For those who want to "Estabilish Communism"

[Rafiq]

If it's as simple as expressing our "Ideas" into reality, i.e. Constructing the society we see fit, then why not "construct" a form of capitalism in which capital is kept under control, is heavily regulated, and so on?

We have all heard of Marxian criticisms of capitalism, but most of all, they presuppose Materialism. I understand a lot of users here, whom are divorced from which, would never in the case of Communism. So, with that being said (to pressupose Idealism), the falling rate of profit theory, for example, wouldn't hold up, as just good "Morality" and "laws" would be able to prevent the maximization of profit, no? Or at least have a massive taxation upon the Bourgeois class, and form a super welfare state?

Shouldn't this be a signification to those who want to simply "establish" communism, based on their will and "ideas"? If it's that simple, if it's a zero ground free space of just expressing our will, why not do the same for a form of regulated capitalism? If you want to use Marxian arguments, you'd have to be presupposing Materialism, which would be antithetical to constructing a society based on the will of a certain amount of people, so it would be inconsistent, at best.

The point, I believe, is quite simple: All of those threads out there, the ones talking of what a "Communist" society will or should look like, miss the point. They miss the point that Ideas and thought are useless in comparison with real, material force independent of will. It assumes that, a revolution is the fulfillment of our Ideas, the actualization of our thought, and from there, it's based upon our will to construct a new society. This isn't, evidently, how any mode of production formed. I highly doubt that the Bourgeois class had any sort of clue of what capitalism would look like, when taking the position of class dictatorship. The point of Materialism is that matter precedes thought, i.e. Not simply in the sense that "Matter" in the metaphysical sense is before thought (As this is blatantly obvious to most people) but that productive forces, and their movement, precede thought and will. A lot of people want a revolution to "establish" and actualize their Ideas, though, if it's that simple, why not have a revolution for a more regulated form of capitalism, a heavily regulated, almost proto-planned economy, similar to Fascism economically? Surly it is, at best, the most productive form of capitalism, no?

And this is where it comes down to: That if we pressupose a revoltuion is simply about constructing a better society, we have absolutely no right to decide what the better society is. If we, for exmaple, want to sit here and ponder about the possibilities of this grand Utopia, we must also be prepared to be open to the other Utopias, whether they be keynsian, free market, moralist religious Utopias, and so on. Because really, it's quite subjective in matter.

It's why any real adherer to revolutionary socialism must hold that a revolution isn't about the fulfillment of Ideas, and that, Socialism itself is not a new society that we formulate, but it is an ideological weapon of the Proletariat, i.e. The embodiment of their class interest, which formed in direct response to their relations within the capitalist mode of production, as, we all know, their existence is antithetical and contradictory to the existence of the Bourgeois class and the Capital that it serves. Socialism, for any Radical, Anarchist or not, must be a weapon, not an ends. That the real ends is conquest for class dictatorship and proletarian emancipation, and calls for a regulated form of capitalism must be countered fully with Materialist Marxian thought, and that, no matter how "Good" they sound, they are in nature spoken through only the tongue of the class enemy. And with that, this Materialism must exist in a form of totality, i.e. Very consistently. That means that threads about "Will computers be produced in Communism, if so, how and why?" and so on must be denounced fully as Idealist and Utopian in nature, and, at that, stepping stones to, if not already, Bourgeois ideology.

We must fully recognize what Communism means: That the deployment of communsim as a "Stateless, classless society" is indeed inherent to communism. But of how seriously should it be taken? It is, at best, for any materialist, the ideological rhetoric of a class based Ideology (As All Ideology is class based). Communism, as Marx put it, is a Process of the conquest and fulfillment not of the Ideas or will of individuals, but of the Class dictatorship, which only exists inherent to Proletarian interests, that of which never exist outside the realm of the capitalist mode of production (I.e., The proletariat exists revolutionarily to abolish itself, just as a slave existence is only inherent to a slave society, or one similar, or one with aspects of one). Proletarian interests are indeed a "Will", but only exist as a superstructure to the structural base of capitalism. This is contrary to Utopianism, of which is a combination of several aspects of Bourgeois Romanticism, Idealism, Moralism, and so on, which are antithetical to proletarian revolutionary thought, and lack the required mechanisms to destroy capitalism, thereby bringing about a new mode of production.

We don't know what communism will look like, the material force has not pushed the constraint of capitalism far enough (Beyond it) for us to even imagine it, and if we do imagine it, it can only exist within the realm of the Bourgeois society and Ideology that is given to us. There exists, as we all know, only one class, and it's interests, which is capable of excelling this constraint, as a material force, further, beyond Bourgeois society, i.e. destroying it. It is the only exit.

I do realize this post doesn't take into account the fact that users here may just say "Well, communism is more moral", but as a Marxist, I hold no position for some sort of Objective Morality, and therefore call a moral position as the sole position for being a communist as not only useless, it's weak and very, very subjective and can be countered with a simple dose of Linguistic-Moralist nonsense (i.e. Someone who is a good speaker, yet an opponent).

[campesino]

when I said "establish communism," I meant a socialist state that will spread socialism throughout the world, so communism would naturally follow. That is if there is no world-wide revolution. if there is world wide revolution then the proletarians will decide what to do with their power.

[Rafiq]

This wasn't directed at you or any one person specifically

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Tim Cornelis]

If it's as simple as expressing our "Ideas" into reality, i.e. Constructing the society we see fit, then why not "construct" a form of capitalism in which capital is kept under control, is heavily regulated, and so on?

We have all heard of Marxian criticisms of capitalism, but most of all, they presuppose Materialism. I understand a lot of users here, whom are divorced from which, would never in the case of Communism. So, with that being said (to pressupose Idealism), the falling rate of profit theory, for example, wouldn't hold up, as just good "Morality" and "laws" would be able to prevent the maximization of profit, no?

Or at least have a massive taxation upon the Bourgeois class, and form a super welfare state?

What you described would be an impossibility in any case. It will ruin the business climate and thus the economy. Even in the bastion of social-democracy 11,5% (Sweden) of all children live in poverty. Unemployment, poverty, and inequality are intrinsic to capitalism. Sustaining a "super welfare state", moreover, requires coercive institutions--something that's not particularly desirable.


Shouldn't this be a signification to those who want to simply "establish" communism, based on their will and "ideas"? If it's that simple, if it's a zero ground free space of just expressing our will, why not do the same for a form of regulated capitalism? If you want to use Marxian arguments, you'd have to be presupposing Materialism, which would be antithetical to constructing a society based on the will of a certain amount of people, so it would be inconsistent, at best.

The world is shaped by ideas. If not, then the Russian revolution could have never occurred under the banner of socialism. Though ideas are confined to the prevailing material conditions.


The point, I believe, is quite simple: All of those threads out there, the ones talking of what a "Communist" society will or should look like, miss the point. They miss the point that Ideas and thought are useless in comparison with real, material force independent of will. It assumes that, a revolution is the fulfillment of our Ideas, the actualization of our thought, and from there, it's based upon our will to construct a new society.

Material force does not exist independent of will. The will of people is shaped by the material conditions, but exist autonomously of it. The bourgeois revolutions were motivated by the bourgeoisie's sense of justice, while the material conditions allowed for the establishment of the capitalist mode of production.


This isn't, evidently, how any mode of production formed. I highly doubt that the Bourgeois class had any sort of clue of what capitalism would look like, when taking the position of class dictatorship. The point of Materialism is that matter precedes thought, i.e. Not simply in the sense that "Matter" in the metaphysical sense is before thought (As this is blatantly obvious to most people) but that productive forces, and their movement, precede thought and will. A lot of people want a revolution to "establish" and actualize their Ideas, though, if it's that simple, why not have a revolution for a more regulated form of capitalism, a heavily regulated, almost proto-planned economy, similar to Fascism economically? Surly it is, at best, the most productive form of capitalism, no?

While it is true that capitalists did not consciously implement capitalism, they did however consciously implement liberal democracy in accordance with their ideas. What you fail to realise here, though, is the reason that capitalism was established 'automatically' is because it was based on the "invisible hand": the market economy. Capitalists did not need to have an idea of what capitalism would look like as they operated a "self-adjusting mechanism", namely competitive markets.

Socialism on the other hand is not based on a market economy, and will conduct economic life in accordance with a conscious economic plan (i.e. a planned economy). Economic conduct, moreover, is performed by the workers as a whole, and all workers therefore require conscious knowledge of what socialism entails.

These questions about "how will this be arranged under communism" do not serve as blueprints, but rather the visualisation of a future society to test its credibility. They help people understand how communism could work. It is ludicrous to think that the working class will allow for communism while they think it is impossible. Even when a class dictatorship has been established by the working class, this does not mean communism is introduced as it would naturally flow from it.


And this is where it comes down to: That if we pressupose a revoltuion is simply about constructing a better society, we have absolutely no right to decide what the better society is. If we, for exmaple, want to sit here and ponder about the possibilities of this grand Utopia, we must also be prepared to be open to the other Utopias, whether they be keynsian, free market, moralist religious Utopias, and so on. Because really, it's quite subjective in matter.

Indeed, it's subjective. But I don't see any problem with that.


It's why any real adherer to revolutionary socialism must hold that a revolution isn't about the fulfillment of Ideas, and that, Socialism itself is not a new society that we formulate, but it is an ideological weapon of the Proletariat, i.e. The embodiment of their class interest, which formed in direct response to their relations within the capitalist mode of production, as, we all know, their existence is antithetical and contradictory to the existence of the Bourgeois class and the Capital that it serves. Socialism, for any Radical, Anarchist or not, must be a weapon, not an ends. That the real ends is conquest for class dictatorship and proletarian emancipation, and calls for a regulated form of capitalism must be countered fully with Materialist Marxian thought, and that, no matter how "Good" they sound, they are in nature spoken through only the tongue of the class enemy. And with that, this Materialism must exist in a form of totality, i.e. Very consistently. That means that threads about "Will computers be produced in Communism, if so, how and why?" and so on must be denounced fully as Idealist and Utopian in nature, and, at that, stepping stones to, if not already, Bourgeois ideology.

What does proletarian emancipation entail? Petite-bourgeois socialism? If not, then surely you have an idea of what communism is?


We must fully recognize what Communism means: That the deployment of communsim as a "Stateless, classless society" is indeed inherent to communism.


But of how seriously should it be taken? It is, at best, for any materialist, the ideological rhetoric of a class based Ideology (As All Ideology is class based). Communism, as Marx put it, is a Process of the conquest and fulfillment not of the Ideas or will of individuals, but of the Class dictatorship, which only exists inherent to Proletarian interests, that of which never exist outside the realm of the capitalist mode of production (I.e., The proletariat exists revolutionarily to abolish itself, just as a slave existence is only inherent to a slave society, or one similar, or one with aspects of one). Proletarian interests are indeed a "Will", but only exist as a superstructure to the structural base of capitalism. This is contrary to Utopianism, of which is a combination of several aspects of Bourgeois Romanticism, Idealism, Moralism, and so on, which are antithetical to proletarian revolutionary thought, and lack the required mechanisms to destroy capitalism, thereby bringing about a new mode of production.

