I think I've got it.

[Lolumad273]

I think I figured out how this Communist situation should unfold. I've read a lot on this site, and I see a lot of authoritarianism, and frankly it seems to be fueled by petty revenge.

I think in all our ideal communist societies, we'd like to see everyone receiving the same standard of living, and quality of life. We would like to see that no one's toil be robbed of them, that everyone equally enjoy the luxuries this planet has to offer. These are admirable goals. But of course, we wouldn't want to beat the now-capitalist class into the ground. That still leaves some kind of oppressed social class. The problem is that there is no other way to remove them from power.

So then I see this "Economic collapse", that a lot of people talk about (Namely Michael Ruppert). It seems to me that the only way to build this classless society is to start from scratch. Doesn't a economic collapse offer us that clean slate?

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I'm learning myself, and that seems to be the goal of communism in a nutshell. As for economic collapse, it makes sense. I'm not sure if it's the only way to do it, but it would be one way.:thumbup1:

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Maybe not the petty revenge part.

[Lolumad273]

Everyone talks about violently ending the bourgeois, when there's really no reason for it, they are few while we are many. A bit of unity, and we could bring down their institutions with our pure numbers. Very little violence is necessary. Perhaps fighting back against the police...

[Lolumad273]

And then whenever someone speaks of peace, they're said to be creating moral absolutes, and morals are bad. Speaking reasonably isn't a moral absolute.

Perhaps I have it wrong, perhaps moral absolutes are okay. We agree that no man should have his product stolen from him. Isn't that a moral absolute?

[ArrowLance]

I think in all our ideal communist societies, we'd like to see everyone receiving the same standard of living, and quality of life. We would like to see that no one's toil be robbed of them, that everyone equally enjoy the luxuries this planet has to offer. These are admirable goals. But of course, we wouldn't want to beat the now-capitalist class into the ground. That still leaves some kind of oppressed social class.


Communism is for us proletariat. Fuck the bourgeoisie. To whatever degree the bourgeoisie would like to maintain their class we will destroy them.

We will abolish class.

[Art Vandelay]

And then whenever someone speaks of peace, they're said to be creating moral absolutes, and morals are bad. Speaking reasonably isn't a moral absolute.

Perhaps I have it wrong, perhaps moral absolutes are okay. We agree that no man should have his product stolen from him. Isn't that a moral absolute?

Well in our world today, accepted morals are really just a reflection of bourgeois interests; which is why communists would reject morals.

[Kronsteen]

Doesn't a economic collapse offer us that clean slate?

Not unless it's a complete economic collapse into a hunter-gatherer society.

And not unless everyone gets amnesia.

[Prinskaj]

communism is for us proletariat. fuck the bourgeoisie. To whatever degree the bourgeoisie would like to maintain their class we will destroy them.

We will abolish class.
and we want blood!!!

[Blake's Baby]

...
Perhaps I have it wrong, perhaps moral absolutes are okay. We agree that no man should have his product stolen from him. Isn't that a moral absolute?

What are you talking about?

I never agreed to that.

I don't hold with any such notion as that a 'man' can have a 'product'.

Production is social; our being is social; what has the notion of the 'product' of a 'man' being 'stolen' got to do with that?

[roy]

bourgeoisie beats the proletariat into the ground now. someone's gotta beat someone into the ground. i don't see how communism can be achieved without first achieving proletarian victory?

[Lolumad273]

What are you talking about?

I never agreed to that.

I don't hold with any such notion as that a 'man' can have a 'product'.

Production is social; our being is social; what has the notion of the 'product' of a 'man' being 'stolen' got to do with that?

I figured it was obvious what I meant, apparently I have to explain every minute detail. No man can make anything on his own, it takes an entire society. So yes, wealth is social, production is social. However, we recognize the robbery by the bourgeois as an evil.

The bourgeois is still a class if you're going to single them out and beat them into the ground long past the revolution. They're just a subjugated class, and you set the groundwork for displeasure with the way of things. Gandhi was more successful in bringing about change terrorists have been

[roy]

no, we want to eliminate class entirely and the only way to do that is to first beat the bourgeoisie

[Zav]

no, we want to eliminate class entirely and the only way to do that is to first beat the bourgeoisie
No, not really. If we want to destroy racism, should we beat the racialists? No. What we do is acknowledge that 'race' is only a bad idea, we stop using it, and move on. Power is the purpose of class, and it is also merely an idea. Simply bashing bourgeoisie heads in won't eliminate power relations. People need to want to abolish them and actively work against them. The easiest way to accomplish this is through grassroots organization.

[Regicollis]

Personally I don't hope for a collapse either economically or ecologically. The results of such a collapse would be devastating for all and the outcome of such a collapse is not likely to be a socialist society. It is more likely that fascism will be the result given the huge power the bourgeoisie holds.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Everyone talks about violently ending the bourgeois, when there's really no reason for it, they are few while we are many. A bit of unity, and we could bring down their institutions with our pure numbers. Very little violence is necessary. Perhaps fighting back against the police...

They'll never give up their power, and will always try to destroy us. The only way is to fight back.

