My debate with a cappie.

[Mike Fakelastname]

This is a pretty educated cappie, he knew a whole lot about communism, he won the debate, he had beaten me in things I could not argue for my lack of knowledge. It was this:

1. There is to be no government in communism, correct? It's all based on commitees. Like a commitee of grain, commitee of farming machinery, ect. If the commitees were to meet up, this would be too much like a central state, and that wouldn't sit very well. Well, the commitee of grain would definitely have to meet up with the commitee of farm machinery, how would this work out.

2. Oh, and the cappie brought up an interesting point. If we were to have full international Communism, there would be no way for all the commitees to meet up together, they would have to send representatives. Wouldn't these representatives have an upperhand?

3. Yet another thing: Who would distribute the food and money and stuff like that? There is no central state. You couldn't trust common people to distribute these things equally among themselves, and if you got a specific commitee to do it, how could you even trust them?

4. This is a common argument for anti communism. What incentive is there for you to work at all under communism?

5. Under communism, would there be a ton of small communes, or just one big one? The small communes couldn't be entirely self sufficient, and I don't think one big commune is possible, how would this work?

[Mike Fakelastname]

Please answer my questions, it will help me greatly in future debates with capitalists.

[Pete]

There is to be no government in communism, correct? It's all based on commitees. Like a commitee of grain, commitee of farming machinery, ect. If the commitees were to meet up, this would be too much like a central state, and that wouldn't sit very well. Well, the commitee of grain would definitely have to meet up with the commitee of farm machinery, how would this work out.

Since communism is the utopia you should aslo mention that there would be no commitees and people would actually produce what they need and share their extra with those who need it, instead of large scale commitee deals ect. Those are just signs of state capitalism.


If we were to have full international Communism, there would be no way for all the commitees to meet up together, they would have to send representatives. Wouldn't these representatives have an upperhand?


Decentralization is a characteristic of communism, and refer to my first asnwer. His question is irrelevant. A good motto to keep in mind is this: "Think globaly act locally." I hold that to be a generally good idea, and if enacted by everyone individually it would be highly effective.

Of course their may be some structure, but global trade is not a necessity for humanity to exist. It would wither away with the state, IMO.


Who would distribute the food and money and stuff like that?

No money, food comes from your backyard or front yard or the field. Cities in the present scale are impratical, and I doubt they would work. Communism involves huge society shattering changes. Tell him not to expect his current ways of thinking as being acceptable to solving these problems.


There is no central state. You couldn't trust common people to distribute these things equally among themselves, and if you got a specific commitee to do it, how could you even trust them?

I think this is also a mistaken worldview. He obviously is coming at this from his established 'I am right because' viewpoint, which fails to provide real questions. People can be trusted because you can trust your self, your friends, your fellow workers. Can you not? And if everyone has what they need, then why would they strive for more? I mean if everyone is working and happy, then everyone will be sure to make sure that every one has what they need. No need for commitees. How do you think human society began :)


What incentive is there for you to work at all under communism?


It is also the weakest, IMO. 'From each according to skill, to each according to need.' If you work you get food. If you don't work, and can (like, say, a CEO) you don't eat. Simple, no?


The small communes couldn't be entirely self sufficient, and I don't think one big commune is possible, how would this work

Many smallcommunities who interact with eachother.


I am more or less anarchist right now, so others may have different opinions.

-Pete

[CASTRO_SUCKS]

Originally posted by CrazyPete+Dec 4 2003, 11:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CrazyPete @ Dec 4 2003, 11:59 PM) No need for commitees. How do you think human society began :) [/b]
Gee, lets see.....one group took care of the hunting...another group took care of the fishing...yet another group took care of clothing...and yet another group took care of shelter......nah...no commitees there&#33; :blink:


[email protected] 4 2003, 11:59 PM
......If you work you get food. If you don&#39;t work, and can (like, say, a CEO) you don&#39;t eat. Simple, no?
How is THAT different than capitalism?? :blink: All I know is that if I don&#39;t work, I can&#39;t buy a thing and hence get no clothing, no food, no shelter....NOTHING&#33; HOWEVER, I can always fall back on welfare, the Salvation Army and public handouts.

[Mike Fakelastname]

I disagree with most of what you said CrazyPete. The way you put it could never work unless we were to go back to a primitive semi-independant state of living. I&#39;m strongly in favor of commitees for communism, can someone who shares this opinion please answer my questions? No offense CrazyPete.

[Pete]

I don&#39;t have much time until jan. for debates, but I&#39;ll answer you questions because I hate reading the bible, and the genesis to judges is on my exam tomorrow.


Gee, lets see.....one group took care of the hunting...another group took care of the fishing...yet another group took care of clothing...and yet another group took care of shelter......nah...no commitees there&#33;

It is not clothing. As you can see, people did what they did, and then shared with others. No centralized organization. Just sharing and not bastardizing eachother... I see comittees as a bunch of people sitting around talking while others do the work regardless of the outcome of the comittee. Working and sharing is not commitee. Comittee (which I have problay spelt 3 different ways up to this point) is much more centralized and less commonsense.


How is THAT different than capitalism??

I think the main difference is that in capitalism their are not enough jobs for everyone, and there is massive pay inequalities. For example CEO&#39;s and management commitees who comparitively do no actual work (they talk a lot, stamp things that may or may not change the way stuff goes in the reality), yet are paid more, typically, than those working and doing the work at the bottom. If you remove this entire system, and get back to the reality of it all, if no one is out there producing the food, making the clothing, making the shelter, tending the fields, hunting, fishing, ect then you die that is differnt.

In Capitalism it is more about competition as well. I need to work to get ahead. In communism it is more about necessity. I need to eat so I can live, and then after that is satisfied I will take the rest of the day/week off to relax and spend time with my friends and family. Stuble difference, no?


I can always fall back on welfare, the Salvation Army and public handouts.

These are more social democrat or democratic socialist than communist. Some people irringly call it &#39;liberal&#39; but that is because liberal parties today are not really liberal anymore, but that is another arguement. These exist because there are not enough jobs. I mean if everyone who is capable of doing something had a job, then there would be less problems. Why do you think Hitler was so popular? He gave people jobs. (I am NOT equating hitler with communism) It is a simple equation... so when you have jobs these things don&#39;t matter. When you take away the state, when you take away money, when you take away wasteful worldviews and habits and you get down to what really matters, food shelter happiness, you see that to eat you need to work. To live you need shelter and food. To be happy usually requires being satisfied that you pulled your own weight.

It does sound like rightest theory, but it is the complete opposite. Capitalism has competition and money and corporate supremacy. Communism has sharing and happiness and human equality.

I hope that clears things up.

-Pete

[Pete]

Originally posted by Mike [email protected] 4 2003, 07:59 PM
I disagree with most of what you said CrazyPete. The way you put it could never work unless we were to go back to a primitive semi-independant state of living. I&#39;m strongly in favor of commitees for communism, can someone who shares this opinion please answer my questions? No offense CrazyPete.
Of course :) With your avatar I did not expect you too. Of course I would highly disagree with anything any leninist would come up with. If Bolshevika posts here you will see that we differ almost completely.

Different life experiences tend to cause different view points. I see human nature in a positive light.

-Pete

[CASTRO_SUCKS]

Again...so....if EVERYONE is "equal" in a communist society, what incentive would people have in becoming doctors, lawyers, pilots, COPS, teachers, garbagemen, architects, janitors, etc???? What makes you think EVERYONE wouldn&#39;t just want to be something that requires minimal studying and work? In life you NEED competition, you NEED challenge....

Life without challenges is a dull, meaningless existence&#33;

[Hitman47]

yea, im leftist but i still have this question:


If there was communism, wouldn&#39;t there be bad living conditions if we just sit around and work only for our needs, and having no individuality in research to invent new things? <_<

[Pete]

*sighs*


Again...so....if EVERYONE is "equal" in a communist society, what incentive would people have in becoming doctors, lawyers, pilots, COPS, teachers, garbagemen, architects, janitors, etc????

You are being dogmatic on me.

People would do what they enjoy doing. Many doctors are doctors for the money, but many are doctors because they want to help people. You would do what you wanted what you wished to do not what made the most money.

Janitors garbagecollectors ect would disappear. People would realize that having someone take care of them is purely classist in nature and *gasp* they would clean up after themselves&#33; The horror&#33;

Remember, things would not be like they are today. The entire system needs to be irrecociably shattered. Your mindset will become obsolete, and the questions you ask irrelevant.


What makes you think EVERYONE wouldn&#39;t just want to be something that requires minimal studying and work?

Well I for one want to study, I know many people that do. If you are doing something for the money you can &#39;make&#39; afterwards, then you are doing it for the wrong reason. Communism will not make life boring and unchallenging. YOu will just have to learn to challenge yourself, and to become who you want to be. I mean, you will work to live, but once you have what you need to live, you will have all the extra time to relax. What a concept eh?

People who want to get more education would get it. Those who don&#39;t wouldn&#39;t. As I said before, some people want to be doctors to help people. Some people want to learn. Others don&#39;t. No one will be forced either way by greed or by necessity. The priority will be on happiness, not wealth.


Life without challenges is a dull, meaningless existence&#33;

Learn to challenge your self then. It is not that hard&#33; And you DO NOT need competition to challenge yourself and grow.


If there was communism, wouldn&#39;t there be bad living conditions if we just sit around and work only for our needs, and having no individuality in research to invent new things?

You are assuming that what the west has socialized into your mind is true. It is not. You will have more individuality. You will work to achieve your needs, yes, and then you will not work more. What is the point? You will be in the same place anyways. It is stupid to work more than you have to to survive, it causes stress and leaves you with little spare time to become an individual. Inventions are not the mark of a society, in my mind.

-Pete

[Crusader 4 da truth]

CrazyPete cannot sufficiently answer those questions, no one can. Allocation is a big problem and one of the main reason communism remains an un-attainable theory. In order to put it into practice you would have to have to use coercion. When this occurs the faithful simply deny that this is a "true" communist system i.e. (North Korea, USSR, China, Cuba) the cycle never ends.

Mike you are dangerously close to seeing this, and breaking free of this circular logic. Keep pressing for answers.

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by Mike [email protected] 5 2003, 12:59 AM
I disagree with most of what you said CrazyPete. The way you put it could never work unless we were to go back to a primitive semi-independant state of living. I&#39;m strongly in favor of commitees for communism, can someone who shares this opinion please answer my questions? No offense CrazyPete.
Mike you are completely correct. Crazy Pete is a radical idealist with his Anarcho-communism along with the rest of the beloved Che-Libs members. To think that people in a decentralized, federalist nation will give up their wealth to help those in need is just not reality in a reactionary and post-capitalist society.

The people need central committees for guidance, or what the Anarchists call "State capitalism" (this is actually a weird concept on the anarchists part, knowing that under centralized socialism labour is equally distributed) or "evil totalitarian dictatorship". You see, Anarchists oppose all forms of hierarchy, which is obviously extreme utopianism and idealism. They are the definition of sentimentalism. Humanity on a large scale needs atleast some form of hierarchy, if not there is no order. As the cutesy teenage Anarchists say "YEA DUDE, CHAOS&#33; ANARCHY ROCKS&#33;".

They do not understand the truely corrupt nature of post-capitalist society. Completely abolishing a state will only set us back I dono, maybe a couple of thousand years? Let me tell you something, wherever there is unregulated trade, a new class system will always arise. History teaches us this. Anarchist&#39;s support unregulated trade because they claim regulation, equal distribution of labour, goods, meeting basic needs, etc are "state capitalism". Feudalism will eventually re establish itself after a few years of unregulated trade, then capitalism will come back, and guess what? We will be back at square one.

Mike, I like you have much potential on becomming a true communist. Just becareful expressing yourself freely, their are eyes everywhere and if they see one hint of communism in you, Restriction will be your fate.

[Urban Rubble]

Bolshevika

This tactic of yours to label all those who disagree with you "liberals" or somehow untrue communists is getting tiring.

I agree with most of your views of hos a Socialist nation, your problem is that you refuse to admit the mistakes of Socialist leaders/states. That and your support for maniacs like Hussein.

[truthaddict11]

what about Leninism Bolshevika? in all cases it has gone back to capitalism. your argument against anarchists as being stupid teenagers is far from the truth.

[The Feral Underclass]

Mike


1. There is to be no government in communism, correct? It&#39;s all based on commitees. Like a commitee of grain, commitee of farming machinery, ect. If the commitees were to meet up, this would be too much like a central state, and that wouldn&#39;t sit very well. Well, the commitee of grain would definitely have to meet up with the commitee of farm machinery, how would this work out.

This person is claiming to understand what a state is. When actually he dosnt. The state in it&#39;s entirety is a mechnism which controls institutions to use as instruments to keep a ruling elite in power. That is what it was desgined to do, it is what it has always done. It is the essence of a state. he also confuses government and state. The government is not the state. The government is a body of people who pepetrate the existance of the state.

Why would you need these committees? Why would the need to meet? If you have a factory that grows grain and a factory who makes machinery all you need to do is pick up the phone, call them and place your order...there is not need to sit around a table for weeks hammering out every last detail.

Factories would be organized with different responsability areas with people either elected, volunteered or replaced on a rota basis. If it is your responsability to order machinery, you call the ordering responsable person in the machine factory and make your order...no bureaucracy necessary, no central grain committee just plain old working class people getting on with their job.


2. Oh, and the cappie brought up an interesting point. If we were to have full international Communism, there would be no way for all the commitees to meet up together, they would have to send representatives. Wouldn&#39;t these representatives have an upperhand?

Refer to my first answer. It maybe necessary to have wider responsable people working in co-operation with all communes when it comes to dealing with international managment.