We don't know what communism will look like, the material force has not pushed the constraint of capitalism far enough (Beyond it) for us to even imagine it, and if we do imagine it, it can only exist within the realm of the Bourgeois society and Ideology that is given to us. There exists, as we all know, only one class, and it's interests, which is capable of excelling this constraint, as a material force, further, beyond Bourgeois society, i.e. destroying it. It is the only exit.

I do realize this post doesn't take into account the fact that users here may just say "Well, communism is more moral", but as a Marxist, I hold no position for some sort of Objective Morality, and therefore call a moral position as the sole position for being a communist as not only useless, it's weak and very, very subjective and can be countered with a simple dose of Linguistic-Moralist nonsense (i.e. Someone who is a good speaker, yet an opponent).

Here is what the dictatorship of the proletariat will look like if people have no idea what communism is: Argentine 2002 (though more widespread). Workers would form popular assemblies, and in a sense communes, to restructure infrastructure, healthcare, and so forth. They simultaneously expropriate factories and form workers' councils. But given that they have no idea what communism is, these worker-run workplaces will relate to each other by means of the market. They will not challenge the existence of money, or even competitive markets. That is to say, without an idea of how communism works, any working-class revolution will be petite-bourgeois socialist.

You can argue that money will become superfluous automatically, but the workers need to realise this and formulate a different economic plan as a surrogate.

Hence, I see no problem in identifying sketches of a hypothetical future communist society.

Call me utopian if you want, but I find it wholly unreasonable to expect workers to allow for communism while they object to its feasibility.

EDIT:

There is two flaws in this argument. Capitalism was not established by means of revolution. It originated organically and automatically as the productive forces advanced. From feudalism to mercantile trade to commercial agriculture, from which capitalism germinated. Moreover, the capitalist mode of production preceded bourgeois revolution. Thus, if you are consistent yourself you must advocate a gradual transition from capitalism to the socialist mode of production after which a new political system is established in accordance with the already established socialist mode of production.

We are in capitalism, and the productive forces advance gradually altering the social organisation of society. Money will become less in use, and finally from advances in the productive forces a socialist society has gradually arosen. The capitalists gave up their means of production mostly voluntary as they became less profitable, and slowly money became superfluous. Then, after the socialist mode of production has been established, parliamentary democracy is overthrown by a revolution or it withers away of its own accord. This would, by extension of your logic, the path on how to achieve socialism.

Another problem that arises from the notion of your historical materialism is the same problem Amadeo Bordiga faced when denouncing the Soviet Union as state-capitalist. If we can't know what socialism will look like, then how can one denounce the USSR or market socialism as a form of capitalism? This compelled Bordiga to write a book on what socialism would look like (one characteristic being it would be moneyless).

[NewLeft]

Socialism or barbarism.

Though catastrophe is far away, the rate profit in the long run has declined, but thanks to fictionalization, it has been on the upswing from the 70's. Socialism has to be the will of the proletariat.

[Kronsteen]

Short version: Marxism is about overcoming capitalism so the people can create a better world, not creating it for them.

Shorter version: Marx was right, Lenin was wrong.

[ckaihatsu]

We don't know what communism will look like, the material force has not pushed the constraint of capitalism far enough (Beyond it) for us to even imagine it, and if we do imagine it, it can only exist within the realm of the Bourgeois society and Ideology that is given to us. There exists, as we all know, only one class, and it's interests, which is capable of excelling this constraint, as a material force, further, beyond Bourgeois society, i.e. destroying it. It is the only exit.


It's fair to emphasize material / economic historical determinism, but you take it to the extent of making a socialist revolution sound downright *automatic*, as if it would inevitably emerge from the sheer inertia of historical development.

TC is correct to point out that all types of class rule so far have lagged behind material developments -- this may turn out to be the case as well for the rise of the proletariat over the demise of capitalism, but socialists would *not* have the luxury of only a *partial* consciousness about it all. Collective *subjective* understanding and intention -- as per a thought-out plan -- would be an imperative prerequisite for assuming collective control over a *planned* economy.

[Rafiq]

What you described would be an impossibility in any case. It will ruin the business climate and thus the economy. Even in the bastion of social-democracy 11,5% (Sweden) of all children live in poverty. Unemployment, poverty, and inequality are intrinsic to capitalism. Sustaining a "super welfare state", moreover, requires coercive institutions--something that's not particularly desirable.

If we pressupose Idealism, we could, for example, assert that in Sweden, (While Ignoring Class relations) "Immoral" and "Corrupt" people got a hold and created a NeoLiberalism (As, Neo Liberalism was instituted) and that simply Morals are the solution.




The world is shaped by ideas.

Now that's a silly argument. No, the world is shaped by Material conditions, of which Ideas simply follow.


If not, then the Russian revolution could have never occurred under the banner of socialism.

This is a good example. The Russian revolution was a revolution made directly by already existing material forces, i.e. Socialism was merely the rhetoric of this material force. So it's a good example on my behalf.

The Russian Revolution was not a revolution for socialism. On the contrary, Socialism was an ideological revolution for the Russian Revolution. Matter precedes thought. Even Bakunin (Though inconsistant) acknowledged this, as I read in his work: God and State.


Though ideas are confined to the prevailing material conditions.


They are, but I don't buy that they have any real potential external from a material force backing them. Ideas are really useless. Look how much the garbage from Occupy Wallstreet got powerful, even though it was theoretically weak. You here every day people describing class as "99%" and "1%" and so on. It just goes to show that real, material forces are what create and shape Ideas, not the other way around.

The Communist rhetoric of a lot of users here is a thousand times more complex and logical than the rhetoric of OWS, but as it remains an Idea, it is useless and means absolutely nothing.



Material force does not exist independent of will.

Indeed it does. Material force exists beyond simply humans, but that's a different argument. In response to humans, yes, it does. It is because the "Will" itself is a product of material conditions, and nothing more.

This is what I like about Marx's theory of Commodity fetishism. No matter what Bourgeois Ideas are ahold, what they produce overrides existing Bourgeois ideology and replaces it with a new one. It is as if the Ideas of the humans can't even withstand the coming material forces invading. Ideas are overrided.


The will of people is shaped by the material conditions,

Firstly, by "People" I assume you mean all humans. A human will is shaped and created by material conditions, and these material conditions themselves exist independent of will, and so do material forces (If they truly override will).


but exist autonomously of it.

Wrong. This "Will" is constantly effected and overrided by material conditions. Only one ideological exit point can override the material force of commodity fetishism: Proletarian consciousness, as a direct reflection of material conditions.


The bourgeois revolutions were motivated by the bourgeoisie's sense of justice, while the material conditions allowed for the establishment of the capitalist mode of production.

That's ludicrous. The Bourgeois revolutions were never motivated by Ideas, on the contrary, they were motivated by a class which sought to maximize itself over all others, and break free from the constraints set forth by the Feudal mode of production. The Ideological rhetoric was not even very substantial either, it was almost as if they weren't trying to hide they didn't give a fuck about those things, i.e. They were just reflections of the material condition, the material condition that was their class's contradiction with all others.

To say that there existed their will, that coexisted with Material conditions, which just magically happened to coincidentally meet each other in History, like those couples who say their relationship was destined, is absurdity. They were instristically connected, and even the Idealists recognize this. The point, though, for materialists, is to recognize this simple fact: It was those Ideas, of which were a mere slave and product of the real material forces set in place over time, i.e. the Merchant class and so on. Without this class set in place, there would be virtually no demand (Other then, from the Peasantry) to overthrow Monarchy, as their class existence is never contradictory to the existing political order. This Ideological rhetoric was a mere product of the Bourgeois class, which developed sometime during the rotting of Feudalism, and finally finished off it's contradiction and set itself not emancipated, not free, but forever empowered.


While it is true that capitalists did not consciously implement capitalism, they did however consciously implement liberal democracy in accordance with their ideas.

They only did so as Liberal Democracy was demanded by the material force that was their class, i.e. In order for capital and so on to exist satisfied, Liberal Democracy, for them, was necessary. Their "Ideas" were shaped by the material conditions that were the Feudal mode of production, as a reaction. They had no will divorced of material conditions or the material world.


What you fail to realise here, though, is the reason that capitalism was established 'automatically' is because it was based on the "invisible hand": the market economy.

And I, and Marx, call this invisible hand the productive forces, i..e material conditions and force.

Capitalism wasn't implemented based on the Idea of the Invisible hand, on the contrary, the conception of the Invisible hand followed capitalism. The point, is that capitalism, full, Liberal capitalism that is, became necessary to satisfy the mode of production and material existence.

Capitalists, the Bourgeoisie, had absolutely no Idea of what a new society on their behalf would look like. None whatsoever. It was only after they implanted their class interest, divorced of any "Ideas" that they saw the inevitable outcome.

Men and Women make history, but not through their Ideas or Will. They do so, almost unconsciously.


Capitalists did not need to have an idea of what capitalism would look like as they operated a "self-adjusting mechanism", namely competitive markets.

The concept of an Invisible hand and Self Adjusting mechanism, and all of that political economy, wasn't conjured up before Capitalism was in full motion. They did indeed knwo what it would have to look like. Capitalists couldn't, for example, guess how exactly people would go about their day in Capitalism, they wouldn't have been able to predict suburbia, and so on.

What I am getting at is this Dynamic process of constant, radical material change is not unique to capitalism, as a matter of fact, it existed in all modes of production. No one in Slave Society could predict Feudalism's characteristics, and I bet no one in Rome could have predicted that those Middle Eastern savages would dominate the world, and, in turn, I can bet that those Middle Easterners would never have predicted that European barbarians would advance in the way they did. Serfs, and so on, the Merchant class, the structure of Feudalism, was beyond those whom it was established on behalf.


Socialism on the other hand is not based on a market economy, and will conduct economic life in accordance with a conscious economic plan (i.e. a planned economy).

Socialism and Communism are both processes, just like Capitalism. No one can predict what will be necessary in accordance to material conditions.

And Capitalism is very planned, if you didn't know. Yet it's still extremely dynamic. I fail to see how a future society, beyond it, would be any different, especially in the twenty first century.

Real Material force precedes imagination. Only when the constraint of Bourgeois society is furthered, can we even guess what a society beyond Bourgeois society will even appear like in a mediocre sense.


Economic conduct, moreover, is performed by the workers as a whole, and all workers therefore require conscious knowledge of what socialism entails.


There are billions of humans on Earth. It's quite Utopian to not only assert that a mode of production can be estabilisehd, the movement of class relations, based on will, but to assert that it will all be managed by billions of human beings is just beyond ludicrous.


These questions about "how will this be arranged under communism" do not serve as blueprints, but rather the visualisation of a future society to test its credibility.

In what way are those exclusive? No one can guess how anything will be arranged, and no one can know of it's "Credibility", as we are only given pressuposions given by Bourgeois society, and nothing beyond that.