[Zukunftsmusik]

No, not really. If we want to destroy racism, should we beat the racialists? No. What we do is acknowledge that 'race' is only a bad idea, we stop using it, and move on. Power is the purpose of class, and it is also merely an idea. Simply bashing bourgeoisie heads in won't eliminate power relations. People need to want to abolish them and actively work against them. The easiest way to accomplish this is through grassroots organization.

I don't think it's possible to end class relations with will-power. "Power" might be called "just an idea"; class relations, however, aren't "ideas" they are material relations in a given society. Which is why you can't simply wish them gone.

Username didn't say anything about bashing people's heads in, he just said we had to beat the bourgeoisie, our class enemy, without specifying how we should do it.

[Zav]

I don't think it's possible to end class relations with will-power. "Power" might be called "just an idea"; class relations, however, aren't "ideas" they are material relations in a given society. Which is why you can't simply wish them gone.

Username didn't say anything about bashing people's heads in, he just said we had to beat the bourgeoisie, our class enemy, without specifying how we should do it.
They are material relations, yes, but they are just extensions of the idea of power. If no one believes that some people have the right to rule others, the material relationship of exploitation will disappear.
Username's post before the one I quoted talked about beating the bourgeoisie into the ground. That sounds pretty physical to me, however you may be right. In that case, my post applies to the kill-the-bosses mentality many people have.

[Brosip Tito]

Everyone talks about violently ending the bourgeois, when there's really no reason for it, they are few while we are many. A bit of unity, and we could bring down their institutions with our pure numbers. Very little violence is necessary. Perhaps fighting back against the police...
You'd be insane to believe revolution will come without street fighting, without the need to supress, violently, counter revolution.

[Questionable]

"As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force." - George Orwell

[roy]

No, not really. If we want to destroy racism, should we beat the racialists? No. What we do is acknowledge that 'race' is only a bad idea, we stop using it, and move on. Power is the purpose of class, and it is also merely an idea. Simply bashing bourgeoisie heads in won't eliminate power relations. People need to want to abolish them and actively work against them. The easiest way to accomplish this is through grassroots organization.

geez, man. i'm not talking about beating them with a stick. as a class, the workers have to strip the ruling class of their power through social force, whatever. obviously it isn't going to be peaceful, either.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think I figured out how this Communist situation should unfold. I've read a lot on this site, and I see a lot of authoritarianism, and frankly it seems to be fueled by petty revenge.Well I wouldn't mistake flippant remarks from some young radicals on a website for what the political ideas are fundamentally about. Marx and Engles (and others) didn't develop these ideas out of a sense of wanting revenge - but on how to overcome the barriers to creating a real democracy and getting rid of the social ills faced by many people. They located this barrier with the (capitalist) class system which relies on the control and organization of the working class, exploitation, and their particular ordering of society - you can't run a really free society as long as you need to control other people who actually are the cause of your wealth. The capitalists, in their view, were progressive in fighting against feudalism, but once they were in power, they also had to turn around and control the main people they exploit: workers.

To me, this is what revolution is about: the working class cooperatively and democratically re-organizing society in their interests, and since they don't need to exploit other in order to produce what they need, their interests are potentially universal human interests and we can rid ourselves of class divisions and struggle.


I think in all our ideal communist societies, we'd like to see everyone receiving the same standard of living, and quality of life. We would like to see that no one's toil be robbed of them, that everyone equally enjoy the luxuries this planet has to offer. These are admirable goals. But of course, we wouldn't want to beat the now-capitalist class into the ground. That still leaves some kind of oppressed social class. The problem is that there is no other way to remove them from power.

So then I see this "Economic collapse", that a lot of people talk about (Namely Michael Ruppert). It seems to me that the only way to build this classless society is to start from scratch. Doesn't a economic collapse offer us that clean slate?Frankly, I think this democratic and self-liberation drive at the heart of Marxism is totally absent from what you are suggesting - instead of conscious and democratic change, it's like you want to leapfrog over this and somehow create a society that's benign and nice towards workers through some kind of "deus ex revolution".

We can never truly guarantee that there won't be violent attacks on workers by the ruling class in a revolutionary struggle - we can't guarantee that such a struggle will even succeed in a revolution. But we can take measures to minimize violence such as trying to build a worker's movement before a revolutionary situation so that we already have networks and experience as workers in struggle - this will minimize random acts of violence from out side that don't advance things (random terrorist acts and so on) while also allowing us as workers to gain the experience and solidarity necessary for working-class emancipation. A collapse, even assuming that there aren't other competing would-be ruling class and groups trying to assume power in society, would not develop working class consciousness and so all the prejudices and suspicion and misanthropy that are common among most people today would remain without any alternative.

While I can't guarantee that there would not be violence or that violence by workers won't be necessary under some circumstances, I think it's safe to say that power vacuums in society are almost universally violent. I agree with the poster above that fascism is a much more likely outcome from a collapse and power vacuum than socialism is at this point. If socialism would be possible after such a collapse, it would only be because workers had already organized themselves and there was a degree of revolutionary consciousness that existed in society - then the organized workers would have to still push for their hegemony in society which would still mean a high likelihood of violence as some forces in society want a return of the old system, some want something more "stable" but much more repressive, and so would still want to use any means necessary to stop workers from taking over.