3. Yet another thing: Who would distribute the food and money and stuff like that? There is no central state. You couldn&#39;t trust common people to distribute these things equally among themselves, and if you got a specific commitee to do it, how could you even trust them?

Although it was a term coined by Lenin, I feel it to be an apt description. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." In return for contributing some time per week for socially necessary work you would be provided for by society.

Money would cease to exist because it has no use or value anymore. Again, goods would be destributed to communes based on need. If a communal baker needed flour he would contact a factory that produced it and would have it deliverd.


4. This is a common argument for anti communism. What incentive is there for you to work at all under communism?

How do you achieve communism. Through mass class consciousness. You can not achieve it without it. So if a huge mass of conscious workers have juat fought capitalism to achieve communism, it is illogical to then suggest that they would suddenly work to destroy communism.

The incentive would be the existance of a new fair and equal society. This person you were talking to has only a very narrow few of human abilities. He sees everything under the context of capitalism. Move away from that. Human ability and consciousness will be far more advanced in a situation like this.


5. Under communism, would there be a ton of small communes, or just one big one? The small communes couldn&#39;t be entirely self sufficient, and I don&#39;t think one big commune is possible, how would this work?

There will be many communes working in co-operation...A federation of communes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Mike


I disagree with most of what you said CrazyPete. The way you put it could never work unless we were to go back to a primitive semi-independant state of living. I&#39;m strongly in favor of commitees for communism, can someone who shares this opinion please answer my questions? No offense CrazyPete.

You are not talking about communism then.

[driver]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 5 2003, 07:32 AM
Money would cease to exist because it has no use or value anymore. Again, goods would be destributed to communes based on need. If a communal baker needed flour he would contact a factory that produced it and would have it deliverd.
For the sake of discussion I am going to extend that comment. Its something that I have questioned before and am not too sure of.

What happens to things like luxuries in the communist world? Could I, as a contributing worker to society go to the local BMW factory and place my order for the latest M3 which will be given to me free of charge? The same could apply to TV&#39;s, DVD players, hifi&#39;s etc. Items not essential to survival but nice to have and enjoy after a hard days work.

END&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Bolshevika


Crazy Pete is a radical idealist with his Anarcho-communism along with the rest of the beloved Che-Libs members.

A little bitterness I see....


To think that people in a decentralized, federalist nation will give up their wealth to help those in need is just not reality in a reactionary and post-capitalist society.

It&#39;s called class consciousness...


The people need central committees for guidance, or what the Anarchists call "State capitalism" (this is actually a weird concept on the anarchists part, knowing that under centralized socialism labour is equally distributed) or "evil totalitarian dictatorship".

Conscious people do not need guidence.

State capitalism is exactly what it says...state capitalism....there has never been an example of this centrlised socialism distributing labour equally...and in fact have turned out to be totalitarian dictatorships.


You see, Anarchists oppose all forms of hierarchy, which is obviously extreme utopianism and idealism.

No, there not necessary.


They are the definition of sentimentalism.

Does anyone know what this means?...I am sure bolshy dosnt.


Humanity on a large scale needs atleast some form of hierarchy, if not there is no order.

The dillusions of leninists....without order and hierarchies how will you know what to do right&#33;&#33;&#33;


the cutesy teenage Anarchists say "YEA DUDE, CHAOS&#33; ANARCHY ROCKS&#33;".

Friends of yours are they?


History teaches us this.

What history shows us, is that whenever a group of people lead workers in the name of workers power it has resulted in death, destruction, dictatorship, represion and eventually capitalism again.


Anarchist&#39;s support unregulated trade because they claim regulation, equal distribution of labour, goods, meeting basic needs, etc are "state capitalism".

We do not call these things state capitalism...we disagree that in order to achieve them you need to have a great leader with thousands of committees, a police force, army and secret service to achieve it.


Mike, I like you have much potential on becomming a true communist. Just becareful expressing yourself freely, their are eyes everywhere and if they see one hint of communism in you, Restriction will be your fate.

Communism is not what you have described. What you have talked about is socialism...communism is something all together different.

[The Feral Underclass]

Driver

Why do you need an M3 BMW? As for hi fi&#39;s it is up to society to decide. I am sure things like this will be wanted and something will be done about it.

If you look deeper at why things like this are bought. A car like this is most definatly a status symbel. It shows how rich a person is...People buy these luxury items and expensive things because that is what you do. These material objects take on some kind of mystical power which makes people want them. Ivory napkin rings make your dinner table look good, but when you look deeper at it all, what really is the point. What are these inaminate objects actually going to do for your life? Do they make your life anymore meaningful. No, they are just objects which you spend large amounts of cash on. They do not eleviate the problems in your life.

This is why i believe that consciousness will bring about an end to this kind of pointless materialism. People will see that owning an M3 BMW is not really important but that building a society were all needs are provided for everyone is.

[driver]

I partly agree with you, it is a status symbol. But if we are living in a society where there is no currency, it would cease to be that as everyone would have the means to obtain one.

From a personal point of view I would like the vehicle for its speed and comfort. You cannot deny that traveling 500 miles is a lot easier and more comfortable in a car such as the one mentioned, as opposed to the likes of a Fiat Uno.

Just because we live in a communist society should we shun the things that may make life more enjoyable because they formerly represented the capitalist elite?

END&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Driver


But if we are living in a society where there is no currency, it would cease to be that as everyone would have the means to obtain one.

It isnt a question of having money, it is a question of having the right to own one...If everyone wanted a DVD player then society should work together to achieve that goal. However, if you refused to contribute to the running of society then benifits such as this would be restricted. In order to benifit from society you must contribute to it. That would be the new currency.


From a personal point of view I would like the vehicle for its speed and comfort. You cannot deny that traveling 500 miles is a lot easier and more comfortable in a car such as the one mentioned, as opposed to the likes of a Fiat Uno.

Of course I agree but it dosnt necessarily have to be a BMW M3. It could be a communal car, or a car produced by society to be destributed to those people who needed one. If you did not need a car you could not exploit society into giving you one. Do you need a car?


Just because we live in a communist society should we shun the things that may make life more enjoyable because they formerly represented the capitalist elite?

Of course we should not. Human abilities have developed wonderful technology which benifits our lives. Television is a great way to see the outside world, or at least that is the theory. DVD players allow us to see pieces of art or entertainment. We should not shun these inventions. What we should do though is get their meaning into perspective.

You are taking the example of material objects as an importance in changing soceity. It is as if you are judging the significance of communism based on whether or not you could enjoy the same material wealth as you do now. Changing society and creating communism is not, and should not be about that. It should be about freeing human beings from the exploitation of a brutal, ruling elite.

Things like the creation and destribution of televisions and dvd players will come at a time when society is organized fairly and where all the needs of human beings are met. They are things that are not important in the greater picture. In fact your want for a dvd player pales in comparison to the starving people in africa...and this goes back to my original point. These inaminate objects take on these mystical powers which seem to elevate them unto a higher plane of relevance...we have more pressing issues to deal with.

[Hoppe]

Human abilities have developed wonderful technology which benifits our lives. Television is a great way to see the outside world, or at least that is the theory. DVD players allow us to see pieces of art or entertainment. We should not shun these inventions. What we should do though is get their meaning into perspective.

Why would I want to invent the wheel if society benefits indefinitely and I only get a chicken?

What makes you so sure people will not reinvent money? Your only answer this far is consiousness but that will be a hell of a problem, very utopian. Some communes won&#39;t have for instance iron, so that have to trade iron for let say bananas. Hence we have simple bartertrade. History shows us that bartertrade is the start and eventually a common denominator will evolve, gold or shells or salt (thus money) and we have the beginning of free market anarchism. Just what has I have said before, you shouldn&#39;t be that hard on anarchocapitalists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hoppe


Why would I want to invent the wheel if society benefits indefinitely and I only get a chicken?

You are the one putting a price on serving society...that&#39;s your problem...you are the one who wants to sell your skill for some material gain...

Human beings will continue to invent things. Maybe a few like you will expect to be paid for it but you will be ignored and irrelevant.


What makes you so sure people will not reinvent money? Your only answer this far is consiousness but that will be a hell of a problem, very utopian.

It may seem utopian but actually it&#39;s very logical, and not too difficult to understand. The creation of such a society can not happen without mass class consciousness. After realising all this, changing society, why on gods earth would the suddenly try and udnermine it...it isnt logical....when you spend weeks, months building a big ship out of match sticks do you then kick it over and jump on it.....


Some communes won&#39;t have for instance iron, so that have to trade iron for let say bananas.

Why would they need iron? It sounds as if it was a big project and could not be dealt with by a commune alone. Maybe it is building a new bridge...you may need to organize masses of help from around the world.

A bridge is a necessity and therefore would have to be produced. You would not have to trade banannas to get it.

You live in your house...your mother needs yoa hammer to put a book shelf and you have one...do you say to her..."well I will put up this book shelf by giving you this hammer if you give me thirty four packets of raisons."

[Hoppe]

ou are the one putting a price on serving society...that&#39;s your problem...you are the one who wants to sell your skill for some material gain...


That&#39;s is your problem. You have given NO answer to the incentive problem except utopian codswallop.


The creation of such a society can not happen without mass class consciousness. After realising all this, changing society, why on gods earth would the suddenly try and udnermine it...it isnt logical....when you spend weeks, months building a big ship out of match sticks do you then kick it over and jump on it.....

So it will never happen.


Why would they need iron? It sounds as if it was a big project and could not be dealt with by a commune alone. Maybe it is building a new bridge...you may need to organize masses of help from around the world.

A bridge is a necessity and therefore would have to be produced. You would not have to trade banannas to get it.

Who is going to decide what is necessary? Maybe the commune who has iron decides that it is more important to build cars so then they can go to commune C for fish.

[driver]

The communist system described here seems incredibly impractical and a reversal of what already is created. Depopulating the cities and forming smaller communes does not make sense.

Production as it is today should not stop and the infrastructure must be used to benefit the people. I dont see it any other way.

END&#33;

[Mike Fakelastname]

Driver, that&#39;s because what people are discussing here is called Anarchy. I agree with you fully, I think Anarchy relys solely on people being class concious, which of course they would. But, when you&#39;re living in a world with 5 billion people, there are going to be some that don&#39;t care if society is happy or not, and that&#39;s all it will take to bring that system down.

I also think we will need commitees for communism if it&#39;s ever going to last, probably a central comitee also, even though that&#39;s technically not true communism. Now again, please, would an educated COMMIE please answer my questions, no offense to the Anarchists, it&#39;s just that I do not agree with you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hoppe


That&#39;s is your problem. You have given NO answer to the incentive problem except utopian codswallop.

How dare I have faith in human ability&#33; :rolleyes: I have answered the question several times in several different threads.


So it will never happen.

Not with that attitude.


Who is going to decide what is necessary? Maybe the commune who has iron decides that it is more important to build cars so then they can go to commune C for fish.

This is a basic over view of how society is structured. Communes are not seperate entities they are a federation. If a bridge needed to be built it would benifit society, if cars needed to built they would also benifit soceity. It is not a question of one or the other. Both projects can be realised.

A commune is not just a shack in the middle of the countryside. A commune could also be a factory with the sole purpose of making iron. There maybe 10 or 20 factories being operarted, able to supply enitre countries with iron. If it was needed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Driver


The communist system described here seems incredibly impractical and a reversal of what already is created. Depopulating the cities and forming smaller communes does not make sense.

Nobody claimed this. The system that has been described is simply a matter of applying common sense.


Production as it is today should not stop and the infrastructure must be used to benefit the people. I dont see it any other way.

Fine. Except priorities would have to change. Consumer goods would stop being produced and there would be an emphasis on producing socially necessary material such as food, clothing etc.

[Mike Fakelastname]

Regardless, I still disagree with you Anarchists, I don&#39;t want to debate you though, I simply want my questions answered from the view of an educated Communist, please. So far the only people to answer them are Anarchists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Mike


that&#39;s because what people are discussing here is called Anarchy.

No...it&#39;s called communism it was Marx described as the &#39;the second stage&#39;.


I agree with you fully, I think Anarchy relys solely on people being class concious, which of course they would. But, when you&#39;re living in a world with 5 billion people, there are going to be some that don&#39;t care if society is happy or not, and that&#39;s all it will take to bring that system down.

You claim something and then contradict yourself in the space of a few words. If people are conscious then this reliance is not a problem. You then say some people will not be happy. Put the emphasis on some. Of course there will be some that wont like it but who cares.

You can not refute an entire theory based on the possibility of "some" people not being happy.


I also think we will need commitees for communism if it&#39;s ever going to last, probably a central comitee also, even though that&#39;s technically not true communism.

What you are talking about theoretically is not communism at all. It is not a questikon of technicalities. What you are describing is socialism ie the dictatorship of the proletariat (DoP). But you have contradicted yourself. The DoP is designed specifically because it is claimed people would not be conscious. You have said they will be, which therefore invalidates the need for this DoP or your central committee. Human beings, being conscious, just like me and others on this board, will have the ability to organize ourselves.

Leninists seem to have this superiority complex. That the knowledge and understanding theya s indeviduals, or as a group have, could not possible be shared by the whole working class. We are no better, we have simply understood quicker.


Now again, please, would an educated COMMIE please answer my questions, no offense to the Anarchists, it&#39;s just that I do not agree with you.

Your questions have been answered. Of course you can always keep asking until the answers you wont are given too you. What is your agenda? What is it you want to hear? Are you looking for something to validate your beliefs. Well sorry, if it was communism you were after to do that job, you&#39;ve come to the wrong bar&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 5 2003, 10:28 AM
Hoppe


Why would I want to invent the wheel if society benefits indefinitely and I only get a chicken?