To visualize a future society, it destroys the point of socialism: Not to establish or for fill our great "Theoretical" ideas about what can replace capitalism, but an Ideological vanguard of a real, existing movement, an existing material force, the revolutionary proletariat. Socialism is meaningless, as it is symbolic: It represents real material forces. There can be no sacrifice for Socialism, but only Sacrifice for the Revolutionary Proletarian struggle, the movement.


They help people understand how communism could work. It is ludicrous to think that the working class will allow for communism while they think it is impossible.

Communism, indeed, is their child. They are the ones who gave birth to it, and indeed, they will once more, (As an Ideology). They don't require figures external from them to do so. They need not be convinced of anything, just as the Bourgeoisie wasn't in need of doing so. Their goal, ultimitally, is to crush the Bourgeois class and abolish themselves. Again, as I said, no matter what positions members of the proletariat hold today, real material circumstances cause them to abandon them immediately. Mass workers in the U.S. weren't convinced of anything, it was a real, revolutionary, material force which overrode their consciousness, and they joined in.

On an unrelated note, this is somewhat the nature of riots. No matter how pacifist the individual, many join Riots almost uncontrollably.


Even when a class dictatorship has been established by the working class, this does not mean communism is introduced as it would naturally flow from it.


It means which ever they deem necessary will be implemented in accordance to material conditions. You are divorcing Communism from the proletariat. Here is a question: What if they replace Communism with some other Ideological rhetoric to represent them as a class? It's very possible. Spartacus was no red flag carrying individual.



Indeed, it's subjective. But I don't see any problem with that.


It's a weak argument. Nothing makes your morality superior to that of the Bourgeoisie. It is about force. And in the end, the Proletariat doesn't need them, and that's what makes them as a class superior, not some nonsense Morality that forms as a reflection of their class. Again, products of Material force are useless to the actual force.


What does proletarian emancipation entail? Petite-bourgeois socialism? If not, then surely you have an idea of what communism is?


Proletarian Emancipation is a core ideological rhetoric of the Proletarian class. Allow me to explain.

The Bourgeois class formed rhetoric, concepts, such as "Liberty" as a core ideological vanguard. What Liberty meant was that they were not going to abolish themselves, i.e. They were going to drag all of society in, and dominate it in accordance to capital. They did not want to break free of their class, but create the required mechanisms to enhance their own position.

What makes a proletarian revolutionary is his struggle to emancipate himself from being a Proletarian. It is their struggle to abolish themselves.

So no, don't misinterperate it as Emancipation from real objective circumstances to form an isolated commune, but to emancipate themselves from the clutches of Bourgeois society, and doing so requires the destruction of Bourgeois society.


Here is what the dictatorship of the proletariat will look like if people have no idea what communism is: Argentine 2002 (though more widespread). Workers would form popular assemblies, and in a sense communes, to restructure infrastructure, healthcare, and so forth. They simultaneously expropriate factories and form workers' councils. But given that they have no idea what communism is, these worker-run workplaces will relate to each other by means of the market.

That isn't at all what occurred in Argentina in 2002. Such wasn't a proletarian movement of revolutionary emancipation, but a means of surviving the capitalist crises that hit hard. Indeed, they do not know of what to do through revolutionary strategy, but such is something that they can form themselves. The fact that they related to each other by means of the market sais a lot about the class character of this spontaneous outburst.

This esscence of Proletarian exit, this seed, is antithetical to the capitalist mode of production. And, after all, capitalism's destruction is inevitable. A proletarian conciounsess, like the ones formed in Russia and Geramny, would form antithetical, totally different and radically opposed to Markets, justas Bouregois conciousness existed totally different and radically opposed to Monarchy.

One could imagine a member of the Bourgeois class saying to a Materialist "Well, if we don't show our Ideas, then a new Bourgeois revolution would not know what to do and resort to the ever lasting natural laws of Monarchy".

Such was never the case.


They will not challenge the existence of money, or even competitive markets. That is to say, without an idea of how communism works, any working-class revolution will be petite-bourgeois socialist.

That's wrong. Money, competitive markets, do not exist naturally, they have to be imposed. To break free of Bourgeois society is to break free of this imposion.

And besides, who remembers the Bolshevik revolution, where they explicitly went out of their way to oppose the former society in all ways possible, from clothing to even language? Or the French Revolution? These things you mentioned are exclusive to Bourgeois society, and therefore will, if necessary, disregarded.

If they do not work, if they are catastrophic, as you say, they will be reversed.

If we even pressupose you are right, then common sense, and experience will persuade them otherwise. Workers are not like cattle, they are just as complex as machines as the Bourgeoisie.


You can argue that money will become superfluous automatically, but the workers need to realise this and formulate a different economic plan as a surrogate.


So you're just declaring things. You don't explain why, or why us, who exist external from a revolutionary material force, should be the ones to formulate this, when there does not even exist a revolutionary programme. No one can guess. This is up to the champions of the revolution.


Hence, I see no problem in identifying sketches of a hypothetical future communist society.


Then, back to my point, what is wrong with making sketches of potential capitalist societies, though just under the control of "Moral" and "Educated" individuals? Surly to you, an Idealist, you would realize that Material forces, such as Capital, stand no chance in the face of the glorious "Human Will" you praise and consider external from material reality, no?

We all know the classic Marxist line about how Power will inevitably be swung in the direction of capital, if existent in Bourgeois society, though, this pressuposes materialism. You can't provide any theorietical evidence that capitalism is instiristic to poverty without first presupposing Materialism.

You talk of Sweden being a socalled failure (It is, but remember, I'm devils advocate), but, with this, as an Idealist, surly you recognize that all the Communist attempts are failures, no? The same argument you use for Sweden, I can use for Communist nations.

And, for the record, you would say "But dey are not communist". I can reply by saying Sweden, or any other capitalist state for that matter, doesn't fit my description for a Capitalist Social Democratic Utopia.

Do you see the game we are playing now? You either adopt Materialism, or dump Communism. There is no more bullshitting, this is not the 1800s anymore. My socalled Wonderful Utopia is abstract and has never existed, and Neither has yours. Therefore it's a game of choice, will, and wits about who can create the best "Society" while explicitly ignoring material forces and conditions, which don't even exist.

And if you want to use Marxist economics to discredit my Utopia, and show me mathematically how it can not work, you must pressupose Materialism, and if you do, you're being inconsistent. There exists no legitimant Idealist criticism of Capitalism, none the less an Idealist justification for Communism.


Call me utopian if you want, but I find it wholly unreasonable to expect workers to allow for communism while they object to its feasibility.


It is not about you "Idea creators", you gods, imposing your Ideas and using the Proletariat, as if they are cattle, as a means of for filling it. This is their ideology, and it originated form them. And if it does not return int eh same form, they will conjure up a new one which will replace it. You, seemingly present yourself as the embodiment of a dead Ideology which no longer has any class base, i.e. You are the remnant, Ideologically, of this movement, of this Ideology, which had a force beyond itself and reached us Western Intellectuals in the 21st century.



There is two flaws in this argument. Capitalism was not established by means of revolution.

What do you mean by Capitalism? Without these revolutions, it would never had survived, but you are right, I suppose. I have an argument developed to counter what you write in the bottom which you haven't taken into account.


It originated organically and automatically as the productive forces advanced. From feudalism to mercantile trade to commercial agriculture, from which capitalism germinated. Moreover, the capitalist mode of production preceded bourgeois revolution. Thus, if you are consistent yourself you must advocate a gradual transition from capitalism to the socialist mode of production after which a new political system is established in accordance with the already established socialist mode of production.

Of course! Capitalism was naturally evolved from Feudalism, and the Bourgeois revoltuions finally knocked down the remaining constraints and let free the market. We know, as all Marxists do.

But you are forgetting something, which is desperatly important: The Bourgeois class was never a class which wanted to abolish itself. What do I mean by this? The Bourgeois class wanted to triumph over all others, it wanted to maximize itself and impose itself. It was as if a proud Slave owner, oppressed by a king, overthrew this king over time.

A proletarian, on the contrary, seeks not to maximize himself, and his class, but to abolish himself and his class. This is why proletarians are the only ones that can lead into a supposed classless society: They, as a class, do not want themselves, do not want to be proletarians. The Bourgeoisie always wanted to be a higher, more advanced and explosive, all powerful form of themselves. This is why Capitalism was able to naturally, almost, coexist with the orders inherent to feudalism: Because the Bourgeois class was not antithetical to it's class position in Feudalism, it merely wanted to excel. Proletarians, on the contrary, will destroy capitalism violently, mercilessly with an Iron fist, in order to destroy themselves.

A mode of production which serves the proletariat cannot coexist within capitalism naturally simply because there is no mode of production which the proletariat can utilize to maximize itself economically in the market and so on: There can only, for them, exist a mode of production which will abolish itself.

A Bourgeois needs Proletarians, and cannot allow this. But a king, on the contrary, had no qualms with this class maximizing itself, within the constraint his class set forth, or the material forces, set forth.


We are in capitalism, and the productive forces advance gradually altering the social organisation of society. Money will become less in use, and finally from advances in the productive forces a socialist society has gradually arosen.

This is absurd Evolutionary Socialism nonsense.

Again, there exists no structure inherent to capitalism, that can exist within capitalism, that can serve a proletarian. Capitalism, like the Master of a Slave, must be abolished immediately for them to reach their ends. Contrary to the Bourgeois class, which can gradually mutate within a previous mode of production, and excel it's own class, not to abolish itself, but to exemplify itself. The Proletariat, must abolish itself.


The capitalists gave up their means of production mostly voluntary as they became less profitable,

What a fucking joke. As if their massive state, and police, will allow such to occur. Not to mention that your so called cooperatives area already inherent to the capitalist mode of production and therefore enemies of the proletariat, as they stand int he way of them abolishing themselves.

There would, even if we minus the existing social order, just be a new Bourgeoisie to replace the former, and all of the same contradictions we see in the capitalist mode of production (Falling rate of Profit, Crises, and so on) Will be just as, if not more so (Without the rapid competition) abundant.

Capital will still exist, and all existing power will be subdued to it's will, as Capital devours all societies in which even a tad bit of it's existence is present, as we saw with Feudalism and even some Military Dictatorships, or how about the Soviet Union?

You are suggesting the empowerment of the Petite Bourgeoisie, and nothing more. It's pathetic how you are subdued to all of these new bizarre concepts simply by the own blind ramblings displayed by yourself in a post, that of which is so incoherent even the most vicious opponents to myself will simply laugh in the face of such an obscure, "Graudialist" assertion.



and slowly money became superfluous. Then, after the socialist mode of production has been established, parliamentary democracy is overthrown by a revolution or it withers away of its own accord. This would, by extension of your logic, the path on how to achieve socialism.

My bad, I didn't know that you were not asserting this. Forgive me.

Anyway, I've already explained that, the proletariat itself is a class which seeks to abolish itself, while the Bourgeois class did not. And that is the distinction and difference. The seed of this abolishment is already present within the proletarian class. The highest expression of it's will, revolution, will give birth to a new mode of production in which it can abolish itself and survive, and meet it's own ends. Just as the path to home Spartacus and his comrades were on was their ultimate goal, and not what they would do when they get there. This is partially why Marx was so obsessed with Spartacus: No Bullshit, no Ideological rhetoric, just pure, and brutal class interest seen with the naked eye. No emotional rhetoric, no music, no songs, just a clear programme. There was no compromise. Their class interest was seen with uttermost clarity. Spartacus didn't portray himself as Hero, but a leader, to lead an emancipation. He did not want to bring vengeance on Rome.


