Why Direct Communistic revolution is impossible.

[Psychedelia]

Ok we have an big day tomorrow running (5km Championship) And i need to get my head cleard before i go.

I was thinking of this,and i came to conclusion that direct-from capitalism-to communistic system is impossible .

Your reaction might be.
s14.postimage.org/qtkw71735/Rev.jpg

But look,here is my part of the philosophy

Our society is like an fat person-capitalism and we want to become more slim-socialism and finally to get muscles,to be healthy-communism.
So this case kinda tells its self up.

We just can't go right from capitalism to communism,we first need to become an socialistic state,and after that to communism. We can't just become fit in one day,we first need to exercise to lose weight,... ok i went to off topic,but do you get where im pointing or do i need to write it again?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thread Moved

[Drosophila]

Sounds like something some guy named Karl said over a hundred years ago.

[Tim Cornelis]

The productive forces have increased to such a degree (many muscles) under capitalism (muscled capitalism) that communism can be introduced 'immediately' after the revolution.

[Conscript]

The productive forces have increased to such a degree (many muscles) under capitalism (muscled capitalism) that communism can be introduced 'immediately' after the revolution.

And if there's destruction of capital from revolution and war, then what?

[Caj]

Reformism.

[Drosophila]

Reformism.

He doesn't make it apparent that he wants reformism. He's just saying communism isn't immediately achievable.

[Caj]

He doesn't make it apparent that he wants reformism. He's just saying communism isn't immediately achievable.

It sure sounds reformist. OP doesn't use any arguments in favor of his or her view except a weight loss analogy. Weight loss is a gradual process.

[Drosophila]

It sure sounds reformist. OP doesn't use any arguments in favor of his or her view except a weight loss analogy. Weight loss is a gradual process.

So Marxism is reformist?

[Ravachol]

There is no 'transition phase' between Capitalism and Communism. Capitalism is not abolished for communism, but BY communism given that Communism is, as Marx observed, not an ideal or utopia to which we will have to adjust reality but the real existing movement that abolishes the present state of things.



We would have nothing to object to the concept of transition if it simply stated the obvious: communism will not be achieved in a flash. Yet the concept implies a lot more, and something totally different: not simply a transitory moment, but a full-fledged transitory society.
(..)
Communisation implied a rejection of the view of revolution as an event where workers take power followed by a period of transition: instead it was to be seen as a movement characterised by immediate communist measures (such as the free distribution of goods) both for their own merit, and as a way of destroying the material basis of the counter-revolution. If, after a revolution, the bourgeoisie is expropriated but workers remain workers, producing in separate enterprises, dependent on their relation to that workplace for their subsistence, and exchanging with other enterprises, then whether that exchange is self-organised by the workers or given central direction by a "workers' state" means very little: the capitalist content remains, and sooner or later the distinct role or function of the capitalist will reassert itself. By contrast, the revolution as a communising movement would destroy - by ceasing to constitute and reproduce them - all capitalist categories: exchange, money, commodities, the existence of separate enterprises, the State and - most fundamentally - wage labour and the working class itself.
(..)
So there will a "transition" in the sense that communism will not be achieved overnight. But there will not be a "transition period" in what has become the traditional Marxist sense: a period that is no longer capitalist but not yet communist, a period in which the working class would still work, but not for profit or for the boss any more, only for themselves: they would go on developing the "productive forces" (factories, consumer goods, etc.) before being able to enjoy the then fully-matured fruit of industrialization. This is not the programme of a communist revolution. It was not in the past and it is not now.


I recommend the following texts on the matter of 'communisation' and the rejection of the transition phase:

http://libcom.org/library/communisation

http://libcom.org/library/communization-its-discontents-contestation-critique-contemporary-struggles

[Caj]

So Marxism is reformist?

Does Marxism advocate a gradual transition from capitalism to communism? (Hint: The answer is no.)

[Zav]

Our society is like an fat person-capitalism and we want to become more slim-socialism and finally to get muscles,to be healthy-communism.

This is a false analogy. Social systems can and have changed overnight, figuratively speaking. In Catalonia Anarchists pretty much had Communism in a couple weeks.

[Tim Finnegan]

The problem with the analogy is that it suggests that communism represents the same "body" as capitalism, simply in a different form, when in fact it goes a lot more like this:

uuapyExYJBI

(The screaming is optional.)

[#FF0000]

"oh hey this analogy is internally consistent it must apply to the world as it actually exists ugbfugbfugbugbfdubgfdu"

[Grenzer]

The productive forces have increased to such a degree (many muscles) under capitalism (muscled capitalism) that communism can be introduced 'immediately' after the revolution.