You are the one putting a price on serving society...that&#39;s your problem...you are the one who wants to sell your skill for some material gain...


This is also one of the big minuses of Capitalism.

Money stimulates the most self-centric elements in society. Our rulers, people with "succes" are self-centric profiteers.

Fortunatly not everyone thinks this way and even under Capitalist pressure for materialization a lot of proletariat choose to help their fellow humans. This makes me believe that an Anarcho-Commie society is more then possible. That some of you&#39;re self-centric or believe that people will only work if a gun points at them doesn&#39;t mean that Anarcho-Communism is utopian bullocks.

[Mike Fakelastname]

Thanks Anarchist Tension, I guess you did help me. But what I&#39;m saying is that in order for Anarchy or true Communism it looks like, to be established, you would need 100% of the population to be concious. Ok, even if that did happen (which I highly doubt that is even possible), once a few generations go by, people are so happy that they forget about why they&#39;re happy, and they are no longer 100% class concious. What happens then? You surely cannot gaurantee that people will be 100% class concious a few generations down the line. I really don&#39;t want to offend you for not agreeing with your beliefs, I came here to learn about them, so please feel free to contradict me, I won&#39;t insult you or anything like that. I do not think Anarchism/true Communism is utopian "bullocks". It&#39;s a utopian idea, but I don&#39;t consider it "bullocks" (sorry, I&#39;m from America, and "bullocks" is not a part of our vocab. here, I don&#39;t know what it means). I think it indeed could work, but the only thing is we would be set back into a much more primitive society, from lack of organization.

Take this example: Your teacher says, "Do some homework, anything you like, just do work.", the next day two-thirds of the class comes in with shitty half-assed stuff and they call it work. Then the teacher says, "Do problems 9-20 on page 342." Most likely the next day most of the kids will come in with their homework done. This is because people feel lessed stressed and more inclined to do work under organization.

I guess I am more of a socialist then, with a communism based economic belief system. Whatever. I really wanted to be a true Communist, but I just don&#39;t think it could work without us being socially set back hundreds of years. In my opinion, organization is key whether people are class concious or not.

[The Feral Underclass]

Mike

The word is bollocks and it is a bad thing...


But what I&#39;m saying is that in order for Anarchy or true Communism it looks like, to be established, you would need 100% of the population to be concious.

No, just those whom are explotied by capitalism.


Ok, even if that did happen (which I highly doubt that is even possible), once a few generations go by, people are so happy that they forget about why they&#39;re happy, and they are no longer 100% class concious.

This dosnt make sense. I dont know what you&#39;re argueing.

Revolution isnt like the changing of governments. it is a monumtally profound thing. We are talking about changing the entire fabric of society. We are talking about a change in peoples realities, their minds and how they percieve the world. It is a lasting change. We went from feudelism to capitalism without going back to feudelism after a few years.

Anarchism is the next logical step to the process history is going through. When society changes it will not be able to unchange back to what it was. It isnt a question of having class conscious years after, because class wont exist. Anatgonisms exist now because of class destinctions. The ruling class subjugate the working class to a wage. When we talk about class consciousness it means understanding this destinction. In an anarchist society class will not exist, so people will not be able to loose any kind of class consciousness. Indeed, they wont have a "class" consciousness.

What they will have is a respect for freedom and equality. Generations who fought to change society will educate the next generation who will continue what they started. Living in a world where everyone is provided for and where everyone takes a role in running society, and are proud of it. No one will want to go back to capitalism because it will be a scarey story told by old people. People will look back on it, read about in books and be amazed at how stupid we were.

If you look at why people are selfish and greedy you will see that it is because of the conditioning of society. Because our lives are based on survival, always looking out for number one. In an anarcho-communist society people will not need to always look out for number one. In fact it wont be in their interest too. People will forget about selfishness and greed and talk about it like they would nightmares.


I do not think Anarchism/true Communism is utopian "bullocks". It&#39;s a utopian idea, but I don&#39;t consider it "bullocks"

It is utopian. I do not deny that. But just because it is utopian does not make it unrealistic. In fact what is the point of changing society if it is not for a utopia...and look at what a utopia is. It is a world that is everything we dream for...do you not find it strange that human beings can believe fanatcially that what we dream for is an impossability. People are too often blinded by systems that already exist and can not move past technicalities to see human patential and ability, this is a sad form of fatalism. If everyone believed it could work, there is not reason it wouldnt, its logic...we are pretty clever us humans.


I think it indeed could work, but the only thing is we would be set back into a much more primitive society, from lack of organization.

Anarchism does not negate organization. Of course you need organization otherwise nothing would be able to function. You could not see in the future or even in the present, you would simply be, until you died of starvation.

But there is a difference between organization and centralisation. Organization is something that can be achieved without a leadership and without central planning...non centralised, non-hierarchical systems have worked many times in the past and with a bigger success rate than Leninism. The anti-captialist movement being the modern day example of anarchist principles being adopted and working well.

The argument now is that it may work in a small group (actually tens of thousands of people) put not for a world. This is where I get confused. When you are organizing the destribution of bread, the entire world is not involved. Groups of people smaller than the ant-capitalist movement would operate all over the world organizing different socially necessary work. There is no point in considering the entire world in a plan to make bread for ten thousand people. Think of areas, seperate of each other yet working together in co-operation.

My point is, that this argument that it could never work in the world is rediculas. What is the world if it is not made up of small areas, of groups of people no bigger than that of the anti-capitalist movement, which, using anarchist principles, achieves its goal effectivly and effieciently.


I just don&#39;t think it could work without us being socially set back hundreds of years.

there is not reason to be set back hundreds of years. We would still have shops, we would still have libraires, night clubs and bars. We would still have book shops and art gallaries and beautiful buildings and monuments. We would still have parks and cafes...the only difference would be that our lives would be free to enjoy all these things. That we wouldnt have to worry about where our next meal was coming from or how we were going to pay our rent. We would have control over our own lives and would be able to take pride in working for society and not for a small group of people who feed of our sweat....it isnt a lot to ask :ph34r:

[Bolshevika]

It&#39;s called class consciousness...

Do you seriously expect the bourgeoisie to lay their weapons down and give up all their wealth to the "class concious" anarchists? Of course not&#33; The bourgeoisie will never cooperate with the workers, this is a marxist law.

The proletarian Marxist-Leninist states of the past have raised class conciousness on a much wider scale than Anarchists. The raising of complete, homogenous views on class struggle and ideas will happen only with a central force promoting and distributing propaganda, revamping the education to a proletarian education system, and the purgery of reactionary and bourgeois ideas and people. Anarchists support none of this, hence they always have much less sucess in raising class conciousness and support for their bourgeois revolutions. The reason Anarchist revolts have failed is not because the evil Leninists have stopped them, it is because they lack support for their ideas amongst the working people because it is utter idealism and people are not willing to take such a risk to live the anarchist "utopia". They want an end to their suffering now and they think central powers are needed to end their suffering.


Conscious people do not need guidence.

State capitalism is exactly what it says...state capitalism....there has never been an example of this centrlised socialism distributing labour equally...and in fact have turned out to be totalitarian dictatorships.

You anarchists call everything a dictatorship and authoritarian. You are hypocrites. You believe in revolution, yes? Well, a revolution is an authoritarian idea. You are forcing the opinions of Anarchists upon non-anarchists.

I agree that communists do the exact same thing but we don&#39;t talk about how authority oppresses us. It is a necessity in order to keep our borders sovereign and lead the proletariat to victory over the bourgeoisie. Anarchist "class struggle" will simply be unorganized skirmishes with the bourgeoisie, in which they will obviously be destroyed.


No, there not necessary.

Eliminating hierarchy right after capitalism is down right ridiculous and I think you know this. The people will be disoriented, riots and crime will ravage the street, and the cunniving wolves that we call capitalists will take advantage of this, properly organize, and bring back feudalism. As I&#39;ve said, you will set back proletarian ideas 500 years&#33;


Does anyone know what this means?...I am sure bolshy dosnt.

It means people who act on their sentiments ("Authority is bad because it sometimes creates injustices) rather than reality. I agree government is evil, the thing is finding the one that is least evil, and socialism is the answer. To think Anarchism will not have any faults is utopian.


The dillusions of leninists....without order and hierarchies how will you know what to do right&#33;&#33;&#33;

Or how about, how will you know how to stay alive? Oh wait we&#39;ll have "free trade", an utter individualist bourgeois ideal.


Friends of yours are they?

Actually, it&#39;s the mindset of Che-shirt wearing anarchists in every place I&#39;ve met them.




What history shows us, is that whenever a group of people lead workers in the name of workers power it has resulted in death, destruction, dictatorship, represion and eventually capitalism again.

Again, any central machinary, even if it is used to serve the interests of the people, will be considered "dictatorship" by anarchist opportunists and reactionaries. Sometimes I believe the Anarchists are conspiring with the bourgeois and fascist propagandists who make up these tales of "repression" and "dictatorship". To say the Soviet Union before 1953 was capitalist is like saying the United States is Marxist socialist..

Again, I don&#39;t say how in a state where labour was distributed equally it could be capitalist or even capitalistic.


We do not call these things state capitalism...we disagree that in order to achieve them you need to have a great leader with thousands of committees, a police force, army and secret service to achieve it.

IE, you want to bring us back to the stone age, and go in a class condition circle. Your ideas and lack of belief in purging the bourgeois will simply lead to them gaining power. Why? Because they are much better organized and have money to throw around. They will have an organized army (like the white army) full of their mercenaries and their counterrevolution will suceed. History definetly shows us the organized overcomming the chaotic and unorganized.



Communism is not what you have described. What you have talked about is socialism...communism is something all together different.

I agree. However, like it or not, I am a communist. I believe however that class conditions must be considered, and in fact the deciding factor. At this moment, communism is utterly impossible, only an anti-imperialist socialist state can lead the people to victory.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bolshevika

You&#39;re like a little wippet always gnarling...grrrr&#33;&#33;&#33;


Do you seriously expect the bourgeoisie to lay their weapons down and give up all their wealth to the "class concious" anarchists? Of course not&#33; The bourgeoisie will never cooperate with the workers, this is a marxist law.

When did I ever say this. I know full well that the ruling class will not role over.


The proletarian Marxist-Leninist states of the past have raised class conciousness on a much wider scale than Anarchists.

How? By subjugating them to a state?


The raising of complete, homogenous views on class struggle and ideas will happen only with a central force promoting and distributing propaganda, revamping the education to a proletarian education system, and the purgery of reactionary and bourgeois ideas and people.

Promoting and destributing propganda? This does not serve the workers it serves the promotion of the state and the party ruling elite. The working class are not making decsions about education they are relying on the party to do it. Instead of liberating themselves so they can change society, they have naivly placed the task into the hands of zealots and politicians.


Anarchists support none of this, hence they always have much less sucess in raising class conciousness and support for their bourgeois revolutions.

Exuse me for not supportuing brainwashing...


You anarchists call everything a dictatorship and authoritarian. You are hypocrites. You believe in revolution, yes? Well, a revolution is an authoritarian idea. You are forcing the opinions of Anarchists upon non-anarchists.

You keep contradicting yourself...on one hand we are evil because we dont promote our cause using a centralised structure and then we are hypocrites because we want to force people to accept anarchism...what people are you talking about?...if your talking about the ruling clas, too damn right...if your talking about the workers, then you being stupid....because you have already admitted that the opposite of this is what the anarchists do, and have rebuked us for it earlier in this post.


I agree that communists do the exact same thing but we don&#39;t talk about how authority oppresses us. It is a necessity in order to keep our borders sovereign and lead the proletariat to victory over the bourgeoisie. Anarchist "class struggle" will simply be unorganized skirmishes with the bourgeoisie, in which they will obviously be destroyed.

This is coming from you bolshevika...your a 14 year old kid who has never read a serious book on anarchism in his life...do not claim to know what anarchism strives to be because you are wrong and it makes you look really stupid.

The bouregoisie use this unorganized chaotic bullshit when trying to descredit us. You seem to have been infected by it...dont be sop fucking basic, anarchism is the complete opposite of all this and if you took the time to learn you would know that.


Eliminating hierarchy right after capitalism is down right ridiculous and I think you know this. The people will be disoriented, riots and crime will ravage the street, and the cunniving wolves that we call capitalists will take advantage of this, properly organize, and bring back feudalism. As I&#39;ve said, you will set back proletarian ideas 500 years&#33;

Yes, well we have dont this one to death.


Or how about, how will you know how to stay alive? Oh wait we&#39;ll have "free trade", an utter individualist bourgeois ideal.

Again this question ahs been answered numerous times by several different people in lots of different threads. If you dont belive us or you&#39;re just not paying attentions then that&#39;s your problem.


It means people who act on their sentiments ("Authority is bad because it sometimes creates injustices) rather than reality. I agree government is evil, the thing is finding the one that is least evil, and socialism is the answer. To think Anarchism will not have any faults is utopian.

This is just an over simplified rationalisation which fits nicly into your argument.


Actually, it&#39;s the mindset of Che-shirt wearing anarchists in every place I&#39;ve met them.

yes and their all probably the same age as you with about the same amount of knowledge...


Again, any central machinary, even if it is used to serve the interests of the people, will be considered "dictatorship" by anarchist opportunists and reactionaries. Sometimes I believe the Anarchists are conspiring with the bourgeois and fascist propagandists who make up these tales of "repression" and "dictatorship". To say the Soviet Union before 1953 was capitalist is like saying the United States is Marxist socialist..

Blah blah blah blah blah...the same old rhetoric from the same stupid people...do you honestly expect me to answer this...take the dictioanry out of your mouth and read what the words actually mean.