Another problem that arises from the notion of your historical materialism is the same problem Amadeo Bordiga faced when denouncing the Soviet Union as state-capitalist. If we can't know what socialism will look like, then how can one denounce the USSR or market socialism as a form of capitalism?

What an absurd notion. Because the capitalist mode of production, today, is seen, and was analyzed by Marx. With these same tenets set forth as to what constitutes capitalism, this can be applied to the USSR or Worker cooperatives. You seem to think that there can only exist either capitalism or socialism, and nothing else, even though the majority of Humanities existence was without both. You're right, we don't know what Socialism or Communism is, and therefore have absolutely no right in declaring "Dey are not Real Communism!". Communism doesn't exist in the abstract, and does not exist at all. We call them Communist states because we identify this particular form of communism as a capitalist mode of production.

The point is not to identify what qualities the USSR/Coops did not have and then calling them capitalist, but analyzing their mode of production, and productive relations within it, and then coming to the conclusion they are capitalist. We materialists judge things not for what they are not, but for what they are.

You seem to pressupose that we think that "Well, since the USSR didn't have X quality, they are Capitalist". X quality does not exist, it is abstract.

We say "well, we know fuck all about what Communism looks like, but judging from what the USSR did have, it was a capitalist state."

You seem to think that if it is not X thing, then it is automatically Y thing. It was a capitalist state for what it did have, not for what "Communist" qualities it did not.

My criticism of the USSR doesn't extend beyond that, as I have no clue about what "Communist qualities" are. I only know what is inherent to capitalism.

I mean with that logic, with your logic, then everything that isn't X abstract Communist quality, to Bordiga, is Capitalist. How ludicrous. So Feudalist states, because of this, were capitalist states as well? Of course, doen't deviate from the point, of Course hte USSR was capitalist. But again, not for what it did not have, but for what it did have.

Your understanding of Bordiga is ridiculous.



This compelled Bordiga to write a book on what socialism would look like (one characteristic being it would be moneyless).


Which one? If he did make such a book, then I am to denounce him.

[Rafiq]

It's fair to emphasize material / economic historical determinism, but you take it to the extent of making a socialist revolution sound downright *automatic*, as if it would inevitably emerge from the sheer inertia of historical development.

You're missing the whole point. What is Socialist revolution? To hell with it. The point is Proletarian Revolution. Socialism is a mere Ideological rhetoric of the Proletarian class. That is the point. And as a materialist, I say there exists a contradiction between the Proletariat and the Bourgeois class, which would then compel the proletarian to create revolution, using whatever ideological rhetoric they seem fit.

Socialism, was never about the Ideas being for filled by proletarians. It was almost the opposite.

I mean, of course such a specific "Idea" which has no correlation (That is, the Socialism put forward by some users here) to reality any more needs to be institued by harsh Ideas. But that is not the point. If the Proletariat were to abandon it in favor of another ideology which would forifll it's class interest, a new one to replace it, by all means, I support this.

it comes down to this: Do you support Socialism, or the Proletarian class's revolution and destruction of Bourgeois society? The former, as Ideology always changes, may not be inherent objectively to the latter. That is, of course we are Socialists, but socialism is supersturcutre, it is secondary to real base which is to be fully supported at all costs.


TC is correct to point out that all types of class rule so far have lagged behind material developments

Name one. There has been none. The Bourgeois revolutions were a result of material development, i.e. the material development of their class which was seen contradictory, or was contradictory to the ruling classes in Feudalism.

X mode of production does not always carry the seeds, or forces which exist to support it. Proletarian revolution is inherent to capitalism, but that doesn't mean it exists to save or benefit capitalism. Marx was right when he indeed pointed out that capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction, indeed, it does.


-- this may turn out to be the case as well for the rise of the proletariat over the demise of capitalism,

They exist to destroy themselves. How is this "Lagging behind" the material conditions which necessitate such?


but socialists would *not* have the luxury of only a *partial* consciousness about it all.

Then to hell with them. I support the Proletariat's own class consciousness, and if this becomes antithetical to the Socialism which has, since the 90's, been divorced from them, then so be it.

Socialism and Communism may very well be withered away, but Marxism will always be here. And it will be the task of Marxists to make scientific whatever ideological rhetoric any genuine proletarian movement conjure up, just as Marxists did to the Utopians, just as many proletarians were those same Marxists.


Collective *subjective* understanding and intention -- as per a thought-out plan -- would be an imperative prerequisite for assuming collective control over a *planned* economy.


An economy which lacks the required mechanisms for anyone to predict, which does not exist, which is abstract, which is therefore useless, illegitimate, and absurd for anyone to refer to or talk about today.

Again, Socialism is not he fulfillment of one's Ideas, using the proletariat as a means. It never was. And if it is, to hell with Socialism.

[Rafiq]

Socialism or barbarism.

Though catastrophe is far away, the rate profit in the long run has declined, but thanks to fictionalization, it has been on the upswing from the 70's. Socialism has to be the will of the proletariat.

Aside from the ideological jargon, in all fairness, capitalism is reaching a tremendous crises and the rate of profit is falling, and fictionalization has transformed into simple debt which can never be alleviated.

There is no way out of this crises within the constraint of Bourgeois legalism. Literally. There is no more NeoLiberalism or Fictionalization to deploy, there isn't any more war time Keynsianism that could work, and so on. We may very well be reaching closer to a dead end. Though, perhaps, something horrible can come out of it. The point is, Liberalism can no longer survive and is indeed dying.

[ckaihatsu]

You're missing the whole point.




What is Socialist revolution? To hell with it. The point is Proletarian Revolution.


Yes, agreed, but your entire thesis one-sidedly emphasizes the 'base' out of the 'base-and-superstructure' dialectic.





Socialism is a mere Ideological rhetoric of the Proletarian class. That is the point. And as a materialist, I say there exists a contradiction between the Proletariat and the Bourgeois class, which would then compel the proletarian to create revolution, using whatever ideological rhetoric they seem fit.


Sure -- I agree politically with this.





Socialism, was never about the Ideas being for filled by proletarians. It was almost the opposite.


But here you sound stuck in the past if you're emphasizing *historical* interpretations of 'socialism' -- how might the proletariat of *today* use 'socialism' in an ideological way -- ?





I mean, of course such a specific "Idea" which has no correlation (That is, the Socialism put forward by some users here) to reality any more needs to be institued by harsh Ideas. But that is not the point. If the Proletariat were to abandon it in favor of another ideology which would forifll it's class interest, a new one to replace it, by all means, I support this.

it comes down to this: Do you support Socialism, or the Proletarian class's revolution and destruction of Bourgeois society?


You're making a spurious dichotomy out of the two. This is not the best political point to make.





The former, as Ideology always changes, may not be inherent objectively to the latter. That is, of course we are Socialists, but socialism is supersturcutre, it is secondary to real base which is to be fully supported at all costs.


(Again -- your entire thesis one-sidedly emphasizes the 'base' out of the 'base-and-superstructure' dialectic.)





TC is correct to point out that all types of class rule so far have lagged behind material developments





Name one. There has been none. The Bourgeois revolutions were a result of material development, i.e. the material development of their class which was seen contradictory, or was contradictory to the ruling classes in Feudalism.


Here:





While it is true that capitalists did not consciously implement capitalism, they did however consciously implement liberal democracy in accordance with their ideas. What you fail to realise here, though, is the reason that capitalism was established 'automatically' is because it was based on the "invisible hand": the market economy. Capitalists did not need to have an idea of what capitalism would look like as they operated a "self-adjusting mechanism", namely competitive markets.




Capitalism was not established by means of revolution. It originated organically and automatically as the productive forces advanced. From feudalism to mercantile trade to commercial agriculture, from which capitalism germinated. Moreover, the capitalist mode of production preceded bourgeois revolution.





X mode of production does not always carry the seeds, or forces which exist to support it. Proletarian revolution is inherent to capitalism, but that doesn't mean it exists to save or benefit capitalism. Marx was right when he indeed pointed out that capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction, indeed, it does.


Agreed.





They exist to destroy themselves. How is this "Lagging behind" the material conditions which necessitate such?


Proletarian revolution hasn't happened yet even though the material conditions for such have been favorable for many decades now.





Then to hell with them. I support the Proletariat's own class consciousness, and if this becomes antithetical to the Socialism which has, since the 90's, been divorced from them, then so be it.

Socialism and Communism may very well be withered away, but Marxism will always be here. And it will be the task of Marxists to make scientific whatever ideological rhetoric any genuine proletarian movement conjure up, just as Marxists did to the Utopians, just as many proletarians were those same Marxists.




An economy which lacks the required mechanisms for anyone to predict, which does not exist, which is abstract, which is therefore useless, illegitimate, and absurd for anyone to refer to or talk about today.

Again, Socialism is not he fulfillment of one's Ideas, using the proletariat as a means. It never was. And if it is, to hell with Socialism.


Okay.

[aristos]

They miss the point that Ideas and thought are useless in comparison with real, material force independent of will. It assumes that, a revolution is the fulfillment of our Ideas, the actualization of our thought, and from there, it's based upon our will to construct a new society.

And yet you yourself are guided by Marxist thought, and without having been exposed to Marxist ideas, would in all probability have never become a Marxist.
Ideas and deliberation guide and shape the world as much as the random clashes of material circumstances.

[Rafiq]

Yes, agreed, but your entire thesis one-sidedly emphasizes the 'base' out of the 'base-and-superstructure' dialectic.

Precisely, but it is the superstructure which one cannot emphasis, as it is nothing without the base. The base, on the contrary, can re invent the superstructure at any time.



But here you sound stuck in the past if you're emphasizing *historical* interpretations of 'socialism' -- how might the proletariat of *today* use 'socialism' in an ideological way -- ?


We are seeing a rise in class conciseness globally. To answer quite modestly, I don't know. I don't think anyone can predict that.



You're making a spurious dichotomy out of the two. This is not the best political point to make.


The point is simple: Since the 90's, we have seen a divorce of the two.



Here:


Which, if you read my post addressing his, I fully discredited.



Proletarian revolution hasn't happened yet even though the material conditions for such have been favorable for many decades now.


Then the material conditions have not been favorable. Actually, since the 90's, the International Left and the Proletariat which was it's base suffered a tremendous blow. Material Conditions have been awful for Proletarian revolution.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think that we have to be careful about over-stressing the "base" against the "super-structure" because that can obscure the complicated relationship between the two, above all the fact that the super-structure is the medium through which the base is actually experienced, but as a brief summary, yeah, this is pretty much on the mark.

[ckaihatsu]

Precisely, but it is the superstructure which one cannot emphasis, as it is nothing without the base. The base, on the contrary, can re invent the superstructure at any time.