I hate to say it, but this seems rather utopian. It ignores the massive amount of class contradictions which cannot be spontaneously abolished. I would also say that it's just plain wrong, as there are many parts of the world which are very under-industrialized and the proletariat are in a demographic minority. The peasantry, and remnants of other classes cannot be spontaneously converted into proletarians.

Ironically, the productive forces argument is often used by bourgeois in justifying why there is no need for revolution to begin with.

[Koba Junior]

Marxist dialectic recognizes that quantitative changes are, for the most part, gradual. At least, there is some equilibrium with regards to the rate of accumulation of quantitative changes over time. Marxist dialectic also recognizes that qualitative changes occur rapidly.

By way of illustration, consider water. Ordinarily, the freezing point of pure water is 0°C. This is the point at which water's state of matter changes from liquid to solid. The temperature of the water can be gradually lowered from room temperature to freezing temperature, even one degree at a time, but water will not freeze until its temperature has reached 0°C. In typical experience, water will not exist in a state between phases of matter (or where phases of matter exist in equilibrium), meaning that water will not become solid until it has absolutely reached 0°C.

Marxist dialectic predicts the evolution of society as being neither linear nor strictly gradual. Major changes in society come about through a revolution that resolves a major contradiction. In the case of capitalism, the contradiction exists between the workers (who create value through their labor) and the capitalists (who own the means of producing that wealth). The contradiction can only be resolved through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, which necessitates the seizure of political power by the proletariat. The resultant dictatorship of the proletariat is what transforms the capitalist mode of production into the socialist mode of production. The seizure of political power by the proletariat and the expropriation of the capitalist class will certainly not take place in an instant, but such a revolutionary transformation will necessarily occur relatively rapidly.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I hate to say it, but this seems rather utopian. It ignores the massive amount of class contradictions which cannot be spontaneously abolished. I would also say that it's just plain wrong, as there are many parts of the world which are very under-industrialized and the proletariat are in a demographic minority. The peasantry, and remnants of other classes cannot be spontaneously converted into proletarians.

Ironically, the productive forces argument is often used by bourgeois in justifying why there is no need for revolution to begin with.

Adding to this, I would also like to add the fact of intense violent counter-revolution that exists in every society after a revolution. This will nessecitate in the need of a state to suppress the violent counter-revolutionaries sure to come.

[Tim Cornelis]

I hate to say it, but this seems rather utopian. It ignores the massive amount of class contradictions which cannot be spontaneously abolished. I would also say that it's just plain wrong, as there are many parts of the world which are very under-industrialized and the proletariat are in a demographic minority. The peasantry, and remnants of other classes cannot be spontaneously converted into proletarians.

My comment was more of a counter-analogy as opposed to normative argument. It was more of a way to show that the analogy can be used either way. Also note that I used quotation marks around "immediately"


Ironically, the productive forces argument is often used by bourgeois in justifying why there is no need for revolution to begin with.

That's not relevant.


Adding to this, I would also like to add the fact of intense violent counter-revolution that exists in every society after a revolution. This will nessecitate in the need of a state to suppress the violent counter-revolutionaries sure to come.

You wrongly conflate "revolution" with "insurrection". The revolution consists of the social transformation of society (constructive) and the abolition of the old social institutions, the insurrection (destructive). When I say "after the revolution" I do not mean "the working people rise up and will immediately introduce communist society".

After the revolution means after the social transformation is complete, thus also after the counter-revolution.

[Yefim Zverev]

many people on earth live closely to animals both in behavior and physics due to extreme poverty how do you expect from them to maintain communism if you give them all the control equally ? yet many others are in their mental upper structure completely focused on gaining private property and preserving that which information is delivered by them to their children, how could they be directly taken into communist system.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I am by no means an expert in Marxist political thought, but I always thought that the gradual process which Marx and Engels were proposing was Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism

But in relation to the question, I agree that a instant switch from capitalism to communism is impossible. A transitional period is needed

[Railyon]

I would also say that it's just plain wrong, as there are many parts of the world which are very under-industrialized and the proletariat are in a demographic minority. The peasantry, and remnants of other classes cannot be spontaneously converted into proletarians.

I think the question is not whether they "can be spontaneously converted into proletarians", but whether those areas would be swept along a revolutionary wave starting in "the first world". I think there are cases were people could just leap over the proletarian stage, especially if we consider the suppression of the bourgeoisie to be global. Not like we would stop before a border post saying "nope, can't do that, dudes are not proletarian".

[Comrade Hill]

The productive forces have increased to such a degree (many muscles) under capitalism (muscled capitalism) that communism can be introduced 'immediately' after the revolution.