IE, you want to bring us back to the stone age, and go in a class condition circle. Your ideas and lack of belief in purging the bourgeois will simply lead to them gaining power. Why? Because they are much better organized and have money to throw around. They will have an organized army (like the white army) full of their mercenaries and their counterrevolution will suceed. History definetly shows us the organized overcomming the chaotic and unorganized.

sigh....The problem with you bolshy is that you love the idea of this dictatorship...you&#39;d probably like to be the next stalin wouldnt you...once again you have been infected by tht bouregois lie stick...since when did anarchism mean chaos and unorganization? it&#39;s all just bullshit&#33;


I agree. However, like it or not, I am a communist. I believe however that class conditions must be considered, and in fact the deciding factor. At this moment, communism is utterly impossible, only an anti-imperialist socialist state can lead the people to victory.

Your about as communistic as George Bush Jr.

[Mike Fakelastname]

Eh, I&#39;m sticking to socialism with communism based economic principles. I like the idea of centralized organization. I guess I owe it to you Anarchist Tension for helping me see the true Communism, and how it&#39;s not very different from Anarchy.

[Bolshevika]

When did I ever say this. I know full well that the ruling class will not role over.

Your anarchism and lack of belief in state machinary contradict what you claim to believe. How will you overthrow the ruling class with your lack of hierarchy? Do you really believe your idea of a hierarchyless militia will defeat a military with hierarchy? (see: all experiences where anarchists try to defend themselves)


How? By subjugating them to a state?

A state is not subjugation. It is a tool of the proletariat to use against their oppressors in class struggle. A standing army, police force, transportation, etc are all used to serve the proletariat in their war against the bourgeoisie. Anarchists don&#39;t "believe" in a police force, classical army, state sponsered transportation, state sponsered education, state sponsered healthcare, re education programs for the bourgeoisie and people with reactionary ideas, etc.

The people need leaders and examples to follow.


Promoting and destributing propganda? This does not serve the workers it serves the promotion of the state and the party ruling elite. The working class are not making decsions about education they are relying on the party to do it. Instead of liberating themselves so they can change society, they have naivly placed the task into the hands of zealots and politicians.

If propaganda is pro-Proletarian than it is justified. The idea of a state is educating the proletarian class so they may emancipate themselves, the people in a post-capitalist/post-feudal society usually have reactionary ideas and maybe even pro-bourgeois or fascist sentiments, hence they should not make decisions in education etc because they will make mistakes. Until all class contradictions are resolved we are forced to use this policy in certain situations.


Exuse me for not supportuing brainwashing...

Well if you consider spreading class consciousness and proletarian ideas "brainwashing", than I, and the rest of the Marxists, are certainly guilty.


You keep contradicting yourself...on one hand we are evil because we dont promote our cause using a centralised structure and then we are hypocrites because we want to force people to accept anarchism...what people are you talking about?...if your talking about the ruling clas, too damn right...if your talking about the workers, then you being stupid....because you have already admitted that the opposite of this is what the anarchists do, and have rebuked us for it earlier in this post.

Read the rest of my post.


This is coming from you bolshevika...your a 14 year old kid who has never read a serious book on anarchism in his life...do not claim to know what anarchism strives to be because you are wrong and it makes you look really stupid.

I&#39;ve read many essays by your "Berkmen" and "Proudhon", I believe their ideas will end up in massive chaos. Why? Because everytime the people are left without authority, their society becomes chaotic. The people need authority and leaders.


The bouregoisie use this unorganized chaotic bullshit when trying to descredit us. You seem to have been infected by it...dont be sop fucking basic, anarchism is the complete opposite of all this and if you took the time to learn you would know that.

The same can be said for your anti-Stalin sentiments. However, from past experiences, anarchistic situations like that of somalia (yes, before you start yelling, I don&#39;t consider anyone in somalia anarchist, but they are a stateless society to my knowlege) have been chaotic. You may give examples of small-scale anarchism, but even those only lasted a few years at most because of your lack of building a disciplined army.

I know about the anarchists plan for organization, class struggle etc, and see nothing but lawlessness come out of it. Let&#39;s say the anarchists plan actually does work, anarchism in theory is individiualist and promotes old ideas.


sigh....The problem with you bolshy is that you love the idea of this dictatorship...you&#39;d probably like to be the next stalin wouldnt you...once again you have been infected by tht bouregois lie stick...since when did anarchism mean chaos and unorganization? it&#39;s all just bullshit&#33;

There is a contradiction here as well. What does me liking Stalin&#39;s ideas and his model state have to do with the bourgeoisie? If anything, it is you with your anti-Stalin propaganda which has been infected by them.

Perhaps "chaos" is not the right word to describe Anarchism. However, I think it is unorganized or hard to organize due to the fact that some people just will not listen to their anarchist comrades. Some people will refuse to collectivize, refuse to contribute to anarchist society, refuse to fight for emancipation. Hence, we need a state to settle this situations.

[The Feral Underclass]

Mike


I like the idea of centralized organization.

What a perculiar thing to say...you like the idea. What do you mean by "like the idea." I like the idea of eating all day but it isnt very helpful to my weight...i like the idea of smoking but it will give me luing cancer...i love the idea of getting drunk everyday but not very much would get done...What do you mean by "like the idea."? What is it about it you "like" so much?

[The Feral Underclass]

Bolshevika


How will you overthrow the ruling class with your lack of hierarchy?

Go and re-read the dictatorship of the proletariat thread...


Do you really believe your idea of a hierarchyless militia will defeat a military with hierarchy?

Yes...&#33;


(see: all experiences where anarchists try to defend themselves)

Ukraine, Spain, Paris &#39;68, Seattle, Genoa were all succesful until the authotarians either stabbed us in the back or fucked everything up when trying to exert their control.


A state is not subjugation.

You do not understand what a state is...


It is a tool of the proletariat to use against their oppressors in class struggle.

No, it is an entity. A body of institutions and instruments used by a ruling class to perpetrate its authority. You can give it different names for different ruling classes but its essence remains the same.


Anarchists don&#39;t "believe" in a police force, classical army, state sponsered transportation, state sponsered education, state sponsered healthcare, re education programs for the bourgeoisie and people with reactionary ideas, etc.

No, they can manage perfectly well without a state.


The people need leaders and examples to follow.

What experience do you have with talking to working class people? Try saying this to a working class person and see what their reaction is...They will tell you to go fuck yourself.


If propaganda is pro-Proletarian than it is justified.

People dont want posters and personality cults. They want the truth. What makes you so certain that this propaganda is not going to be used against the workers to allow indeviduals to retain power or attempt to convince the workers of something which completly negates the purpose of the revolution...you cant&#33;


The idea of a state is educating the proletarian class so they may emancipate themselves,

No it isnt. Your confusing what a state is. It isnt a school.


the people in a post-capitalist/post-feudal society usually have reactionary ideas and maybe even pro-bourgeois or fascist sentiments, hence they should not make decisions in education etc because they will make mistakes. Until all class contradictions are resolved we are forced to use this policy in certain s
situations.

How the fuck have you managed to achieve a revolution if this is the case...


Well if you consider spreading class consciousness and proletarian ideas "brainwashing"

Using propaganda is not spreading class consciousness. It is in your face indoctrination.


Read the rest of my post.

I read your post...you answer my observation.


However, from past experiences, anarchistic situations like that of somalia (yes, before you start yelling, I don&#39;t consider anyone in somalia anarchist, but they are a stateless society to my knowlege) have been chaotic.

In the context of capitalism yes it would be chaotic.


know about the anarchists plan for organization, class struggle etc, and see nothing but lawlessness come out of it.

An example please. In fact in Mexico it is still working....


What does me liking Stalin&#39;s ideas and his model state have to do with the bourgeoisie? If anything, it is you with your anti-Stalin propaganda which has been infected by them.

What??? My point was that your obsession with stalin is probably because you&#39;d like to be him...my second observation was that the things you claim anarchism to be are the same misguidedn thoughts of the bouregoisie. I dont see what your point is here?


Some people will refuse to collectivize, refuse to contribute to anarchist society, refuse to fight for emancipation.

So you will force them will you?


Hence, we need a state to settle this situations.

You mean so you can force people to do what you want them to do...

PS. Just so you know...I did not support the desision to have you restricted and made it clear that I thought that.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Mike [email protected] 5 2003, 09:27 PM
I guess I am more of a socialist then, with a communism based economic belief system. Whatever.
I think your&#39;e a confused newbie who hasn&#39;t read much in the way of radical theory. No offense.

[Subversive Rob]

No, it is an entity. A body of institutions and instruments used by a ruling class to perpetrate its authority. You can give it different names for different ruling classes but its essence remains the same.



The state is one class organised to supress another. Since you recognise the need to supress the capitalists and their armies how exactly do you avoid a "state"?


No, they can manage perfectly well without a state.

How? How will you suppress the cappies?


No, it is an entity. A body of institutions and instruments used by a ruling class to perpetrate its authority. You can give it different names for different ruling classes but its essence remains the same.

And if the ruling class is the proletariat?


Using propaganda is not spreading class consciousness. It is in your face indoctrination.


You don&#39;t know what propaganda is. Propaganda can be simply reporting the facts. In fact if you anarchists publish a pamphlet expounding your beliefs it&#39;s PROPAGANDA&#33; If you don&#39;t inform the working class about conditions and their position how do you expect them to develop class consiousness?

And finally do you believe that within the every day class struggle the workers will "automatically" become consoius of anarchism?

[The Feral Underclass]

Subversive Rob

Welcome to the board :)


The state is one class organised to supress another. Since you recognise the need to supress the capitalists and their armies how exactly do you avoid a "state"?

Your definition of state is basic. This is one function of a state. This is not what a state is. The state is a body of institutions organized for the sole purpose of retaining power for a ruling elite.

If you then look at what a state is and what its purpose is and then look at what is needed during and after a revolution you can see they are two seperate things. We must suppress the bouregoisie, not perpetrate the existance of a ruling elite.


How? How will you suppress the cappies?

By organizing defence such as workers militias. It is highly likly that soldiers and police officers have joined the revolution and would be able to organize such things.


And if the ruling class is the proletariat?

These are just words. The facts are different. It is not the proletariat as the ruling class it is a small elite, or "intellectuals" who are organizing them in their interests and as history proves their interests tend to change.

None of the working class are envolved in a decision making process because it is achieved centrally and orders are given down from the central committees to their subordinates and so on and so on. What the working class actually end up doing is fighting to keep these "intellectuals" in power.


You don&#39;t know what propaganda is. Propaganda can be simply reporting the facts. In fact if you anarchists publish a pamphlet expounding your beliefs it&#39;s PROPAGANDA&#33; If you don&#39;t inform the working class about conditions and their position how do you expect them to develop class consiousness?

I agree.


And finally do you believe that within the every day class struggle the workers will "automatically" become consoius of anarchism?

Actually workers tend to organize themselves along anarchist principles automatically anyway. I have been on picket lines where they have been organized without a central command or hierarchies. Everyone has a responsability and each fullfils it for the greater good.

Look at the anti-capitalist movement. Seattle and genoa, the european social forums where all organized using anarchist principles. There was no central command, no hierarchies, each group had responsable people who were elected and who co-ordinated action with other groups. These were also united front groups not just anarchist groups and there wasn&#39;t a mass connection with anarchism. It was a natural thing.

Anarchism is not about forcing doctrination, it is simply about organizing yourself in that way which workers tend to do naturally. Of course the theory may come during the practice and they will be able to associate the way they are organzing themselves with a name.

[Subversive Rob]

Welcome to the board
Thanks


Your definition of state is basic. This is one function of a state. This is not what a state is. The state is a body of institutions organized for the sole purpose of retaining power for a ruling elite.

If you then look at what a state is and what its purpose is and then look at what is needed during and after a revolution you can see they are two seperate things. We must suppress the bouregoisie, not perpetrate the existance of a ruling elite.


Well the Marxist function of the state is "one class supressing another" and continuing that classes rule. Now my conception of a state is not of a "highly organised elite" but rather of the proletariat organised to suppress the cappies. It doesn&#39;t need to exist for too long but it does need to exist immediately after the revolution. If you say that after the revolution there will not be classes you and I have different concepts of what the revolution is. For me it is the qualatative change of the proletaian seizing state power.


These are just words. The facts are different. It is not the proletariat as the ruling class it is a small elite, or "intellectuals" who are organizing them in their interests and as history proves their interests tend to change.

None of the working class are envolved in a decision making process because it is achieved centrally and orders are given down from the central committees to their subordinates and so on and so on. What the working class actually end up doing is fighting to keep these "intellectuals" in power.


This is not how it has to be. A state can be organised from the bottom up. I believe in involving the proletariat in mass participatory democracy at every level, having fully recallable state officials and devolving as much power as we can straight to the proletariat.


By organizing defence such as workers militias. It is highly likly that soldiers and police officers have joined the revolution and would be able to organize such things.


Officers? Organising? That sounds like a hierarchy to me? Who will direct these militias. Again there has to be a central control to them.

[Subversive Rob]

Look at the anti-capitalist movement. Seattle and genoa, the european social forums where all organized using anarchist principles. There was no central command, no hierarchies, each group had responsable people who were elected and who co-ordinated action with other groups. These were also united front groups not just anarchist groups and there wasn&#39;t a mass connection with anarchism. It was a natural thing.


Well the people would elect state officials. What exactly is the point of electing someone if there is no command? You&#39;re yourselves making a hierarchy, so I don&#39;t know what the hell you are talking about.

To say that the class struggle will naturally develop in to anarchism is vulgar economism. Ideas need to be introduced into the proletariat or they will just decend in to trade union politics. Before you bring up Paris etc. remember
1. Paris was led/started by students - i.e. intellectuals
2. Paris collapsed because it had no demands it was just an orgy of violence towards the end
3. The energy of the uprisings has always been misdirected and so has never been able to acheive radical social change.