I'll have to politely disagree here, then, because I think the relationship is really more of a chicken-or-the-egg one. Material production would be *non-existent* if there wasn't some kind of *mythos* for why it's done the way it's done. It may be the gods, or that we're the "chosen people", or it could be "the natural way" -- whatever motivates people on a social level to "go with the flow" and take part in the societal reproduction of life according to prevailing social norms.

This (variably) subconscious level of individual functioning has to ultimately be supplanted with more of a *stewardship* mentality so that all individuals of the proletariat can *consciously* deal with social existence in a hands-on productively cooperative way in the world-at-large, demonstrating their newfound collective ability by overthrowing class rule, for starters.

[Rafiq]

But this mythos is quite.... How should we say, varying.. Remember the Marx quote: The ruling class regulates the ruling Ideas? Proletarian concoiusness is the only mode of thought in capitalism which could break free of this ideological mystification. But the point is that none of these superstructures mean anything without the base which could necessitate them. That's the point, and that is why an emphasis is put on the base.

[ckaihatsu]

But this mythos is quite.... How should we say, varying..




Remember the Marx quote: The ruling class regulates the ruling Ideas?


As tempting as it is to twist-the-knife here, I *will* lay off -- no need to repeat myself.

But please note that 'mythos' is the same as 'ideology' or 'the ideas of the ruling class'.





Proletarian concoiusness is the only mode of thought in capitalism which could break free of this ideological mystification.


Yes, certainly.





But the point is that none of these superstructures mean anything without the base which could necessitate them. That's the point, and that is why an emphasis is put on the base.


You've made this point very clear, to put it diplomatically. Nonetheless you haven't refuted my argument that it's a chicken-or-the-egg circular causality between base and superstructure.

[Art Vandelay]

I think that we have to be careful about over-stressing the "base" against the "super-structure" because that can obscure the complicated relationship between the two, above all the fact that the super-structure is the medium through which the base is actually experienced, but as a brief summary, yeah, this is pretty much on the mark.

I would be interested in seeing this addressed some more, I do not mean to hijack a thread, but I have been contemplating this alot lately. I think once I develop my own opinion on this then it will send me down either two distinct political paths.

[MotherCossack]

listen... I am a self-confessed very dim individual.. who has very poor mult-tasking capabilities and who can only grasp complex concepts and ideas if she really focuses ....

and I am currently stressed out and over-tired....

so bear with me....
is rafiq saying that the proletarian revolution, that is mentioned by Marx and so many others.... that some of us look forward to....
is he saying that we have no control over it, that it can not be anticipated or initiated. And that the actual uprising will be a natural.... almost chemical reaction to events/ when capitalism reaches a certain level of decomposition or disintegration.
So if we try to take matters into our own hands and use our will to influence the course of things it will upset the balence of things and even possibly delay the natural antithesis which Marx asserted will inevitably follow the failure of Capitalism.

Am i sort of getting there...? if so...
Shit... let me go away to re-think my whole existance.

I think maybe we need more than one rev-left....
it is such a different view...they are so opposed to one another....
The result will, hopefully, be similar... [I know, I know.... you cant pre-empt things...but]....
It is just a hugely different way of getting there....
GOD.... I am so dumb.... Sorry

[ckaihatsu]

I would be interested in seeing this addressed some more


Here's a more 'artistic' take on the superstructure aspect of it.... Anything it's not could be considered as part of the 'base', I suppose....


[9] culture and critique framework

http://postimage.org/image/1bx6ifv9g/

[Tim Finnegan]

I have no idea what I just saw, but that's not really what I was getting at. What I'm saying is at the level of actual human existence, the social relations of production are is experienced through the media of culture, politics and law, and that they are in practice embedded in a set of historically specific cultural, political and legal practices, institutions, perspectives, etc. It's not enough to simply note as the vulgar materialists do that the superstructure develops within the terms of the base, because, firstly, that something is emergent from material production does not mean it is reducible to material production, and, secondly, because the daily reproduction of capitalist social relations is mediated through the superstructure, the superstructure is thus the means by which human beings act upon the superstructure, that the superstructure itself determines the base. (Noting, of course, that the extent to which the superstructure may act upon the base is determined by the base itself.) What this means is that while utopianism is founded on the ontologically invalid belief that society develops through the exercise of concious will upon it, it means that the exercise of concious will is necessary for the development of society.

tl;dr: peeps ain't robuts.

[Rafiq]

You've made this point very clear, to put it diplomatically. Nonetheless you haven't refuted my argument that it's a chicken-or-the-egg circular causality between base and superstructure.

What is the relevance of this? If the superstructure is destroyed, the base will make a new one. Just as if Communist ideology is destroyed, the Proletariat would create a new one, or if Bourgeois ideology is, etc. etc. etc. (Is this not partially the rise of Fascism's explanation?)

[Rafiq]

And yet you yourself are guided by Marxist thought, and without having been exposed to Marxist ideas, would in all probability have never become a Marxist.
Ideas and deliberation guide and shape the world as much as the random clashes of material circumstances.

Marxist "ideas" are a direct reflection of capitalism, and of understanding human history. Without the constraint put forward by capitalism, there would be no Marxism. What a horrible argument. "Ideas", i.e. Marxism do not guide or shape the world at all. It merely serves to analyze the material forces which do shape the world.

Ideas are useless in the face of Material change. Even we see with commodity fetishism, Ideas kneel down before material forces.

[Tim Finnegan]

What is the relevance of this? If the superstructure is destroyed, the base will make a new one. Just as if Communist ideology is destroyed, the Proletariat would create a new one, or if Bourgeois ideology is, etc. etc. etc. (Is this not partially the rise of Fascism's explanation?)
Not really, no.

[ckaihatsu]

What is the relevance of this? If the superstructure is destroyed, the base will make a new one.


This, ironically, smacks of idealism since the superstructure would not just "[be] destroyed". There would have to be real material circumstances that cause its "destruction", in which case it wouldn't actually be *destroyed* -- what you *mean* is that it would be a sudden, jarring change from what came before, as after a gargantuan catastrophe that laid waste to civilization and its productive base as we know it.





Just as if Communist ideology is destroyed, the Proletariat would create a new one, or if Bourgeois ideology is, etc. etc. etc.


(Again, you're going out on a limb by referring to *any* superstructural system of ideology as being "destroyed".)

By the same token I could say that if a catastrophe of fictional proportions reduced the productive base to tatters there would be a corresponding dialectical alteration in the prevailing ideas (superstructure) of the time as well -- together, the two would work in a complementary way to assert a new societal paradigm.





(Is this not partially the rise of Fascism's explanation?)


Bourgeois ideology has never been destroyed -- the lagging-but-quickening industrial development of lesser imperialist states led to heated international competition and the emergence of ultra-nationalistic (fascistic) political sentiments within those developing nations as a way of asserting their status and nationalism on the world bourgeois scene -- tolerated by the leading bourgeois powers for a time -- at horrific expense to humanity.

This would be an excellent example of how material developments in the base determine profound shifts in the superstructural paradigm.


One argument to refute your base-determinist position would be the simple fact that today there exists more-than-sufficient material productive capacity for a proletarian revolution to occur, and for socialism to be ushered in. Yet we are at a standstill, a condition of circumstances that *cannot* be explained from objective conditions in only the base itself.

[Lowtech]

communism is hardly a super welfare state, Marxian economics has no alignment with welfare, "super welfare state" is capitalist jargon.

also a "better" capitalism will never be good enough, as socialist concepts such as welfare, minimum wage, free education all mediate disgusting flaws of capitalism, allowing it to extend it's lifespan.

there is no sense in increasing the socialist band-aid, making capitalism more tolerable instead of removing the illness altogether.

why would you pass around the idea that capitalism is at all productive? humans working together to survive is productive, exploiting it so a minority can concentrate most resources for themselves is not.

[Rafiq]

I have no idea what I just saw, but that's not really what I was getting at. What I'm saying is at the level of actual human existence, the social relations of production are is experienced through the media of culture, politics and law, and that they are in practice embedded in a set of historically specific cultural, political and legal practices, institutions, perspectives, etc. It's not enough to simply note as the vulgar materialists do that the superstructure develops within the terms of the base,

For what reason...? You acknowledge that the Media of Culture, politics and Law are in themselves direct reflections of the mode of production, no?
If you are implying that they carry a reinforcing potential, you're correct. The problem is that I don't know of any "Vulgar Materialists" who would imply otherwise. I think, though, the point is quite simple: Should material forces necessitate such, all thought, and Ideas, all of these institutions will be devoured by such. They, in themselves, pose no means of actual resistance against real material forces, i.e. because they themselves necessitate these material forces, as did their origins (Which was necessitated by material conditions). And even if you would find it necessary to say that some laws, and these institutions were established on behalf of another reinforcing institution or thought, etc. This doesn't invalidate the fact that either way, all of those things trace back to the real material forces which necessitated them.


because, firstly, that something is emergent from material production does not mean it is reducible to material production,

Care to name an instance in which the superstructure wasn't dependent or reducible to material production?


and, secondly, because the daily reproduction of capitalist social relations is mediated through the superstructure, the superstructure is thus the means by which human beings act upon the superstructure, that the superstructure itself determines the base.

The superstructure has never, and can never determine the base, just as thought itself cannot determine it's own base (I.e. The material brain which necessaited and produced it). The reinforcing potential can do a lot to alter and slightly change Ideology, of this there can be no doubt, but I see no reinforcing potential that can shape and adjust material forces and conditions to itself. It's quite the opposite.


(Noting, of course, that the extent to which the superstructure may act upon the base is determined by the base itself.)

Perhaps (I could be wrong), you are implying that the base is merely the material force which only sets the constraint, i.e. Which allows everything within it to exist, and not directly determine it? One of the several reasons I disdain from this is evidently because it implies that there exists a material base, and then within it, so long as it is within the constraint setforth, or, within the material base which only allows it, it is a 'free market' of thought, Ideas, and action. This is quite contradictory to the Materialism of Marx, and of Engels, and secondly, it is quite ahistorical. It doesn't account for the fact that virtually every existing ideology has morphed and shaped itself in accordance with Material conditions. Even in the most brute Ideological convictions, for example, what is upheld in Iran, is constantly forced to adjust itself to the confides of Capital, even if it means dumping whatever nonsense they originally adhered to. Or, for a better example, we can recall how in Stalinist Russia, it took nothing for Stalin or Khrushchev to completely contradict the "Party Line" when necessary.


What this means is that while utopianism is founded on the ontologically invalid belief that society develops through the exercise of concious will upon it, it means that the exercise of concious will is necessary for the development of society.

You have me confused. Did you not just state something twice? What distinguishes the bold section from the non bold section?


tl;dr: peeps ain't robuts.


I don't see what seperates a human being from a robot, other than we are "organic" and a bit more complex (Which is something that is only unique to modern times, i.e. THis will probably not be the case in the future).

Robots, or Computers, operate through several chemical imbalances or balances, changes in chemical structure and so on. This is exactly how the Human brain functions. Humans do not posses something, a potential external from the material forces which they came about. As a matter of fact, it's these material forces, these conditions, which separate us from any other animal. Without this, without this linguistic structure developed over time as a means for survival, without these complex and modes of production set forth external from will or consciousness, we are no more than our Chimp cousins.

