dumb Marxist-Leninists, Trots and anarchists thought that workers needed to grasp theory, but apparently they... don't."

you all had your turn in history its over life sucks move along


I guess the entire purpose of writing the Manifesto, forming the International Workingmen's Association, and discussing things like the use of terror, the role of international organizations, the role of national organizations, the role of programs, etc. were just because Marx and Engels got bored waiting for the proletariat to somehow overthrow capitalism with no revolutionary theory.

we currently have so much 'revolutionary theory' we could probably smother the entire proletariat in a cascade of paper. doesn't seem to mean shit in terms of where 'the revolution' stands. but i suppose its more fun to roll around in the dustbin of history and try to stir it up enough to create a fog of importance

[Ismail]

we currently have so much 'revolutionary theory' we could probably smother the entire proletariat in a cascade of paper. doesn't seem to mean shit in terms of where 'the revolution' stands. but i suppose its more fun to roll around in the dustbin of history and try to stir it up enough to create a fog of importanceThere's a big difference in noting the necessity of revolutionary theory on one hand, and proclaiming that all must be "non-dogmatic" in reinventing the wheel or whatever while hosting a thousand conferences where people just speculate on things and don't actually participate in struggles on the other.

I mean do you really think that the Bolsheviks didn't combine revolutionary theory with practice in the days of fighting Tsarism and the Provisional Government?

[bcbm]

There's a big difference in noting the necessity of revolutionary theory on one hand, and proclaiming that all must be "non-dogmatic" in reinventing the wheel or whatever while hosting a thousand conferences where people just speculate on things and don't actually participate in struggles on the other.

not really


I mean do you really think that the Bolsheviks didn't combine revolutionary theory with practice in the days of fighting Tsarism and the Provisional Government?

i really don't think about irrelevant bullhsit from 100 years ago

[Ismail]

not really

i really don't think about irrelevant bullhsit from 100 years agoApparently there's no difference between Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks on one side and Noam Chomsky and Socialism 2011 conferences on the other. There's no qualitative difference in the discussion and practicing of revolutionary theory in both situations whatsoever. A party that inspired many proletarians from just about every country and even colony on earth and whose influence continues to be felt today in various ways is "irrelevant."

[bcbm]

Apparently there's no difference between Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks on one side and Noam Chomsky and Socialism 2011 conferences on the other.

today? no.


There's no qualitative difference in the discussion and practicing of revolutionary theory in both situations whatsoever. A party that inspired many proletarians from just about every country and even colony on earth and whose influence continues to be felt today in various ways is "irrelevant."

well for one i'm not sure how chomsky came into the conversation. or 'socialism 2011.' or lenin for that matter. but as long as we're here, no i don't think the works of some russians one hundred years ago in a totally different era and situation have much to offer us at this particular moment and the idea that because some wingnuts cling to that shit like its the gospel means it still matters to real life proletarians is laughable.

'our party inspired proletarians in every country and colony on earth'

and then we ruthlessly betrayed them while we ate ourselves. godspeed you champions of the working class

[Ismail]

well for one i'm not sure how chomsky came into the conversation. or 'socialism 2011.' or lenin for that matter.Because Lenin, you see, was quite big on revolutionary theory. So are "Socialism (insert year)" conferences and, presumably, Noam Chomsky. Of course there's a qualitative difference Lenin and Chomsky, or Lenin and whoever organizes those conferences.


but as long as we're here, no i don't think the works of some russians one hundred years ago in a totally different era and situation have much to offer us at this particular moment and the idea that because some wingnuts cling to that shit like its the gospel means it still matters to real life proletarians is laughable.What is to stop you from applying this to Marxism in general? Obviously some things will be different, but to write off Lenin and Co. as "some guys who did things 100 years ago" is clearly ridiculous considering that they based their actions not on narrow notions of what was to be done, but on providing scientific solutions to problems which not only came up in the concrete conditions of Russia, but also to problems relating to imperialism, parliamentary activity in the West, the question of mass organizations, the question of legal and illegal activity, and of course the question of the vanguard itself.

There hasn't been a notable communist movement in the US in over half a century (unless we want to count PLP and other relatively small parties in the 60's and 70's that basically died as nationwide forces when SDS died), so I don't see what "matters to real lie proletarians" has to do with your point. The point is for workers to become conscious both of their conditions and to have the means to attain state power. Obviously when there is no organized vanguard (or any decently-organized working-class organization, for that matter) then one cannot talk about what "matters" or not, since there's really no precedent or way to test these things. For what it's worth, though, those 60's and 70's parties I mentioned did do relatively well as far as leftism in the USA goes.


and then we ruthlessly betrayed them while we ate ourselves. godspeed you champions of the working classOf course you throwing aside revolutionary theory is directly connected with you viewing the Bolsheviks as some sort of malignant force for evil.

[bcbm]

Because Lenin, you see, was quite big on revolutionary theory. So are "Socialism (insert year)" conferences and, presumably, Noam Chomsky. Of course there's a qualitative difference Lenin and Chomsky, or Lenin and whoever organizes those conferences.

yeah only one of them had people executed


What is to stop you from applying this to Marxism in general?

nothing



Obviously some things will be different, but to write off Lenin and Co. as "some guys who did things 100 years ago" is clearly ridiculous considering that they based their actions not on narrow notions of what was to be done, but on providing scientific solutions to problems which not only came up in the concrete conditions of Russia, but also to problems relating to imperialism, parliamentary activity in the West, the question of mass organizations, the question of legal and illegal activity, and of course the question of the vanguard itself.

summary- please pay attention to these corpses, they have so much to offer the living

meanwhile, the living make their own history

sure i'll grant you we can elarn something from em, but they arent a gospel to fall back on... theyre a footnote to pay attention to.


There hasn't been a notable communist movement in the US in over half a century (unless we want to count PLP and other relatively small parties in the 60's and 70's that basically died as nationwide forces when SDS died), so I don't see what "matters to real lie proletarians" has to do with your point.

well we've had russia to work with for one hundred years and this is what we have to show? hmm.


The point is for workers to become conscious both of their conditions and to have the means to attain state power.

going to have to disagree with you there.


Obviously when there is no organized vanguard (or any decently-organized working-class organization, for that matter) then one cannot talk about what "matters" or not, since there's really no precedent or way to test these things.

i am pretty sure what is 'happening now' 'matters' more than anything in the last 20 years and has none of those things.


For what it's worth, though, those 60's and 70's parties I mentioned did do relatively well as far as leftism in the USA goes.

says it all.


Of course you throwing aside revolutionary theory is directly connected with you viewing the Bolsheviks as some sort of malignant force for evil.

i'm only throwing aside what gets in the way of the destryuction of class society, sorry it hurts your heroes. if it makes you feel better, i never said they were a 'malignant force for evil,' i dont believe in evil. they did what they needed to do to secure their own power. sadly it had nothing to do with my class