[The Feral Underclass]

Subversive Rob


Well the Marxist function of the state is "one class supressing another"

That is the function. It isnt what it is.


Now my conception of a state is not of a "highly organised elite" but rather of the proletariat organised to suppress the cappies.

Organization and state are two seperate things. You can quite easily organize the workers to suppress the bouregoisie without having a state mechanism.


It doesn&#39;t need to exist for too long but it does need to exist immediately after the revolution.

History proves that the state is perpetrated for decades after the revolution and still exists in many so called communist countries. Why do you think that is? The dictatorship of the proletrariat does not work.


If you say that after the revolution there will not be classes you and I have different concepts of what the revolution is.

I never said this. I accept that their will be class destinctions during and after a revolution.


For me it is the qualatative change of the proletaian seizing state power.

It isnt the proletariat that seizes power it is a central committee of "intellectuals" who seize power using the workers to do it. That is the whole basis of a vangaurd, who then claim they are doing it in the workers interest. But what did Marx say. "Being determines consciousness." And history has proven this to be true.

Lenin, Trotsky and all the other central and executive committee members were not elected by the workers they were elected by the party and were not recallable. They exercised unlimited control over all aspects of life and used brute force to repress anyone, whether it be counter-revolutionaries or sailors and they did it so they could retain power.


This is not how it has to be

It is simple idealism. You have no proof to make such a statement. In fact most of the evidence disproves this as very very wrong.


A state can be organised from the bottom up

How can you organize people from the bottom up if you have a central commitee, executive commitee, armed forces commitee controlled by "professional revoutionaries". This is what a vangaurd is. These people will be fixed in their seats of power well before they start "organizing from the bottom." Otherwise how will you have achieved your revolution.


I believe in involving the proletariat in mass participatory democracy at every level,

I agree. But how do you do this? Certainly not by having a central command structure who make decisions for us.


having fully recallable state officials and devolving as much power as we can straight to the proletariat.

State officials to do what? Collect grain...they wont have any position of power. These jobs will be filled by your vanguard and how much power can be devolved to the workers. The whole purpose of your vanguard is to control the revolution because it is claimed the workers wont be ready to exercise such authority. Even the phraze "as much power as we can" shows how contemptous you are to the abilities of the working class.


Officers? Organising? That sounds like a hierarchy to me? Who will direct these militias. Again there has to be a central control to them.

This is such a puerile understanding. When you go to have your car fixed do you stand by the mechanic and direct him how to fix your car. Of course not, you take it too him because he has knowledge about cars and how to fix them. Soldiers and police officers will have knowledge on how to organize a defence. Why would you not listen to a soldier or a police officer to organize what you have to do. This is not hierarchy its common sense. This person does not exerice authority over people, but people will listen and follow instructions because they realise the need too. Just as you follow instructions when you go to the dentist or doctors.


Well the people would elect state officials.

Mostly likly people put forward by the party leadership. How else will they keep control?...the workers could be electing anarchists and that just wouldnt bode well.


What exactly is the point of electing someone if there is no command? You&#39;re yourselves making a hierarchy, so I don&#39;t know what the hell you are talking about.

Again it&#39;s just puerile understanding. People with responsability are not people in command.

I WILL FINISH THE POST LATER...

[Subversive Rob]

I would appreciate not being called puerile. I would secondly like to add that I do not support absolutely the "Russian experiment" or the soviet structure of society.


That is the function. It isnt what it is.

Well we disagree then. To me the state is the mechanism by which one class maintains its ascendancy. It can take many different forms so for example an absolute capitalist autocracy and a liberal capitalist "democracy" are both forms of holdng down the working class but under one the working class is better off than the other. For me the structure is defined by its function.


History proves that the state is perpetrated for decades after the revolution and still exists in many so called communist countries. Why do you think that is? The dictatorship of the proletrariat does not work.


Dictatorship of the proletariat = proletariat organised to supress the bourgeois nothing more nothing less. There can be different forms but its essence is the proletariat organised against the bourgeois.


It isnt the proletariat that seizes power it is a central committee of "intellectuals" who seize power using the workers to do it. That is the whole basis of a vangaurd, who then claim they are doing it in the workers interest. But what did Marx say. "Being determines consciousness." And history has proven this to be true.

Lenin, Trotsky and all the other central and executive committee members were not elected by the workers they were elected by the party and were not recallable. They exercised unlimited control over all aspects of life and used brute force to repress anyone, whether it be counter-revolutionaries or sailors and they did it so they could retain power.


This argument is not abut history. I like to think that most Marxist-Leninists have moved on since the old Soviet days. Plus I&#39;m not quite the orthodox Leninist. For me the vanguards role is the introduction of socialism into the class struggle and the guiding of the workers to victory. However, after the revolution I&#39;m not so sure (I&#39;ve been thinking a lot about this recently).


How can you organize people from the bottom up if you have a central commitee, executive commitee, armed forces commitee controlled by "professional revoutionaries". This is what a vangaurd is. These people will be fixed in their seats of power well before they start "organizing from the bottom." Otherwise how will you have achieved your revolution.


Did I say this? The concept of the party is one that is organically joined to the proletariat, drawn from the proletariat and designed to serve it. All officials must be elected and anyone should be able to run for the election.


State officials to do what? Collect grain...they wont have any position of power. These jobs will be filled by your vanguard and how much power can be devolved to the workers. The whole purpose of your vanguard is to control the revolution because it is claimed the workers wont be ready to exercise such authority. Even the phraze "as much power as we can" shows how contemptous you are to the abilities of the working class.

The workers won&#39;t be able to everything straight away, hell I know I can&#39;t. Careful preparing before during and after the revolution should allviate (?) this problem but it won&#39;t disappear immediately. Therefore we need to have some specialists until everyone becomes a specialist (i.e. the disappearance of the state).


I agree. But how do you do this? Certainly not by having a central command structure who make decisions for us.

There won&#39;t be one. The proletariat can make the majority of decisions themselves through universal suffrage. However in order to have a planned economy and allocation we need centralisation. Now I do not support bureaucratic centralisation. The members will be drawn from the ordinary ranks of the proletariat (elected from factories etc.) and will have to make contact with every level of society - i.e. the workers committees and soviets.


Organization and state are two seperate things. You can quite easily organize the workers to suppress the bouregoisie without having a state mechanism.

But orders will have to be given. Sometmies people will not like these orders, what then?


Mostly likly people put forward by the party leadership. How else will they keep control?...the workers could be electing anarchists and that just wouldnt bode well.


I actually have full respect for anarchists. Criticism will help the state grow more free and improve. Therefore I would have no objection to anarchists being elected, we both have the same eventual goal and the interested of the working class at heart.


Again it&#39;s just puerile understanding. People with responsability are not people in command

Why bother electing someone if they don&#39;t issue orders? If they have the responsibilty but no the elected position brings no authority WHY ELECT THEM? They could do the same job unelectd, correct? Limited their authority by recallabilty is a good thing.

[The Feral Underclass]

Subversive Rob


To say that the class struggle will naturally develop in to anarchism is vulgar economism. Ideas need to be introduced into the proletariat or they will just decend in to trade union politics. Before you bring up Paris etc. remember

What I said was that anarchism is the inevitability of capitalism. i do not think we should wait. I also argued how workers organize themselves along anarchist principles regardless of their understanding of anarchist theory. I agree that there must be a movement to bring these principles into perspective.


1. Paris was led/started by students - i.e. intellectuals

First and foremost, but workers also joined the uprising. in fact there were striking workers envolved in the occupation of the university. You must also remember what the uprising was about. It was about the disgusting right wing regime of Charles De Gaulle which had created mass poverty and unemployment. Issues that were not related to students.


2. Paris collapsed because it had no demands it was just an orgy of violence towards the end

The uprising had a lot of focus. The students had organized themselves into groups to attack the ministry of justice and other important buildings and were trying to occupy them. It began to fail when the trots and leninists asserted their authority and because of their lack of leadership abilities procrastinated for too long missing the opportunities resulting in a complete failure.


3. The energy of the uprisings has always been misdirected and so has never been able to acheive radical social change.

The Paris uprising could have turned into something big but the leninists etc failed to realise the potential and missed fantastic opportunities. They waited for too long and allowed the police and the army to get the initiative.

of course uprisings have the possibility to be misdirected but what &#39;68 proves is that uprisings should be left to form in whatever way the form. Not to have authotarians attempting to stear it in their direction, which ultimatly will fail. Things like this happen fast and the action taken must be quick and direct without a central committee and hierarhies.


would appreciate not being called puerile.

I didnt call you puerile&#33;


I would secondly like to add that I do not support absolutely the "Russian experiment" or the soviet structure of society.

How about China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania. All took the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat one way or another and failed.


To me the state is the mechanism by which one class maintains its ascendancy. It can take many different forms so for example an absolute capitalist autocracy and a liberal capitalist "democracy" are both forms of holdng down the working class but under one the working class is better off than the other. For me the structure is defined by its function.

I think I can accept this.


Dictatorship of the proletariat = proletariat organised to supress the bourgeois nothing more nothing less. There can be different forms but its essence is the proletariat organised against the bourgeois.

What is the dictatorship of the proletariat? It is a centralised power base for a group of elite. That is what it is...There is no equivication about it. The revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the economy and the army, are all controlled by a small group of people known as "intellectuals" or "professional revolutionaries. A synthesis of leninism is that the workers are unable to lead the revolution themselves and must use a vanguard to do it. And what is a vanguard. It is a small group of people.

So you have a small group of "intellectuals" leading an unconscious working class. They have no real concept of what is going on. They do not understand the theory behind it. They simply obey because that is what they are told to do by this new government who says they are fighting for their interests.

But whose interests are they actually fighting for? They are actually fighting to keep this small group in power. They keep telling you that its all for a good cause and while your out dying and fighting these people are commanding and giving out orders. Tell me, what was this revolution for again?

Not only do these people have unquestionable power but they are using the exact same mechanisms and tactics to perpetrate their rule as the bouregoisie. They truly are the new ruling class.


This argument is not abut history.

Of course it is&#33; History gives evidence of things tried and tested. You must always look at history to see what mistakes have been made before. Unfortunatly the same mistakes happened everytime a leninist party took control. Oppression, dictatorship, capitalism. Maybe the first three times you could say its a new theory give it time...but after the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth time something has to be fundamentally wrong with the whole idea.


like to think that most Marxist-Leninists have moved on since the old Soviet days.

I am sure most people started out believing it would be different. It&#39;s idealistic to think it will not happen again. You are not going to be on a central committee of a Leninist party come the time of the revolution. What power will you have to stop it? None. Because by the time you realise you want to do something about it the central committee has control over the army, the police force and the secret service and you can not speak out against the workers government because you will be shot as a counter-revolutionary.

Although you may have moved past those days you can not guarentee this will not happen. In fact it is most likly than not on the basis of history that it will happen. Your vangaurd has a blank cheque for suppressing counter-revolutionaries. They can accuse anyone or anything of subversion and because they are leading an unconscious force no one will no any differently and will follow the new state because it says it has their interests at heart.


For me the vanguards role is the introduction of socialism into the class struggle and the guiding of the workers to victory.

Why a vanguard? We are no better than the workers. We should not act as some higher entity but simply as teachers. Help them organize themselves and take action for themselves. The SWP have a habit of taking control and bringing everything into their hands and then bark out orders and organize everything without even giving people a chance. This is not how you achieve consciousness, this is how you lead an army.


However, after the revolution I&#39;m not so sure (I&#39;ve been thinking a lot about this recently).

You can not have a dictatorship of the proletariat without a vanguard. They are combined and inseperable. The whole point of a vanguard is so that you can lead the dictatorship of the proletariat and control the working class and as you put it, organize them, without giving people any real control over anything which is remotly important and any officials elected will most likly be selected by the party.


Did I say this? The concept of the party is one that is organically joined to the proletariat, drawn from the proletariat and designed to serve it.

The dictatorship of the proletariat and the vanguard is a theory based on the fact that the workers can not organize themsleves and lead a revolution by themselves, therefore you are not serving them you are leading them.


All officials must be elected and anyone should be able to run for the election.

It is logical to say that the party would not be able to jeapodise the revolution by having non-party members run for official posts. They may attract counter-revolutionaries, such as anarchists and people who spoke out against the government in general. This contradicts the parties purpose. its purpose being to suppress all opposition. In order for the party to retain control they can not have unaffiliated party members, therefore all officials will be selected from within the party and will no doubt toe the party line as all good soldiers do. Try being a member of the SWP and you will soon see what I mean.


The workers won&#39;t be able to everything straight away, hell I know I can&#39;t. Careful preparing before during and after the revolution should allviate (?) this problem but it won&#39;t disappear immediately. Therefore we need to have some specialists

I agree.


There won&#39;t be one. The proletariat can make the majority of decisions themselves through universal suffrage.

Again this contradicts the purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And how will the majority of decisions be made by voting. You are saying that everyone will go and vote everytime a central decision needs to be made. How will the DoP survive if this is the case. With hardly any class consciousness how can you trust the people to make the right choice?


However in order to have a planned economy and allocation we need centralisation. Now I do not support bureaucratic centralisation. The members will be drawn from the ordinary ranks of the proletariat (elected from factories etc.) and will have to make contact with every level of society - i.e. the workers committees and soviets.

Surely it would make more sense to collectivze and then organize co-operativly on a local basis. Meaning when one collctive needs milk they call the nearest milk factory and place an order. Maybe there is already an order placed and the milk gets delivered to the collective every week. The same with bread etc etc. Why does it have to be centralised?