Perhaps, there is a grain of truth in the conviction that Ideology is like an OS, and Theoretical structure is like a software.

[Rafiq]

communism is hardly a super welfare state, Marxian economics has no alignment with welfare, "super welfare state" is capitalist jargon.

also a "better" capitalism will never be good enough, as socialist concepts such as welfare, minimum wage, free education all mediate disgusting flaws of capitalism, allowing it to extend it's lifespan.

there is no sense in increasing the socialist band-aid, making capitalism more tolerable instead of removing the illness altogether.

why would you pass around the idea that capitalism is at all productive? humans working together to survive is productive, exploiting it so a minority can concentrate most resources for themselves is not.

What on earth are you babbling about? Did you even read the first post?

Capitalism is indeed productive, and even any idiot can acknowledge this. It's also one of the most cooperative modes of organization to ever exist in Human History. Why do Utopians have a fetish for "Cooperation" and so on? When I was first a socialist, i.e. a Utopian, I held on to such nonsense. It's foolish and an immature stage in revolutionary thought.

Capitalism is to be opposed for Scientific reasons, for it's systemic contradictions, not because there is this all powerful Idea, this thought, i.e. That "Humans are cooperative" and we have to return to our roots from Evil capitalism. Indeed, for any Marxist, it is preferable to move away from our roots.

[Rafiq]

Not really, no.

One could say it was, partially. The mystificaitons and illusions of Bourgeois Liberal Ideology were almost fully destroyed after World War one for Germany. The weak, and desperate capitalist mode of production found it necessary to necessitate Fascism to replace it. I don't mean to sound ridiculous, of course this was on behalf of human beings, but they did in themselves act upon a base in which they created devoid of will, and so on. In short: The Bourgeois class found it necessary to embody their class interests and material interests into a new Ideology, something superior to the dead Liberalism that was gone from Germany.

[Rafiq]

This, ironically, smacks of idealism since the superstructure would not just " destroyed". There would have to be real material circumstances that cause its "destruction", in which case it wouldn't actually be *destroyed* -- what you *mean* is that it would be a sudden, jarring change from what came before, as after a gargantuan catastrophe that laid waste to civilization and its productive base as we know it.

Just as material forces necessiated the destruction of Liberal illusions in Germany, this was not enough, i.e. what came to replace it was another set of Bourgeois illusions.

Therefore you cannot simply campaign to destroy the Liberal illusions, but the base which necessaites it.



(Again, you're going out on a limb by referring to *any* superstructural system of ideology as being "destroyed".)


Of course material forces are necessary for it's destruction. The offense on behalf of the Bourgeois class in the 80's and fall of the Communist states destroyed the ideological vanguard of the proletariat. But the contradictions in capitalism persisted, and indeed, the proletariat is now inventing a new ideology to embody it's interests within. Material forces, on the short term, do not make change in the long term.


By the same token I could say that if a catastrophe of fictional proportions reduced the productive base to tatters there would be a corresponding dialectical alteration in the prevailing ideas (superstructure) of the time as well -- together, the two would work in a complementary way to assert a new societal paradigm.

Which is true, no?


Bourgeois ideology has never been destroyed -- the lagging-but-quickening industrial development of lesser imperialist states led to heated international competition and the emergence of ultra-nationalistic (fascistic) political sentiments within those developing nations as a way of asserting their status and nationalism on the world bourgeois scene -- tolerated by the leading bourgeois powers for a time -- at horrific expense to humanity.

Bourgeois Ideology was never destroyed, but Bourgeois ideology takes many forms. Should one form be destroyed, like a cat with nine lives, it would re invent itself in one way or another (Fascism).

The rise of ultra nationalism is on par with the deterioration of Liberalism.


This would be an excellent example of how material developments in the base determine profound shifts in the superstructural paradigm.


Not necessarily, I wouldn't say it is an excellent example. The case of "Revisionism" in the Soviet Union or in other Communist states, though, would be.


One argument to refute your base-determinist position [B]would be the simple fact that today there exists more-than-sufficient material productive capacity for a proletarian revolution to occur, and for socialism to be ushered in. Yet we are at a standstill, a condition of circumstances that *cannot* be explained from objective conditions in only the base itself.


This is a ludicrous assertion. This doesn't take into account fictitious capital, the material developments from the 80's and 90's. You must note that Materialists acknowledge class war's existence, and the Proletariat took a major blow. I don't see how that contradicts any belief of mine. As a matter of fact, this blow was necesiated by the base, i.e. Proletarian vanguarded movements (Feminism, Civil Rights, Unions and so on) showed how powerful the proletariat was, whilst capitalism was deteriorating. In the 80's, it was found necessary to smash them as a class and beat them into submition in order to feed capital.

[ckaihatsu]

Just as material forces necessiated the destruction of Liberal illusions in Germany, this was not enough, i.e. what came to replace it was another set of Bourgeois illusions.

Therefore you cannot simply campaign to destroy the Liberal illusions, but the base which necessaites it.


Agreed, meaning a proletarian revolution to overthrow bourgeois rule, replacing it with workers democracy over production.

For the record I'll have to note that you were being somewhat disingenuous by implying that historical fascism destroyed the bourgeois ideology:





What is the relevance of this? If the superstructure is destroyed, the base will make a new one. Just as if Communist ideology is destroyed, the Proletariat would create a new one, or if Bourgeois ideology is, etc. etc. etc. (Is this not partially the rise of Fascism's explanation?)





Of course material forces are necessary for it's destruction. The offense on behalf of the Bourgeois class in the 80's and fall of the Communist states destroyed the ideological vanguard of the proletariat. But the contradictions in capitalism persisted, and indeed, the proletariat is now inventing a new ideology to embody it's interests within. Material forces, on the short term, do not make change in the long term.


---





By the same token I could say that if a catastrophe of fictional proportions reduced the productive base to tatters there would be a corresponding dialectical alteration in the prevailing ideas (superstructure) of the time as well -- together, the two would work in a complementary way to assert a new societal paradigm.





Which is true, no?


Yes, it's true.





Bourgeois Ideology was never destroyed, but Bourgeois ideology takes many forms. Should one form be destroyed, like a cat with nine lives, it would re invent itself in one way or another (Fascism).

The rise of ultra nationalism is on par with the deterioration of Liberalism.


True.





Not necessarily, I wouldn't say it is an excellent example. The case of "Revisionism" in the Soviet Union or in other Communist states, though, would be.


Fair enough.





One argument to refute your base-determinist position would be the simple fact that today there exists more-than-sufficient material productive capacity for a proletarian revolution to occur, and for socialism to be ushered in. Yet we are at a standstill, a condition of circumstances that *cannot* be explained from objective conditions in only the base itself.





This is a ludicrous assertion. This doesn't take into account fictitious capital, the material developments from the 80's and 90's. You must note that Materialists acknowledge class war's existence, and the Proletariat took a major blow. I don't see how that contradicts any belief of mine. As a matter of fact, this blow was necesiated by the base, i.e. Proletarian vanguarded movements (Feminism, Civil Rights, Unions and so on) showed how powerful the proletariat was, whilst capitalism was deteriorating. In the 80's, it was found necessary to smash them as a class and beat them into submition in order to feed capital.


Well, perhaps we have varying understandings of what 'base' and 'superstructure' are -- that's the only way there can be a divergence here, with your denying that you're a base-determinist.

You even *qualified* the degree to which the base is determining, just now, when you said that Soviet Union revisionism is a *better* example of the base determining the superstructure than the rise of fascism due to lagging industrialization.

If you're able to *qualify* such a dynamic that must mean that it *varies* as a determining factor, leaving only one *other* factor possible as a co-determinant: the superstructure.

I would term fictitious capital as a *superstructural* development, on the part of the ruling class, as an arbitrary but measured reaction to objective conditions.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't see what seperates a human being from a robot, other than we are "organic" and a bit more complex
Well, this seems to me what the rest of our disagreement boils down to, and because I'm not very enthusiastic about re-hashing a debate which has been running since the 17th century, so I'm just going to have to leave it at that.

[Thirsty Crow]

Just o to briefly address some of the points raised in OP:


The point, I believe, is quite simple: All of those threads out there, the ones talking of what a "Communist" society will or should look like, miss the point. They miss the point that Ideas and thought are useless in comparison with real, material force independent of will. It assumes that, a revolution is the fulfillment of our Ideas, the actualization of our thought, and from there, it's based upon our will to construct a new society. This isn't, evidently, how any mode of production formed. I highly doubt that the Bourgeois class had any sort of clue of what capitalism would look like, when taking the position of class dictatorship.

I agree that any talk of the specifics of social practice in communism (like the question, for example, how would education in global communism be organized specifically) is mere speculation and useless from the perspective of communists participation in and escalation of class struggle.

However, it should be readily apparent that when communists posit the abolition of capital - that by that very attitude, thought, call it what you will, we also posit the basis for a communist social formation simply by the virtue of actual knowledge regarding what capital, as well as its institutions, is. In this sense, I think that discussing concrete possibilities arising from the current social and economic situation is in fact important, especially when the topic of debate are possible actions once political power is conquered.

To address a broader point, it's somehow hard to see why we should pose this dichotomy of will/ideas and material force. In fact, in your own writing here it's entirely unclear what that material force would actually be. It's clear that no matter how nice the ideas upheld, when faced with the lack of possibility based on the organization of production and the development of productive forces these ideas are powerless and practically useless.

But we can flip this upside down and say that when concrete possibiliity actually exists, an assumed lack of practical thought (what Marxists call programme) will actually hinder the realization of the possibility for a new society. So, in this perspective, the ideas held and disseminated also constitute an important part in the overall revolutionary practice - transforming the social relations of production.

So in the end what we have is a twofold process of revolution where neither element should take exclusive priority. A will to action and the consciousness of goals and methods of their realization is that which enables the rela possibility to come to fruition in the form of a new society. If you think that somehow this represents a kind of an idealism or places too much emphasis on the subjective factors, then explain a bit if you don't mind (especially what these material forces represent if they represent something other than a definite level of development of the productive powers of mankind).

The point of Materialism is that matter precedes thought, i.e. Not simply in the sense that "Matter" in the metaphysical sense is before thought (As this is blatantly obvious to most people) but that productive forces, and their movement, precede thought and will.


A lot of people want a revolution to "establish" and actualize their Ideas, though, if it's that simple, why not have a revolution for a more regulated form of capitalism, a heavily regulated, almost proto-planned economy, similar to Fascism economically? Surly it is, at best, the most productive form of capitalism, no? Apart from the dubious assessment of a heavily regulated form of capitalism as the "most productive form" (productive of what? surplus value? techincal development? working class living standard?), it's unclear why you think that such a development would abolish the antagonism of class relations. And it's precisely this antagonism and the resulting social consequences for the global working class that is the key issue here, but that wouldn't be annuled or abolished by a heavily regulated capitalism.


And this is where it comes down to: That if we pressupose a revoltuion is simply about constructing a better society, we have absolutely no right to decide what the better society is.
We have no right? Talk about idealism. And who or what grants these rights to thinking heads? Under which conditions?