Can you please explain to me what "muscled capitalism" is? Also, how do the current conditions make it possible to "go stateless?"

I certainly hope it's not your believe that the United States is the only imperialist power in the world.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think the question is not whether they "can be spontaneously converted into proletarians", but whether those areas would be swept along a revolutionary wave starting in "the first world". I think there are cases were people could just leap over the proletarian stage, especially if we consider the suppression of the bourgeoisie to be global. Not like we would stop before a border post saying "nope, can't do that, dudes are not proletarian".
I think that the point about the bourgeoisie being global is a vital one. Mode of production is not the same thing of mode of exploitation, so while the peasantry are at least broadly distinct from the proletariat, the vast majority of them are at this point entirely enmeshed in capitalist social relations in more or less the same fashion as, for example, the nominally-self employed weavers of early 19th century Yorkshire or Lyon, who none of us would doubt were workers. Debt peonage, share-cropping, and various forms of dependence on landlords and merchants all constitute a formal subsumption of labour under capital, so the peasants are in the most fundamental sense involved in the same class struggle that we are involved in, merely playing out over different terrain.

The difference between us and them is that they, being only formally subsumed under capital, have at least in principle the possibility of escaping capital and becoming true petty proprietors, while we, being really subsumbed under capital, have absolutely no option but to strive for communism. This means that while the labour-peasantry are very unlikely to ever move towards communism of their own accord, quite naturally pursuing the path of least resistance towards petty proprietorship, there's very little reason to believe that a proletarian revolution, in making communism the path of least resistance, would not absorb them as it went.

[Neoprime]

Ok we have an big day tomorrow running (5km Championship) And i need to get my head cleard before i go.

I was thinking of this,and i came to conclusion that direct-from capitalism-to communistic system is impossible .

Your reaction might be.
s14.postimage.org/qtkw71735/Rev.jpg

But look,here is my part of the philosophy

Our society is like an fat person-capitalism and we want to become more slim-socialism and finally to get muscles,to be healthy-communism.
So this case kinda tells its self up.

We just can't go right from capitalism to communism,we first need to become an socialistic state,and after that to communism. We can't just become fit in one day,we first need to exercise to lose weight,... ok i went to off topic,but do you get where im pointing or do i need to write it again?

That's how it works, no disrespect but should study more marxism, this is how it worked in the Soviet Union, China and other Socialist countries.

I think what your thinking of is Anarchism were you right after the revolution go to what is Communism, without any state or Socialism.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's how it works, no disrespect but should study more marxism, this is how it worked in the Soviet Union, China and other Socialist countries.
Well, if you ignore the "failing horribly" bit, at any rate. But I'm sure that can all be chalked to revisionists or gremlins or some fucking thing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok we have an big day tomorrow running (5km Championship) And i need to get my head cleard before i go.

I was thinking of this,and i came to conclusion that direct-from capitalism-to communistic system is impossible .

Your reaction might be.
s14.postimage.org/qtkw71735/Rev.jpg

But look,here is my part of the philosophy

Our society is like an fat person-capitalism and we want to become more slim-socialism and finally to get muscles,to be healthy-communism.
So this case kinda tells its self up.

We just can't go right from capitalism to communism,we first need to become an socialistic state,and after that to communism. We can't just become fit in one day,we first need to exercise to lose weight,... ok i went to off topic,but do you get where im pointing or do i need to write it again?

Hmm. I think my analogy might be that capitalism has built a huge slave-ship and the slaves can stop rowing and have a mutiny, but that mutiny alone won't turn the boat into a sail-boat, the mutineers have to take the ores and blankets and create a sail-boat so that our vehicle (society) is actually how we want it rather than just a less repressive version of the same slave-rowing arrangement.:lol:

Ok, maybe that analogy didn't work. At any rate yeah, I think capitalist society is not just held together by the capitalist state but is organized from head to toe around the system. So getting rid of the capitalist state and taking the means of production can't get us to communism immediately because even without the capitalists in power, this society is still arranged around capitalist interests and so workers will have to get together and democratically and cooperatively figure out how to re-shape society around worker's interests. Most anarchists agree with this to an extent, but they just don't call worker's democracy defended by a democratic worker's militia (if needed) a state. Even if this is done "decentralized" or whatnot, it's still a state IMO because it's a class imposing it's hegemony over all of society - the difference is that worker's don't need to exploit anyone and part of their interests that they would want to impose on society is the elimination of all class differences. So this is why, in my view, worker's power (a socialist state) would be necessary and also why it wouldn't last longer than needed. Capitalists and other classes WANT class society to continue because they are a minority and they need the majority in order for them to have wealth and power - worker's don't need this: we just need to work together for us to feed ourselves and make what we want.