But orders will have to be given. Sometmies people will not like these orders, what then?

The revolution me and my comrades envisage is not one of a small group of people leading an unconscious mass. True revolution and one that will last, can only come when the majority of working class people have realised their material conditions within society. (They already do to some extent they just havent focused it into any coherent perspective).

Once this has bee achieved people will take to the streets. in a more romantic way, It will be like a blanket has been removed from them. People will have a completely different outlook on life. People will be empowered. They will be willing to learn and listen. They will want to fight to make their lives and the lives of their neighbours better. So I believe the next logical step, answering your question, is that people will listen and they will take instructions, because people they will realise what has to be done.

Instructions are different to orders. Orders are what you give to an obedient dog, instructions are what you give to people who dont know everything that you know but are learning. When I put up a shelf I read the instructions because they tell me how to achieve my goal. I would also take instructions from a solider about how to defend a bridge, because he can tell me the best way to achieve the goal. He knows what he is talking about. It is greatly different to him demanding that I do something I dont really understand for a reason I have no concept for. And if I disobey be shot.


I would have no objection to anarchists being elected, we both have the same eventual goal and the interested of the working class at heart.

This is commendable. However the reality is different. Anarchists have been stabbed in the back many times by Leninists, including Lenin, to know that this just isnt the case. We pose a direct threat to the authority of any workers government because we invalidate its control. We would be shot and arrested as counter-revolutionaries.


Why bother electing someone if they don&#39;t issue orders? If they have the responsibilty but no the elected position brings no authority WHY ELECT THEM?

A theory called Demarchy was discussed on this message board. It is the theory that all those people who wish to be envolved in a certain thing should apply for it and then the position of responsability is filled maybe on a rota basis. This means that you do not attract people who do not care about the job but you attract specialists to it. it also means you do not have to elect people because everyone will get their turn at the job, if they want it. Those people who have those skills will be able to instruct other workers to do their job more effectivly. These people do not need to have authority. All they need to do is instruct people how to do their jobs.


Limited their authority by recallabilty is a good thing.

What&#39;s the point? Why dont you just not have positions of authority...and even if you did recall them they would only be replaced by another party hack&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Ernestocheguevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 03:20 AM
*sighs*


Again...so....if EVERYONE is "equal" in a communist society, what incentive would people have in becoming doctors, lawyers, pilots, COPS, teachers, garbagemen, architects, janitors, etc????

You are being dogmatic on me.

People would do what they enjoy doing. Many doctors are doctors for the money, but many are doctors because they want to help people. You would do what you wanted what you wished to do not what made the most money.

Janitors garbagecollectors ect would disappear. People would realize that having someone take care of them is purely classist in nature and *gasp* they would clean up after themselves&#33; The horror&#33;

Remember, things would not be like they are today. The entire system needs to be irrecociably shattered. Your mindset will become obsolete, and the questions you ask irrelevant.


What makes you think EVERYONE wouldn&#39;t just want to be something that requires minimal studying and work?

Well I for one want to study, I know many people that do. If you are doing something for the money you can &#39;make&#39; afterwards, then you are doing it for the wrong reason. Communism will not make life boring and unchallenging. YOu will just have to learn to challenge yourself, and to become who you want to be. I mean, you will work to live, but once you have what you need to live, you will have all the extra time to relax. What a concept eh?

People who want to get more education would get it. Those who don&#39;t wouldn&#39;t. As I said before, some people want to be doctors to help people. Some people want to learn. Others don&#39;t. No one will be forced either way by greed or by necessity. The priority will be on happiness, not wealth.


Life without challenges is a dull, meaningless existence&#33;

Learn to challenge your self then. It is not that hard&#33; And you DO NOT need competition to challenge yourself and grow.


If there was communism, wouldn&#39;t there be bad living conditions if we just sit around and work only for our needs, and having no individuality in research to invent new things?

You are assuming that what the west has socialized into your mind is true. It is not. You will have more individuality. You will work to achieve your needs, yes, and then you will not work more. What is the point? You will be in the same place anyways. It is stupid to work more than you have to to survive, it causes stress and leaves you with little spare time to become an individual. Inventions are not the mark of a society, in my mind.

-Pete
I haven&#39;t really agreed with you much yet&#33;&#33; I do, however, on this.

I became an electrician because I was more or less forced by my parents to get out and work&#33; I really wanted to be a maths teacher&#33;&#33; So, when my life and finances allow I will go back and study to be a maths teacher, not for the money but for the love of it&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Bolshevika]

Anarchist Tension

If Cuba&#39;s dictatorship of the proletarian is such a failure than why do they have model social services? Some of the most advanced doctors in Latin America? Better living standards than generally any Latin American nation?

I&#39;m not going to say anymore because I bet Cuba&#39;s superiority to the third world capitalist nations has been gone through a million times. I doubt an Anarchist Latin American nation would produce the same results.

[Subversive Rob]

Now I hate quoting Marx but. Lenin&#39;s dictatorship of the proletariat is not the be all and end all of the theory. It is proposed in "Critique of the Gotha Programme" by Marx:

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

This does not specify how society is to be ordered merely that the proletariat will seize state power to smash the organs of bourgeois rule and resistance. However as a Marxist-Leninist I eliev in looking at every situation and applying a concrete analysis. Lenin&#39;s organisation was (in my opinion let&#39;s please not get into an argument about this) suited for Russia at the time within the given set of concrete conditions. To repeat Lenin in every country would be unthinking dogmatism at its worst. Dictatorship of the proletariat is merely a reference to one class dictating to another. Hence we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeois even though we have "free elections". So


You can not have a dictatorship of the proletariat without a vanguard. They are combined and inseperable. The whole point of a vanguard is so that you can lead the dictatorship of the proletariat and control the working class and as you put it, organize them, without giving people any real control over anything which is remotly important and any officials elected will most likly be selected by the party.

I disagree with this as the dictatorship of the proletariat should be a dictatorship of the proletariat as a class not OVER the proletariat.


The dictatorship of the proletariat and the vanguard is a theory based on the fact that the workers can not organize themsleves and lead a revolution by themselves, therefore you are not serving them you are leading them.


Not really. The vanguard has to intoduce socialism to the class struggle (because its principles will not arise spontaneously). If we observe workers unless they are in contact with revolutionaries their demands are often economic ones. The job of the vanguard is to introduce revolutionary political consciousness into the proletariat and allow them to see their class position. Thorugh agitation and propagnda the party would let the proletariat see their true freedom will only be acheived by seizing state power.


So you have a small group of "intellectuals" leading an unconscious working class. They have no real concept of what is going on. They do not understand the theory behind it. They simply obey because that is what they are told to do by this new government who says they are fighting for their interests.

But whose interests are they actually fighting for? They are actually fighting to keep this small group in power. They keep telling you that its all for a good cause and while your out dying and fighting these people are commanding and giving out orders. Tell me, what was this revolution for again?

Not only do these people have unquestionable power but they are using the exact same mechanisms and tactics to perpetrate their rule as the bouregoisie. They truly are the new ruling class.

God, I hope not. I know that a small ruling body is foolish, which is why I&#39;m in two minds about the vanguard after the revolution.

I&#39;d like you to note I&#39;m not a dogmatic Leninist and would not be foolish enough to apply Lenin&#39;s exact ideas to the situation today. I also take my ideas from different Marxists (Luxemburg, Gramsci, Mao, Althusser, The Frankfurt school etc.) and some anarchists too (Berkman, Goldman, Bakunin et al.).


Of course it is&#33; History gives evidence of things tried and tested. You must always look at history to see what mistakes have been made before. Unfortunatly the same mistakes happened everytime a leninist party took control. Oppression, dictatorship, capitalism. Maybe the first three times you could say its a new theory give it time...but after the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth time something has to be fundamentally wrong with the whole idea.


How about China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania. All took the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat one way or another and failed.


1. I do not support repeating the Soviet Union&#39;s structure, it allowed a new bourgeois to form (individuals own the MoP = cappies&#33;). But I do think a period of proletarian dictatorship (i.e. dictatorship by the proletariat) is necessary.


It is logical to say that the party would not be able to jeapodise the revolution by having non-party members run for official posts. They may attract counter-revolutionaries, such as anarchists and people who spoke out against the government in general. This contradicts the parties purpose. its purpose being to suppress all opposition. In order for the party to retain control they can not have unaffiliated party members, therefore all officials will be selected from within the party and will no doubt toe the party line as all good soldiers do. Try being a member of the SWP and you will soon see what I mean.


SWP? Aren&#39;t they Trots? Yuck. In my opinion the rule of the party is to supress non-proletarians not government opposition. In Russia the situation was rather precarious, what with the imperialists and all so hopefully any future revolutions will hit the US first.


Surely it would make more sense to collectivze and then organize co-operativly on a local basis. Meaning when one collctive needs milk they call the nearest milk factory and place an order. Maybe there is already an order placed and the milk gets delivered to the collective every week. The same with bread etc etc. Why does it have to be centralised?

Everywhere can&#39;t support everything. Some resources need to be allocated centrally and some production we need to be planned for the whole socialist state. Therefore a central authority is needed. If these colectives trade, well we all know where trade leads.


Why a vanguard? We are no better than the workers. We should not act as some higher entity but simply as teachers. Help them organize themselves and take action for themselves.

That is my concept of a vanguard. The most experienced revolutionaries who pass on knowledge. Since they have the most theorectical and practical knowldege, according to you people will voluntarily listen to them.

For me the concept of proletarian dictatorship has moved on since the USSR.

[Subversive Rob]

First and foremost, but workers also joined the uprising. in fact there were striking workers envolved in the occupation of the university. You must also remember what the uprising was about. It was about the disgusting right wing regime of Charles De Gaulle which had created mass poverty and unemployment. Issues that were not related to students

Not really. If so why was he voted back into power and please don&#39;t say because the bad Leininists did it because that is crap. The students were motivated by left wing ideologies (including Trotskyism and Maoism) and due to thie outdated curriculum. I&#39;m doing my French A-Level coursework on this (know any info sites?).

[The Feral Underclass]

Subversive Rob


This does not specify how society is to be ordered merely that the proletariat will seize state power to smash the organs of bourgeois rule and resistance.

I was discussing the dictatoship of the proletariat with Noam Chomsky via email and he said this; "He (Marx) was really a theorist of capitalism. He does talk about "dictatorship of the proletariat," but not much, and what he meant by it is obscure." He also said "The concept of vanguard party is really Leninist" I am not trying to argue the validity of Marx&#39;s theory and I tend to agree that his writing about the DoP was obscure. What I am trying to do, is dispute Leninism as a theory and practice.

You have some interesting ideas though which do conflict with Leninism.


I disagree with this as the dictatorship of the proletariat should be a dictatorship of the proletariat as a class not OVER the proletariat.

I know what you think it should and indeed want it to be. However it has never managed to work. What will be so different this time?


The vanguard has to intoduce socialism to the class struggle (because its principles will not arise spontaneously).

However it is proven, or at least what I have seen, are workers organizing themselves on anarchist principles. Without having a vanguard to "introduce" an ideology, the practices were taken up "spontaneously." It is at this point that you begin to argue for a wider perspective while still maintaining these principles.


If we observe workers unless they are in contact with revolutionaries their demands are often economic ones.

But existence is based on economic necessity. This is how you begin to gain class consciousness. Through struggles such as these.


The job of the vanguard is to introduce revolutionary political consciousness into the proletariat and allow them to see their class position. Thorugh agitation and propagnda the party would let the proletariat see their true freedom will only be acheived by seizing state power.

I agree with you in principle although your choice of wording seems sinister. Vangaurd cunjurs up images of lenin and trosky and I dont like it.


God, I hope not. I know that a small ruling body is foolish, which is why I&#39;m in two minds about the vanguard after the revolution.

It depends on how you have achieved a revolution. If a party has seized on opportunities without class consciousness then you will need to maintain a vangaurd in order to control the new "workers" state. However if you have reached a decent level of class consciousness revolution will be inevtiable. There is nothing that could stop it. The need for a vanguard is negated by the fact you have mass class consciousness.


I&#39;d like you to note I&#39;m not a dogmatic Leninist

There are a few on this board.


SWP? Aren&#39;t they Trots?

They are Marxist-Leninist and extremly authotarian.


Everywhere can&#39;t support everything. Some resources need to be allocated centrally and some production we need to be planned for the whole socialist state. Therefore a central authority is needed. If these colectives trade, well we all know where trade leads.

We know what we need, it is a question of making it work. I absolutly do not see the need in centralising anything. Everything can be done locally and co-operativly. Have faith in human ability.

It is not about trade. No one would trade. It would be a question of need. If a collective needed something they would be provided for.


That is my concept of a vanguard. The most experienced revolutionaries who pass on knowledge. Since they have the most theorectical and practical knowldege, according to you people will voluntarily listen to them.

Then I think we want the same thing, although I am not so sure about the word vanguard. I think first and foremost you have to have practice. Fight by example. The theory comes after. I am not sure whether people will voluntarily listen but as long as the movement has a face in everday struggle, and the arguments are always on the table people will listen eventually.


Not really. If so why was he voted back into power and please don&#39;t say because the bad Leininists did it because that is crap. The students were motivated by left wing ideologies (including Trotskyism and Maoism)

Margerat Thatcher fucked up the entire country. Created mass unemployment and widen the gap between rich and poor. Poverty was wide spread and the feeling in the country was one of disempowerment. She was elected three times.

The reason the uprising started were because of the ones I listed. Again the students organized themselves using anarchist principles and the mass of students were not affiliated with any authotarian parties.


I&#39;m doing my French A-Level coursework on this (know any info sites?).