To clarify, I think that all of the wage labour class should think about and decide on "better society" - from our own perspective determined by our social position (within class relations). Without a notion of at least a possibility of a better society - a society devoid of class antagonism, unemployment, destitution and war - and the rudimentary notions of how the class movment might proceed to bring this situation about, any revolutionary upheaval is very unlikely.

EDIT:


Marxist "ideas" are a direct reflection of capitalism, and of understanding human history. Without the constraint put forward by capitalism, there would be no Marxism. What a horrible argument. "Ideas", i.e. Marxism do not guide or shape the world at all. It merely serves to analyze the material forces which do shape the world.

And how do these material forces, which presumably entail human activity in tranforming nature and reproducing society, not include ideas about that same activity and its goals simultaneously? As if humans engage in practical activity totally devoid of any though with regard to its purposes, methods, and implications. As if these material forces are some blind and metaphysical factor which has nothing to do with human consciousness.

[Tim Cornelis]

Some intermediate conclusions I drew from Rafiq's arguments:

If social organisation advances completely independent of will, then a social revolution by liberals, reformists, blanquists, and democrats could create communism should the material conditions "demand" it If social organisation advances completely independent of will there is no need to organise political parties, trade unions, etc. as these cannot alter the social organisation. Revolution (restructuring of base and superstructure) originates automatically out of the material conditions, no "push" needed. Conditions are unchangeable, and inevitable. Whatever happens, is the consequence of material conditions, and therefore could only be the only consequence of the material conditions


Correct me where I'm wrong.


To address a broader point, it's somehow hard to see why we should pose this dichotomy of will/ideas and material force.

Indeed, if material conditions determine base and superstructure inevitably, without any human interference, why bother denouncing idealism?

[Rafiq]

Agreed, meaning a proletarian revolution to overthrow bourgeois rule, replacing it with workers democracy over production.

Not just over production, but over everything (i.e. Mode of Production).


For the record I'll have to note that you were being somewhat disingenuous by implying that historical fascism destroyed the bourgeois ideology:


This is a gross misinterperitation. It was capitalism's inherent systemic contradictions which were unable to fuel the illusionary nature of Liberalism, so in turn, the Bougeois class created Fascism to replace it. That was the point, that by the time Fascism arose, Liberalism was already almost dead.


Well, perhaps we have varying understandings of what 'base' and 'superstructure' are -- that's the only way there can be a divergence here, with your denying that you're a base-determinist.


What are your understandings?


You even *qualified* the degree to which the base is determining, just now, when you said that Soviet Union revisionism is a *better* example of the base determining the superstructure than the rise of fascism due to lagging industrialization.

Simply because Fascism somewhat overthrew the already existing social orders in some way, to an extent, therefore it isn't that simple. A Bourgeois ideology was replaced by a newer one, one that was more efficient and useful for the Bourgeois class in that specific historical context.


If you're able to *qualify* such a dynamic that must mean that it *varies* as a determining factor, leaving only one *other* factor possible as a co-determinant: the superstructure.


The Superstructure has a reinforcing potential, though, it is by no means a co determinant. The base can find replacements for the superstructure, but this can not exist the other way around.


I would term fictitious capital as a *superstructural* development, on the part of the ruling class, as an arbitrary but measured reaction to objective conditions.


No, Neo Liberalism s the superstrucutral development, deployed only in correspondence with fictitious capital.

[Rafiq]

Some intermediate conclusions I drew from Rafiq's arguments:

If social organisation advances completely independent of will, then a social revolution by liberals, reformists, blanquists, and democrats could create communism should the material conditions "demand" it

What a ludicrous inteperitation. It is not a matter of will, it is the fact that Liberalism, Reformists, and so on are not Ideologies in themselves external from real material conditions, they are, in themselves, reflections of classes with several interests. There is a difference between real, material class interest and will, you know.

How ironic for Tim, in order to demonstrate my wronging, would pressupose an Idealist interperation of Ideology in order to make an argument against Materialism. The point is, for me, to attack your very original theoretical foundations in regards. What are Liberals? What are Reformists? These are the questions you should be asking. They do not hold the views they do because of "Will", they do so in the interest of a class, be it consciously or otherwise.

A "Communist" revolution, as in Communism, i.e. the embodiment of hte proletariat's material class interest, is inherent only to the proletariat. It is not a mere battle between "Ideas" or "Ideologies" to take ahold of class power, but of classes themselves, to which these Ideas are mere reflections.

Something like a proletarian class interest is a direct reflection of existing material conditions and material forces, not, as we would say, a "Will". For which this interest, which is a will, could not exist without the base which is determining it, therefore, it is capitalism, and it's base itself which necessitates Communist revolution, not the will of individuals. Proletariat, and Communism are merely contradictions within capitalism which the Bourgeois class was never able to address in a manner which could suppress.



If social organisation advances completely independent of will there is no need to organise political parties, trade unions, etc. as these cannot alter the social organisation

:rolleyes: Now you're getting pathetic.

Firstly, the point is not to deny will exists. The point is to assert it's origin. I said material forces develop independent of will, for which they do. You're just like Ismail, twisting words. I never mentioned "Social organization". Indeed, I said social organization itself is a superstructure, and not a base.

I assert that the Superstructure does not determine the base, for it is the other way around. Tell me where I mentioned Social organization? I did not.

You're missing the point: "Social Organization" and "Will" in this sense are interchangeable, (as in, movements). They both stem from real existing material conditions and a real existing material base. To say they are not dependent on this base is ludicrous.

And yes, you, as an individual, or any individuals, do not organize such parties or organizations at will, spontaneously. They do so in direct reflection of material conditions (I.e. The need of higher wages and so on). The proletariat doesn't need people such as yourself to do this for them, they will develop such when class consciousness is high. Without the latter, you and me are useless in this regards.


Revolution (restructuring of base and superstructure) originates automatically out of the material conditions, no "push" needed.

Assuming you'll lead the revoltuion. A push is necessary. But the people doing the "push" are indeed, just as much originating from material conditions as the act of revolution itself.

The reason it sounds bizarre is simply because conditions for revolution are non existent, currently.

As if, as if we elite theoretically skilled individuals are just waiting for the right moment for material conditions to take ahold of the revolution. Absurd. The point is that a real movement, a real ideology (External from your 20th century Communism) will have to form in direct reflection of the interests of the proletariat, in modern times (I.e. base reinventing superstructure). This ideology, in rhetoric, may very well be different from yours (Which is specific to specific historical context).

The Communism of the Left today never was able to surpass the 90's. It is indeed stuck in the 20th century, and conditions, modern conditions, have never reinvinetd it. It doesn't have a firm class basis, if any at all, in modern times.

Is this not a partial explanation for why so many Eurocommunist parties are now just social democrats?


Conditions are unchangeable, and inevitable. Whatever happens, is the consequence of material conditions, and therefore could only be the only consequence of the material conditions

Yes, but this doesn't confirm the former (Of what you said above accusing me of saying, about how there is no "Push" for revolution, because a magical ghost is just going to do it who happens to not be the proletariat or a person)



Correct me where I'm wrong.


I have.


Indeed, if material conditions determine base and superstructure inevitably, without any human interference, why bother denouncing idealism?


What do you mean, "Why bother denouncing Idealism"? Idealism is an invalid means of interperating the relations humans have with each other and hte material forces that they "created".

Denouncing Idealism is limited to intellectual convictions, or theoretical convictions. To say that an "Idea" (Materialism) is going to solve real problems for real material forces is certainly something I wouldn't say.

on the other hand, it could be said that it is indeed a science, like mathematics, and to avoid it would be foolish, and that it isn't an Ideology. Indeed Idealism has gotten the proletariat no where. No one is saying tactics and such make no difference. The point is that the constraint in which the deciding of these tactics is fully determined by the base, and so are the nature of these tactics. That is the point.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, perhaps we have varying understandings of what 'base' and 'superstructure' are -- that's the only way there can be a divergence here, with your denying that you're a base-determinist.





What are your understandings?


Our ongoing exchanges are covering this -- you can discern it from what's already been posted.





The Superstructure has a reinforcing potential, though, it is by no means a co determinant. The base can find replacements for the superstructure, but this can not exist the other way around.





I would term fictitious capital as a *superstructural* development, on the part of the ruling class, as an arbitrary but measured reaction to objective conditions.





No, Neo Liberalism s the superstrucutral development, deployed only in correspondence with fictitious capital.


Yes, but whatever the ruling class' particular *response* to conditions may be, it has to be decided upon by those in the upper echelons who concern themselves with global class matters.

I maintain that neoliberalism, Keynesianism, monetarism, militarism, austerity, and other measures, are all various *strategic* deployments of policy that are determined from within the superstructure, and are not automatically triggered from the base.

[MotherCossack]

i am really depressed now....
so... this is the deal.... Socialism is a pure, natural, necessarily unforced, inevitable progression that will follow on after the inevitable demise of Capitalism.

But we can not try to intervene in the process or it will be disrupted and potentially will ..... what.... start all over again....be thrown off in a new direction..... a possibly undesirable one?

We have to trust in the dialectics of materialism.... and wait for events to take their course when the time is right?
But that sounds like Religon....we can do nothing.... have no power to shape our future.... our world.... but wait for the fairytale to come true one day.......
Dont do me much good does it! I am running out of time.... shit.....

[Tim Cornelis]

What a ludicrous inteperitation. It is not a matter of will, it is the fact that Liberalism, Reformists, and so on are not Ideologies in themselves external from real material conditions, they are, in themselves, reflections of classes with several interests. There is a difference between real, material class interest and will, you know.

How ironic for Tim, in order to demonstrate my wronging, would pressupose an Idealist interperation of Ideology in order to make an argument against Materialism. The point is, for me, to attack your very original theoretical foundations in regards. What are Liberals? What are Reformists? These are the questions you should be asking. They do not hold the views they do because of "Will", they do so in the interest of a class, be it consciously or otherwise.

A "Communist" revolution, as in Communism, i.e. the embodiment of hte proletariat's material class interest, is inherent only to the proletariat. It is not a mere battle between "Ideas" or "Ideologies" to take ahold of class power, but of classes themselves, to which these Ideas are mere reflections.

Something like a proletarian class interest is a direct reflection of existing material conditions and material forces, not, as we would say, a "Will". For which this interest, which is a will, could not exist without the base which is determining it, therefore, it is capitalism, and it's base itself which necessitates Communist revolution, not the will of individuals. Proletariat, and Communism are merely contradictions within capitalism which the Bourgeois class was never able to address in a manner which could suppress.




:rolleyes: Now you're getting pathetic.

Firstly, the point is not to deny will exists. The point is to assert it's origin. I said material forces develop independent of will, for which they do. You're just like Ismail, twisting words. I never mentioned "Social organization". Indeed, I said social organization itself is a superstructure, and not a base.

I assert that the Superstructure does not determine the base, for it is the other way around. Tell me where I mentioned Social organization? I did not.