Aside from that, if a collapse was total, not just a sort of impasse and breakdown of government function, then the material situation would not be conducive for worker's power because the means of production wouldn't be operating and people would be more focused on trying to secure resources in a situation of absolute scarcity (rather than the artificial scarcities created by the capitalist system).

[Anarpest]

It's not entirely clear what this 'economic collapse' would involve. If it's the solution to all of the problems of the left, one would assume that we should have a better idea of what it would be and why it would come about.


Perhaps I have it wrong, perhaps moral absolutes are okay. We agree that no man should have his product stolen from him. Isn't that a moral absolute?

For Locke, maybe.


Communism is for us proletariat. Fuck the bourgeoisie. To whatever degree the bourgeoisie would like to maintain their class we will destroy them.

I'm not sure that Warren Buffet's martial prowess will be our greatest threat in the event of a revolution. In any case, I'm sure that Friedrich Engels would appreciate being told to get fucked by a socialist on the internet.


Well in our world today, accepted morals are really just a reflection of bourgeois interests; which is why communists would reject morals.

And by 'communists' I assume you mean 'people who think that we ought to institute communism.' A very strong rejection of morality.


They are material relations, yes, but they are just extensions of the idea of power. If no one believes that some people have the right to rule others, the material relationship of exploitation will disappear.

Oh, OK, so then we have to war against ideas instead. Well, that makes things easier. Anarchy: Abolishing the idea of the state since 1840.

[Blake's Baby]

I figured it was obvious what I meant, apparently I have to explain every minute detail...

Sorry, who the fuck are you?

What you have to do is be as clear as you can, or people will think you don't know what you're talking about. May be perfectly clear in your head but we don't know you're not a total chump. I've never heard of you so have no basis to judge whether you're a very clever person in something of a hurry, or a total fuckwit.

[Left Leanings]

"As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force." - George Orwell

Pacifism among the workers is the friend of the bourgeois - except when they want us to go and fight a war for them. When capital fleeces us of the goods we produce, cut our benefits, close hospitals or community centres, how they love us to be as meek as little lambs. When they want us to go fire guns and drop bombs on their behalf in Iraq, then we have to be warriors.

Fuck capital, and fuck pacifism.

[Lolumad273]

Sorry, who the fuck are you?

What you have to do is be as clear as you can, or people will think you don't know what you're talking about. May be perfectly clear in your head but we don't know you're not a total chump. I've never heard of you so have no basis to judge whether you're a very clever person in something of a hurry, or a total fuckwit.

Well, sorry for coming off as a bit angry and presumptuous. Was in a bit of a hurry, yes. I also find it easier for people skimming a forum to get a good understanding of what's happening when a thought is condensed as much as possible without damaging the meaning. But I'll be more thorough.

It seems to me that a number of members on this site romanticize violence, as if it is some glorious means to a glorious end. I recognize that if violence is committed against the workers of the revolution, that retaliation may be necessary. What I'm worried about is people going into a revolution, or planning on committing acts of violence against a bourgeoisie that may just lay down their arms, seeing the odds stacked enormously against them. I'm not sure how it would go down, and no one here does either. But I'd prefer if we could at least agree that violence would be one of the tools used less often, only when necessary.

To Jimmie Higgins: I like what you've said, and I would love if we could get a bit of unity on the left, and perhaps get this movement going. That of course the first step in completing this, and a great way to minimize violence. Once again, a fault on my part for not being thorough enough, and I apologize.

[Nox]

"As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force." - George Orwell

I can vouch for this. The Satyagraha was just about the only non-violent thing he did, and even that had some small bouts of violence.

[Lolumad273]

I suppose I may have fallen victim to some form of propaganda with the Gandhi thing. Sorry about that. I just don't believe in excess violence.

[Blake's Baby]

But that's kinda the point. No-one believes in excessive violence, because 'excessive' means 'more than necessary'. Who's actually saying 'let's go and have some violence just for the sake of it'?

I think the only thing you can do is outline when and where violence is appropriate and when and where it isn't.

For instance, I don't see that the bourgeoisie will meet a rivival in the workers' movement with philosophical resignation - I think they'll use all means at their disposal to resist any attempt to alter the status quo, and that will (it does already) include use of the police, army and judiciary against workers. Does that justify violence from workers to defend themselves and their comrades, their communities and organisations? I think it does.

Does it justify assassinations and bombings? No, not really, not in most of the world, though I suppose if I lived under an open military dictatorship I might feel differently, though on the whole I don't see terrorist acts committed by small secretive groups as advancing class consciousness or workers' self-organisation; and ultimately it's workers' organisation that's going to change things, because the working class can't militarily confront the state and expect to 'win' unless it's already paralysed the functioning of the state, army, etc. Our strength lies in our ability to shut down capitalism and re-start production for human need, not in street battles with the army.

But all that having been said, I regard the use of violence as a tactical question not a moral one. Violence will occur, because the bourgeoisie is going to resist the collectivisation of property, it's as simple as that.

[Lolumad273]

That was a perfect explanation, thank you.