This maybe a helpful site: http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Paris/paris.html

Also for an anarchist perspective there is a chapter in Sion M. Sheehans book &#39;Anarchism&#39; which deals with the issue.

[Subversive Rob]

Here&#39;s a link showing what I mean about DoP

The Russian Revolution - Rosa Luxemburg (http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm)

The Marxist term and (what you all term) the Leninist term are not synomous.


You have some interesting ideas though which do conflict with Leninism.


I don&#39;t think Lenin would have wanted all future Marxists to dogmatically follow him. I know Marx didn&#39;t.


But existence is based on economic necessity. This is how you begin to gain class consciousness. Through struggles such as these.


Hmmm...But the ruling class also maintains an ideological hegemony (read Gramsci or possibly Althusser), that also determines consciousness - this needs to be ripped asunder.


It depends on how you have achieved a revolution. If a party has seized on opportunities without class consciousness then you will need to maintain a vangaurd in order to control the new "workers" state. However if you have reached a decent level of class consciousness revolution will be inevtiable. There is nothing that could stop it. The need for a vanguard is negated by the fact you have mass class consciousness.


Precisely. But the need for a hierarchy is maintained because as I&#39;ve said everyone can&#39;t do everything. Not everyone knows how to run a country or specific elements. The hierarchy may well be voluntary but in this way they still may be a "ruling class".


We know what we need, it is a question of making it work. I absolutly do not see the need in centralising anything. Everything can be done locally and co-operativly. Have faith in human ability.

It is not about trade. No one would trade. It would be a question of need. If a collective needed something they would be provided for.

I feel you need a central office to process all of this for efficiency.


Then I think we want the same thing, although I am not so sure about the word vanguard. I think first and foremost you have to have practice. Fight by example. The theory comes after. I am not sure whether people will voluntarily listen but as long as the movement has a face in everday struggle, and the arguments are always on the table people will listen eventually.

This is what I mean. The best will rise up the most experienced (professional) revolutionaries. To me there&#39;s no doubt that Lenin, Trotsky etc. were follwed during the revolution by the Russian people. No matter what you think they were the ones who resolutely opposed compromise with the rulig class and who pushed for class rule.


Margerat Thatcher fucked up the entire country. Created mass unemployment and widen the gap between rich and poor. Poverty was wide spread and the feeling in the country was one of disempowerment. She was elected three times.

My point. Did the workers like it? Why didn&#39;t they stop her? I feel there has to be leadership offering a politcal alternative to the problem. That is why the struggle must transcend the economic one and become political. The ruling classes can through the proletariat a bone if the struggle is pure economism then socialism will not be acheived.

Thanks for the site :D

[The Feral Underclass]

Subversive Rob


But the ruling class also maintains an ideological hegemony (read Gramsci or possibly Althusser), that also determines consciousness - this needs to be ripped asunder.

I will add them to my list, thanks. Actually I disagree with you. The ruling class maintain economic domination over the working class and have no ideology. Look at any of the political parties in britain. None of them have a distinct ideology, all they maintain is the right for capitalism to perpetrate itself.

What capitalism has done and maintains is a feeling of disempowerment. Human beings have accepted this reality as being final. They believe there is nothing they can do about. This is what we have to show is wrong. People do have the ability and the right to change society. Which brings me back to my point. Workers confront capitalism or the ruling class often through industrial disputes and in united front movements. it is our role to be their to support the workers in their daily struggles while always maintaining the arguments of why these things are happening.


But the need for a hierarchy is maintained because as I&#39;ve said everyone can&#39;t do everything. Not everyone knows how to run a country or specific elements.

Look at what your saying. hierarchy isnt going to solve this problem. Just because you make an offical and give them authority does not suddenly and mysteriously create skilled workers.


I feel you need a central office to process all of this for efficiency.

Why?


The best will rise up the most experienced (professional) revolutionaries.

it isnt about being professional, this isnt a career. It is simply about having knowledge and passing that knowledge on.


To me there&#39;s no doubt that Lenin, Trotsky etc. were follwed during the revolution by the Russian people.

The situation in russia was so tense that if it hadnt been Lenin and Trotsky it would have been someone else. The people were frustrated and starved. They wanted change. lenin and trosky seized on that to establish a state which they controlled. Of course the russian people followed them. They would have followed anyone who wanted to get rid of the tzar and promised economic equality. Look how it ended.


My point. Did the workers like it? Why didn&#39;t they stop her?

Because the ruling elite control the minds of people. When people are angry they act, such as in paris in 1968, when their leader does something that benifits them they will follow. People are not conscious. They arent like me and you. people dont have such a wide perspective and critical mind. Thatcher was re-elected because of the Falklands. She manipulated people to think that she was the great saviour of the country. People had forgotten that she had smashed the miners and pretty much criminalised trade unions.


That is why the struggle must transcend the economic one and become political.

I agree. But how do you achieve that. Working class people dont have the time to listen to you talk about theory, infact they dont care. What they care about is how their going to pay their rent or put food on their childrens table. This is where you begin the process, by attempting to eleviate these problems. Get into communities, help ease these economic burdons, be envolved in industrial pursuits, make a name and face for the movement and then begin this theoretical process. Then try and convince people about why their lives are like this and how they can change it.


ruling classes can through the proletariat a bone if the struggle is pure economism then socialism will not be acheived.

The ruling class make concessions every day, this does not change anyones social or economic situation. To stop the spread of alternative ideologies the ruling class must stop poverty and put everyone on a £20,000 a year salary with a good NHS, benifits service and council service. it can not do these things, because capitalism does not work and can not solve these problems without dismanteling itself.

I do not believe the struggle should be purely economic, that wouldnt make sense. What I am saying, incase you havent realised yet, that these situations are a door to class consciuousness.

[Subversive Rob]

I will add them to my list, thanks. Actually I disagree with you. The ruling class maintain economic domination over the working class and have no ideology. Look at any of the political parties in britain. None of them have a distinct ideology, all they maintain is the right for capitalism to perpetrate itself.


They don&#39;t have to follow it just imbue it. Think about it the belief in "parliamentary democracy", "anti-communism/anarchism", "patriotism" etc. If the factors were purely economic then the workers would have revolted all over the world long ago. To quote Engels:

"The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure the political forms of the class struggle and its results: to wit constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and then even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles. and in m-any cases preponderate in determining their form . . .”

In other words in many cases the working class support the liberal democratic consensus. Otherwise how could capital have dominated for so long? the ruling class penetrate into every sphere of life and impose their ideology (maybe read into the Frankfurt school for more on this). They definitely oppose ideological constructs upon the working class and encourage them to view the world without their class interests in mind. Therefore we must break through this and allow the proletarians to impose their ideology (i.e. collectivism) and world outlook. Economic and political power is not enough.




Look at what your saying. hierarchy isnt going to solve this problem. Just because you make an offical and give them authority does not suddenly and mysteriously create skilled workers.



No but the best workers must become the (natural leaders). In fact it may scare you but your talk of "natural authority" resonates very much with what Lenin say in What Is To Be Done?.


it isnt about being professional, this isnt a career. It is simply about having knowledge and passing that knowledge on.

Professional means experienced and battle-hardened. It means those who devote their lives whole heartedly to the revolutionary cause.


Because the ruling elite control the minds of people. When people are angry they act, such as in paris in 1968, when their leader does something that benifits them they will follow. People are not conscious. They arent like me and you. people dont have such a wide perspective and critical mind. Thatcher was re-elected because of the Falklands. She manipulated people to think that she was the great saviour of the country. People had forgotten that she had smashed the miners and pretty much criminalised trade unions.


Precisely the need of a vanguard. The vanguard is the class conscious and politically conscious front line that wakes up the workers. They must be there to fight every encroachment made by the ruling class.


I agree. But how do you achieve that. Working class people dont have the time to listen to you talk about theory, infact they dont care. What they care about is how their going to pay their rent or put food on their childrens table. This is where you begin the process, by attempting to eleviate these problems. Get into communities, help ease these economic burdons, be envolved in industrial pursuits, make a name and face for the movement and then begin this theoretical process. Then try and convince people about why their lives are like this and how they can change it.

Noe who&#39;s underestimating the working class. Have faith. They can and will understand theory and they do care. The economic struggle can be carried out by TUs and workers better than us. We must show the workers the political path. You and I seem to agree on this issue except I believe we must always push for socialism we must not become slaves to economism. If that happens throw the dog a bone syndrome can prevent the workers from ever acheiving power.


I do not believe the struggle should be purely economic, that wouldnt make sense. What I am saying, incase you havent realised yet, that these situations are a door to class consciuousness.

To TU consciousness not to revolutionary consciousness. We must ,ake sure the working class does not accept any concessions simply reform is not enough. Therefore we must introduce the idea of socialism as soon as is humanly poosible.

[The Feral Underclass]

Subversive Rob


In other words in many cases the working class support the liberal democratic consensus. Otherwise how could capital have dominated for so long? the ruling class penetrate into every sphere of life and impose their ideology (maybe read into the Frankfurt school for more on this). They definitely oppose ideological constructs upon the working class and encourage them to view the world without their class interests in mind. Therefore we must break through this and allow the proletarians to impose their ideology (i.e. collectivism) and world outlook. Economic and political power is not enough.

This is pretty much what I said. However, workers connect that there is a problem. They know their lives are shit and that they want it to change. But, they accept the status quo as being finite and that there is nothing they can do about.


No but the best workers must become the (natural leaders). In fact it may scare you but your talk of "natural authority" resonates very much with what Lenin say in What Is To Be Done?.

The difference is that with Leninism we have to go through a whole dictatoship of the vangaurd before we get there, which ulitmatly fails and results in brutal dictators and captialism.


Professional means experienced and battle-hardened. It means those who devote their lives whole heartedly to the revolutionary cause.

Whatever floats ya boad&#33;


Precisely the need of a vanguard. The vanguard is the class conscious and politically conscious front line that wakes up the workers. They must be there to fight every encroachment made by the ruling class.

We leaped way ahead of ourselves here. So you accept why Charles De Gaulle was re-elected and believe what the paris uprising was about?

In answer to this comment I agree, it is precisly the need for a movement which dedicates itself to fight with them and not for them. In whatever way they need us to help.


Noe who&#39;s underestimating the working class. Have faith. They can and will understand theory and they do care.

You need to go out and do some work with real working class people. You try talking to them about Karl Marx and Bakunin, Lenin and Trotsky. No one cares about those people. I have had enough arguments with people to know that suddenly bringing up these obscure arguments just isnt going to win people over.

It isnt a question of faith. And I wasnt underestimating the working class. I was pointing out a fact. It is true that working class people do not have the time to read theory. my mom certainly dosnt. Try going to a factory and having these arguments with them. Taking about the dictatorship of the proletariat they just want to go home and rest, make dinner for their kids and worry about working the next day.


The economic struggle can be carried out by TUs and workers better than us. We must show the workers the political path

And how do you do that? Trade Unions are led of right wing bigots or sell outs. The movement has to have a face inside these trade unions to be able to get to a point were you can argue theory.


You and I seem to agree on this issue except I believe we must always push for socialism we must not become slaves to economism.

How? How do you push for socialism if it isnt through economic struggles?


If that happens throw the dog a bone syndrome can prevent the workers from ever acheiving power.

I am repeating myself now. We have been through this point. Let us try and build on it instead of going over it. The ruling class make concessions everyday. The only time revolutionary politics will disappear is when the working class aren&#39;t exploited anymore. The only time revolutionary movements will fade into non-existance is when every single worker does not have to worry about money, that they have secure jobs, good homes, good education for their kids, a good health service, cheap affordable goods etc etc and capitalism can not give this to everyone without dismantleing itself.


To TU consciousness not to revolutionary consciousness. We must ,ake sure the working class does not accept any concessions simply reform is not enough. Therefore we must introduce the idea of socialism as soon as is humanly poosible.

your assertion that we should instroduce socialism as soon as possible is too abstract. Introduce what kind of socialism and how? How do you do this? how do you get to a point that you can start to argue theory with people? You knock on their door..? People dont care about socialism. They care about surviving.

You do not seem to understand my point. Fighting within economic struggles is how you lead to this point of "revolutionary" consciousness. The trade unions are one window of opportunity which I agree has little class perspective when it comes to understanding the world, but that is why you always argue inside these things. Trying to build a face for the movement where ever and how ever you can.

Trade Union consciousness is one step closer than eastenders consciousness wouldnt you agree?

[Moose]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 11:59 PM

There is to be no government in communism, correct? It&#39;s all based on commitees. Like a commitee of grain, commitee of farming machinery, ect. If the commitees were to meet up, this would be too much like a central state, and that wouldn&#39;t sit very well. Well, the commitee of grain would definitely have to meet up with the commitee of farm machinery, how would this work out.

Since communism is the utopia you should aslo mention that there would be no commitees and people would actually produce what they need and share their extra with those who need it, instead of large scale commitee deals ect. Those are just signs of state capitalism.


If we were to have full international Communism, there would be no way for all the commitees to meet up together, they would have to send representatives. Wouldn&#39;t these representatives have an upperhand?


Decentralization is a characteristic of communism, and refer to my first asnwer. His question is irrelevant. A good motto to keep in mind is this: "Think globaly act locally." I hold that to be a generally good idea, and if enacted by everyone individually it would be highly effective.

Of course their may be some structure, but global trade is not a necessity for humanity to exist. It would wither away with the state, IMO.


Who would distribute the food and money and stuff like that?

No money, food comes from your backyard or front yard or the field. Cities in the present scale are impratical, and I doubt they would work. Communism involves huge society shattering changes. Tell him not to expect his current ways of thinking as being acceptable to solving these problems.


There is no central state. You couldn&#39;t trust common people to distribute these things equally among themselves, and if you got a specific commitee to do it, how could you even trust them?