You're missing the point: "Social Organization" and "Will" in this sense are interchangeable, (as in, movements). They both stem from real existing material conditions and a real existing material base. To say they are not dependent on this base is ludicrous.

And yes, you, as an individual, or any individuals, do not organize such parties or organizations at will, spontaneously. They do so in direct reflection of material conditions (I.e. The need of higher wages and so on). The proletariat doesn't need people such as yourself to do this for them, they will develop such when class consciousness is high. Without the latter, you and me are useless in this regards.



Assuming you'll lead the revoltuion. A push is necessary. But the people doing the "push" are indeed, just as much originating from material conditions as the act of revolution itself.

The reason it sounds bizarre is simply because conditions for revolution are non existent, currently.

As if, as if we elite theoretically skilled individuals are just waiting for the right moment for material conditions to take ahold of the revolution. Absurd. The point is that a real movement, a real ideology (External from your 20th century Communism) will have to form in direct reflection of the interests of the proletariat, in modern times (I.e. base reinventing superstructure). This ideology, in rhetoric, may very well be different from yours (Which is specific to specific historical context).

The Communism of the Left today never was able to surpass the 90's. It is indeed stuck in the 20th century, and conditions, modern conditions, have never reinvinetd it. It doesn't have a firm class basis, if any at all, in modern times.

Is this not a partial explanation for why so many Eurocommunist parties are now just social democrats?



Yes, but this doesn't confirm the former (Of what you said above accusing me of saying, about how there is no "Push" for revolution, because a magical ghost is just going to do it who happens to not be the proletariat or a person)




I have.



What do you mean, "Why bother denouncing Idealism"? Idealism is an invalid means of interperating the relations humans have with each other and hte material forces that they "created".

Denouncing Idealism is limited to intellectual convictions, or theoretical convictions. To say that an "Idea" (Materialism) is going to solve real problems for real material forces is certainly something I wouldn't say.

on the other hand, it could be said that it is indeed a science, like mathematics, and to avoid it would be foolish, and that it isn't an Ideology. Indeed Idealism has gotten the proletariat no where. No one is saying tactics and such make no difference. The point is that the constraint in which the deciding of these tactics is fully determined by the base, and so are the nature of these tactics. That is the point.

There is no need for the hostility, I never said you yourself drew these conclusions. I drew these conclusions in accordance with what I perceived to be your reasoning. I therefore asked you to clarify this for me to get a better understanding of what you were trying to say.

I will reply to the content later.

[Rafiq]

I agree that any talk of the specifics of social practice in communism (like the question, for example, how would education in global communism be organized specifically) is mere speculation and useless from the perspective of communists participation in and escalation of class struggle.

However, it should be readily apparent that when communists posit the abolition of capital - that by that very attitude, thought, call it what you will, we also posit the basis for a communist social formation simply by the virtue of actual knowledge regarding what capital, as well as its institutions, is. In this sense, I think that discussing concrete possibilities arising from the current social and economic situation is in fact important, especially when the topic of debate are possible actions once political power is conquered.

I agree. The demand to abolish capitalism is indeed a necessary one, and to define and know what capitalism is, implies perhaps, what comes after would be devoid of.


To address a broader point, it's somehow hard to see why we should pose this dichotomy of will/ideas and material force. In fact, in your own writing here it's entirely unclear what that material force would actually be. It's clear that no matter how nice the ideas upheld, when faced with the lack of possibility based on the organization of production and the development of productive forces these ideas are powerless and practically useless.

This is essentially what I'm trying to get at.


But we can flip this upside down and say that when concrete possibiliity actually exists, an assumed lack of practical thought (what Marxists call programme) will actually hinder the realization of the possibility for a new society.

I understand. But, for Materialists, we ask this: Where is the origin of this programme, this practical thought? I say, from the base. This is prescisly why I disdain from full concurance with any so called 20th century current of Communism, simply because of hte fact that the material conditions of modern times have not gave bight to a programme that is in correspondence with today. Thus, the programme of the Communists in the 21th century is essentially almost identical to the programme of the 20th century, with absolutely no class basis in modern times.


So, in this perspective, the ideas held and disseminated also constitute an important part in the overall revolutionary practice - transforming the social relations of production.


What of the origin of these ideas? These Ideas do not exist external from the material base which necessitates them.


So in the end what we have is a twofold process of revolution where neither element should take exclusive priority. A will to action and the consciousness of goals and methods of their realization is that which enables the rela possibility to come to fruition in the form of a new society.

Strategically, the proletariat should do anything possible to achieve class dictatorship. My point was to address the fact that several users here, who take so keen in pondering upon "How are libraries going to be in Communism" or whatever, or, to be more prescise, want to "enact" communism as some kind of Idea which is a player among several ideologies, i.e. (I dunno bout your capitalism, but as an Opportunist I want to input my specific Idea of Communism, and my beliefs are drawn from there).

It must be fully realized Communism is a product of capitalism, and for now, at least, it has remained, and will remain the embodiment of the interests of the proletariat, i.e. A movement, an Ideological vanguard created by the proletariat itself, not by academic circles whom wanted to use the proletariat as a means of achieving their Ideas.


If you think that somehow this represents a kind of an idealism or places too much emphasis on the subjective factors, then explain a bit if you don't mind (especially what these material forces represent if they represent something other than a definite level of development of the productive powers of mankind).


My point was this: That new modes of production do not sprout about by Ideas, but by real material forces, real productive forces which have relations to their modes of production, and class contradiction. Only class struggle can give birth to a new society, not the Ideas, or the obscure formulas put forward by users on how things will be organized.

That, indeed, these material forces, these classes, they precede thought, and for there to be no class struggle, Communism, for the most part, is merely living off, parasitically, of the dead remains of previous class struggles.


The point of Materialism is that matter precedes thought, i.e. Not simply in the sense that "Matter" in the metaphysical sense is before thought (As this is blatantly obvious to most people) but that productive forces, and their movement, precede thought and will.


It was this thesis which changed my views on things completely. I used to think the former, that it was just matter in the metaphysical sense, for a long time. This is the famous formula which needs to have great emphasis upon when discussing History, or things like this, and so on. I just wish more people knew what this meant.


Apart from the dubious assessment of a heavily regulated form of capitalism as the "most productive form" (productive of what? surplus value? techincal development? working class living standard?),

If Ideas do precede material developments, it definitely can be. That is, it can be the most productive in regards to living standard improvement, technological development and so on.


it's unclear why you think that such a development would abolish the antagonism of class relations.

But an understanding of the class antagonisms can only be drawn upon by presupposing materialism.

My point was this: Either users adhere to Materialism, if they are truly Communists, or become Social democrats of some sort.


And it's precisely this antagonism and the resulting social consequences for the global working class that is the key issue here, but that wouldn't be annuled or abolished by a heavily regulated capitalism.


Why not? Why don't we just institute good Ideas and Morals upon Capitalists and workers, and mediate their differences? What's that you say? This can't be done because material forces would override such developments, and Capital will devour them? Good. Then you're a materialist. The point is for users (Though, not you, since I don't qualify you as one of the Utopians who do so) is to be consistent about it.


We have no right? Talk about idealism. And who or what grants these rights to thinking heads? Under which conditions?


Because it's subjective. We have no legitimacy in claiming our moral framework is better than that of the Bourgeois classes, as Morals themselves are subjective. That was the point. If they were indeed objective, and if morals did indeed equate to being better all together, (More powerful mode of production) perhaps then, this wouldn't be of issue. Again, it would have to presuppose Idealism.


To clarify, I think that all of the wage labour class should think about and decide on "better society" - from our own perspective determined by our social position (within class relations).

Maybe, just maybe, when conditions for class struggle rise, when a new class consciousness arises close to the point of revolution where the conditions enable such a movement, perhaps it would be valid. All of those things, in the end, can only be decided and pondered upon when that particular class actually gets to power. It's goal, though, is class dictatorship, for utimataly abolishing themselves. What comes after, is quite unknown.


Without a notion of at least a possibility of a better society - a society devoid of class antagonism, unemployment, destitution and war - and the rudimentary notions of how the class movment might proceed to bring this situation about, any revolutionary upheaval is very unlikely.

While I don't doubt they will exist, as a Marxist, these should be interpreted as Ideological rhetoric. We recall how the Bourgeois class, when it was about to destroy the remains of Feudalism, before the revolutions, deployed ideological rhetoric about "Freedom" and "Liberty" and so on.


And how do these material forces, which presumably entail human activity in tranforming nature and reproducing society, not include ideas about that same activity and its goals simultaneously?

Because the Ideas are simply what "catches up" to already existing material developments. Not the other way around. Ideas are interchangeable by the base, but not the other way around.


As if humans engage in practical activity totally devoid of any though with regard to its purposes, methods, and implications. As if these material forces are some blind and metaphysical factor which has nothing to do with human consciousness.

They do, but for materialists, we simply ask this: What determines, what creates this Thought, this Purpose, these Methods, and this implications? What exactly determines Human consciousness?

I previously, in response to a user, in this very thread, spoke of how indeed, the claim that material forces are some kind of ghost-beings external from humans is indeed an illusion and alien to materialist thought.

[Thirsty Crow]

Sorry for singling out bits of your post, I'll try to address the rest of it later.



This is essentially what I'm trying to get at. Then, I honestly think we're all, here in this thread, pissing in the wind since this is blatantly obvious (and I don't think a single user disucssing this issue here thinks otherwise).



I understand. But, for Materialists, we ask this: Where is the origin of this programme, this practical thought? I say, from the base.
Again, blatantly obvious since you can't think about class relations without taking the productive relations and productive powers of mankind into account (the base). The programme is predicated upon this, and cannot even exist without it, and that much is obvious.
That's why I think, other than for reasons of clarification of one's own ideas, such questions are academic, and should be replaced with a rigorous, concrete examination of the viability of the programme (which would mean not to ask where does the programme come from, but rather whether the programme might bring about the change we posit as the goal; a question of efficiency rather than a question of origin, since I think that the latter, the question of origin, is only important insofar as it is connected to the former).

[Lowtech]

What on earth are you babbling about? Did you even read the first post?

Capitalism is indeed productive, and even any idiot can acknowledge this. It's also one of the most cooperative modes of organization to ever exist in Human History. Why do Utopians have a fetish for "Cooperation" and so on? When I was first a socialist, i.e. a Utopian, I held on to such nonsense. It's foolish and an immature stage in revolutionary thought.

Capitalism is to be opposed for Scientific reasons, for it's systemic contradictions, not because there is this all powerful Idea, this thought, i.e. That "Humans are cooperative" and we have to return to our roots from Evil capitalism. Indeed, for any Marxist, it is preferable to move away from our roots.

If capitalism prooves anything it is that people ARE cooperative. It is in fact one of the many robust human traits that capitalists manipulate for their own gain.

PEOPLE are what is productive, NOT the systematic exploitation of their efforts, ie capitalism

[Die Neue Zeit]

This wasn't directed at you or any one person specifically

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

There's a marked difference between Utopianism and having a developed maximum program as a component of a broader program, comrade. The likes of comrade Cockshott aren't Utopians, but are very much for a developed maximum program instead of a crude maximum program.