I think this is also a mistaken worldview. He obviously is coming at this from his established &#39;I am right because&#39; viewpoint, which fails to provide real questions. People can be trusted because you can trust your self, your friends, your fellow workers. Can you not? And if everyone has what they need, then why would they strive for more? I mean if everyone is working and happy, then everyone will be sure to make sure that every one has what they need. No need for commitees. How do you think human society began :)


What incentive is there for you to work at all under communism?


It is also the weakest, IMO. &#39;From each according to skill, to each according to need.&#39; If you work you get food. If you don&#39;t work, and can (like, say, a CEO) you don&#39;t eat. Simple, no?


The small communes couldn&#39;t be entirely self sufficient, and I don&#39;t think one big commune is possible, how would this work

Many smallcommunities who interact with eachother.


I am more or less anarchist right now, so others may have different opinions.

-Pete
im very late in this arguement and i havent read everything, but...


pretty much you are describing anarchy. however it seems a kind of orderly anarchy

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchy is communism&#33; it is just how you believe we get their is what this discussion is about.

[Subversive Rob]

You need to go out and do some work with real working class people. You try talking to them about Karl Marx and Bakunin, Lenin and Trotsky. No one cares about those people. I have had enough arguments with people to know that suddenly bringing up these obscure arguments just isnt going to win people over.

It isnt a question of faith. And I wasnt underestimating the working class. I was pointing out a fact. It is true that working class people do not have the time to read theory. my mom certainly dosnt. Try going to a factory and having these arguments with them. Taking about the dictatorship of the proletariat they just want to go home and rest, make dinner for their kids and worry about working the next day.


In order to talk about the theory, you don&#39;t need to go into extreme amounts of detail. However, it is necessary to show the working class that there is a viable alternative to capitalism. You don&#39;t have to talk in high terminology, but there is a lot of accessible work, which can help educate the working class politically. Agitprop can introduce these ideas in a fairly simple way that is directly relevant to the working class.


And how do you do that? Trade Unions are led of right wing bigots or sell outs. The movement has to have a face inside these trade unions to be able to get to a point were you can argue theory.


True. But not all of them are. That I mean is that the working class spontaneously develop this consciousness within the class struggle. The TUs may be corrupt now but the workers organise themselves in Trade Unions and struggle without our help.




How? How do you push for socialism if it isnt through economic struggles?



I think we&#39;re in agreement. We don&#39;t ignore the struggle but we can&#39;t be enslaved by it. We mustn&#39;t live in the moment. WE MUST always keep our long term goals in mind and make sure the working class know it and are educated in them.




I am repeating myself now. We have been through this point. Let us try and build on it instead of going over it. The ruling class make concessions everyday. The only time revolutionary politics will disappear is when the working class aren&#39;t exploited anymore. The only time revolutionary movements will fade into non-existance is when every single worker does not have to worry about money, that they have secure jobs, good homes, good education for their kids, a good health service, cheap affordable goods etc etc and capitalism can not give this to everyone without dismantleing itself.



Agreed. But the working class themselves can be fobbed off we know this. If we organise around demands and they are met this can be counter productive and lead to our movement being diminished. Revolutionary politcs can diminish if our demands are met. Unless we maintain a political outlook we become slaves to economy. I agree the working class will always have grievances but they may acceot them if we don&#39;t maintain our revolutionary outlook.


your assertion that we should instroduce socialism as soon as possible is too abstract. Introduce what kind of socialism and how? How do you do this? how do you get to a point that you can start to argue theory with people? You knock on their door..? People dont care about socialism. They care about surviving.

You do not seem to understand my point. Fighting within economic struggles is how you lead to this point of "revolutionary" consciousness. The trade unions are one window of opportunity which I agree has little class perspective when it comes to understanding the world, but that is why you always argue inside these things. Trying to build a face for the movement where ever and how ever you can.

Trade Union consciousness is one step closer than eastenders consciousness wouldnt you agree?

We introduce the idea of the working class seizing power and the means of production. The idea of them taking control of their own destiny. This is how they&#39;ll survive. I understand you perfectly and agree with you. It&#39;s just that we can&#39;t become mere reactoinaries to the economy we also need to raise consciousness past immediate economic conditions. You&#39;re right about getting involved with the struggle and TUs but as we both agree, we must transcend the TU struggle.

:ph34r:

On Paris the students were not just radicals. The universities were a mess and poorly funded. I&#39;ll go into it more later.

And surely Eastender is the most important tool for raising class consciousness, it has such a revolutionary outlook :P .

[The Feral Underclass]

Subversive Rob


However, it is necessary to show the working class that there is a viable alternative to capitalism. You don&#39;t have to talk in high terminology, but there is a lot of accessible work, which can help educate the working class politically.

Let&#39;s move on...How do you realisticly think this can be done?


That I mean is that the working class spontaneously develop this consciousness within the class struggle. The TUs may be corrupt now but the workers organise themselves in Trade Unions and struggle without our help.

erm....exactly :unsure:


We mustn&#39;t live in the moment.

But we live in the moment.


WE MUST always keep our long term goals in mind and make sure the working class know it and are educated in them

I agree. But remember this kind of thing is abstract to working class people. If you talked about revolution to people they would think you were mad. You have to show contradictions in capitalism and move forward gradually.


If we organise around demands and they are met this can be counter productive and lead to our movement being diminished.

Not necessarily. It could also empower people to make more demands. Another effective way to avoid this, is if you go into communities as well as being involved in industrial disputes. Acting as some kind of guardian angel inside a community, much like the black panthers did, will create a face for the movement. Organize community events, be envolved in making the community better. This opens up connections with people and it allows you to then talk about why you are doing it. Of course this leaves you open to be abused, but that is a risk you have to take.


We introduce the idea of the working class seizing power and the means of production.

Again, it&#39;s too abstract. You will be laughed at and called a nut. You can not take these ideas to people straight away, it dosnt work.


The idea of them taking control of their own destiny. This is how they&#39;ll survive.

But you have to show it. You have to make an example. That is how you catch peoples attention. If you go into a community and they need a new park and you say "if you rebel against capitalism you can have a nice park" they will just sigh and say "fight capitalism???"...if you go into a community and build a park and say, we can do it ourselves, you are making an example. It is a basic example. also things like setting up after school clubs for kids on housing estates, building communities centres. It seems idealistc but it is the only way you will catch peoples attention long enough to make an impact. People will ask "why are you doing this?" and you simply say in a matter of fact way "because it is needed - Because the government wont give it too you"...this opens up doors to then begin talking about theory more deeply. It also empowers communities to act for themselves.

There are many projects these "professional" revolutionaries could be envolved in but arent. The balck panthers use to provide free breakfasts to people to eleviate the burden of poorer families. We can make a practical difference, free up the burdens of working class families and still maintain our political agenda.


as we both agree, we must transcend the TU struggle.

it is how you do this which is the problem...

[Subversive Rob]

:ph34r: :blink:


Let&#39;s move on...How do you realisticly think this can be done?


I think this can be done very realistically. It has worked before, and will work again. Of course it has to be done gradually, however, to say that the working class don&#39;t care about these things is foolish. We must not sink to the lowest level of consciousness. Instead we must raise the workers to revolutionary class consciousness. At first, we will probably have to use simplified documents, immediately related to present day life. However, later we must introduce the true goal of the class struggle i.e. socialism. The workers must come to realise their historic role, and how to create a new society.




But we live in the moment.



True. But we must look to the future, and not become slaves of the moment. So, we must utilise the everyday economic struggle, but relate it back to our final aim. We must not be drawn into Bersteinism.


But you have to show it. You have to make an example. That is how you catch peoples attention. If you go into a community and they need a new park and you say "if you rebel against capitalism you can have a nice park" they will just sigh and say "fight capitalism???"...if you go into a community and build a park and say, we can do it ourselves, you are making an example. It is a basic example. also things like setting up after school clubs for kids on housing estates, building communities centres. It seems idealistc but it is the only way you will catch peoples attention long enough to make an impact. People will ask "why are you doing this?" and you simply say in a matter of fact way "because it is needed - Because the government wont give it too you"...this opens up doors to then begin talking about theory more deeply. It also empowers communities to act for themselves.

There are many projects these "professional" revolutionaries could be envolved in but arent. The balck panthers use to provide free breakfasts to people to eleviate the burden of poorer families. We can make a practical difference, free up the burdens of working class families and still maintain our political agenda.


I agree, and i respect the black panthers very much. In fact, I think that the present day Vanguardist&#39;s movements have become separated from the masses and their everyday struggle. This needs to change.




it is how you do this which is the problem...

As you&#39;ve said, by engaging in the economic struggle, but always introducing the higher ideas into it. We need to simplify our literature.

:D :rolleyes: :lol: ;) :o

[Rasta Sapian]

a liberal will always dream of a perfect socialist utopia, however to moderate and socially restrained to act on their communist ideals.

with what we have already acheived through capitalism, it would make it that much easier to live in relative harmony (utopia) in a socialist state.

[paralox]

On anarchism...
It seems that anarchists want us to get up at the crack of dawn and work eight hours a day, because we all have to grow our own food. (Growing your own food takes a lot of work, you would have to spend all of your time doing it, no free time for art and stuff)

We should give up all of our luxuries, that mercifully abstract us from animial-like survival, and our only possesions should be sticks and stones?

Um. no.

[The Feral Underclass]

Subversive Rob


I think this can be done very realistically. It has worked before, and will work again.

I wasn&#39;t be rhetorical. I am asking how you think you "...show the working class that there is a viable alternative to capitalism. You don&#39;t have to talk in high terminology, but there is a lot of accessible work, which can help educate the working class politically." I&#39;m asking you to be specific.


to say that the working class don&#39;t care about these things is foolish.

Get real&#33;&#33;&#33; How many working class people think give a shit about historical materialism or the dictatoship of the proletariat. Go and ask an average working class person. I dare you&#33; I never said people didnt care, I said people didnt care about high level theory. They care about their lives and how the support their families.

I will say it again...The working class know their is a problem, they know something is wrong, they just dont have a wider perspective. And they only way you can begin to edge that perspective our way is by showing them the contradictions in capitalism through practical work, not through bashing them with a copy of the communist manifesto.


Instead we must raise the workers to revolutionary class consciousness.

Rhetoric&#33; You havent actually said how you think this can be done?


At first, we will probably have to use simplified documents, immediately related to present day life. However, later we must introduce the true goal of the class struggle i.e. socialism.

And how do you intend to use them?


workers must come to realise their historic role, and how to create a new society.

:rolleyes:

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

What&#39;s with the faces?

[The Feral Underclass]

Paralox


It seems that anarchists want us to get up at the crack of dawn and work eight hours a day, because we all have to grow our own food. (Growing your own food takes a lot of work, you would have to spend all of your time doing it, no free time for art and stuff)

We should give up all of our luxuries, that mercifully abstract us from animial-like survival, and our only possesions should be sticks and stones?

I take it you didn&#39;t read the thread, or a book about anarchism...

Anarchism is simply a social system where by the things that we need are produced. The idea is that the means of production would be collectivised and that people would spend a certain amounts of hours a week fulfilling social necessary work. ie working in a factory or cleaning the sewers. No one has to get up and work eight hours a day in a shit job because society is organized on a voluntary basis using rota systems or demarchy. Because we are only ´producing what we need, and because everyone is envolved in working for society the work load is actually halfed 100 times meaning that people would only ave to work 8 hours a week and in return be provided for by society. For more info about this read this thread.

When you talk about personal posessions and luxuries you have to be more specific. You have to undertsánd that to reach this kind of system we have to over throw capitalism, and that means that we need a conscious working class. This consciousness will bring a new view of life and things which you deem as luxuries now will become irrelevant. For more about this issue go to the this thread

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...=ST&f=8&t=19647 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=19647)

[Subversive Rob]

Anarchist Tension

Sorry about the faces my idiot friend was typing.




I wasn&#39;t be rhetorical. I am asking how you think you "...show the working class that there is a viable alternative to capitalism. You don&#39;t have to talk in high terminology, but there is a lot of accessible work, which can help educate the working class politically." I&#39;m asking you to be specific.




The annoying thing is that I agree with you but I&#39;m not expressing myself properly&#33;

OK. Firstly you engage in the everyday struggle - helping to organise food, local projects etc. You expose the way that capital treats workers all over the world and show people its the same everywhere.

Then I suppose the concept of exploitation comes in. Basically workers know that they&#39;re exploited but we show them how they make all the value and its then stolen.

Then you use the everyday struggle to point out the contradictions in capitalism and how it doesn&#39;t make sense. Show them the senseless destruction get stories from other workers.

Then you explain a better world is possible. You don&#39;t need to talk about dictatorships of the proletariat or vanguards. The workers know that politicos can&#39;t change anything. We show them that change is only possible through them. They don&#39;t believe - we show them what workers have done before.

Many workers will be able to read and understand the literature not all, maybe not a majority but many will. They can be helped through by people like us. Then they in turn can teach it to their peers and so on and so on. In this way the workers will realise their historic role ok I know its grandiose hyperbole but you know what I mean.

Through the struggle (praxis) and theory (disseminated by us) revolutionary class consciousness will come to the working class. Alway TU consciousness is returning (witness the strikes we&#39;re seeing) and so we need the TUs to become for socialist in orientation to prove the futility of appealing to the capitalist state.



Rhetoric&#33; You havent actually said how you think this can be done?


Sorry if I&#39;m using rhetoric.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think we can safly say we are in agreement with each other, except for the name of this movement...the word vaguard is too sinister for my liking.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you want to read more then visit here:

Why anarchism opposes state socialism? (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secHcon.html)