Introduction

[statichaos]

Statichaos here. Social Democrat, sympathetic to leftist causes of all sorts, but skeptical of the efficacy of revolution outside of the ballot box. Also, I believe in limited private enterprise, with co-operatives being preferable, but also with allowances for private ownership. Nationalized health care, energy resources, education, and other vital services are simply a matter of practicality for me.

I suppose that I favor the Nordic model, though I don't think that there's anything like a perfect system out there.

Question, while we're at it: As I'm skeptical regarding revolutions that don't involve a peaceful transition of power outside of the democratic process, and believe in a certain amount of private enterprise, does that put me under "Opposing Ideologies"?

[statichaos]

Just so everyone knows, I'm voluntarily limiting where I post until I know for certain. It's a matter of being polite when in someone else's home.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, your positions should put you in 'Opposing Ideologies' - you're not a revolutionary, and you're not really a leftist (you believe in making capitalism slightly less horrible, though frankly I could give you figures about worker co-ops that might change your view about how benign they are), so that's two strikes against you on 'RevLeft'.

Never mind, welcome anyway, I look forward to debating with you over in OI.

[statichaos]

Yes, your positions should put you in 'Opposing Ideologies' - you're not a revolutionary, and you're not really a leftist (you believe in making capitalism slightly less horrible, though frankly I could give you figures about worker co-ops that might change your view about how benign they are), so that's two strikes against you on 'RevLeft'.

Never mind, welcome anyway, I look forward to debating with you over in OI.

No worries! I also look forward to it. Thanks for the reply!

[Philosophos]

welcome and have a nice time on revleft. Social democrats are not really leftist but anyway welcome again

[statichaos]

welcome and have a nice time on revleft. Social democrats are not really leftist but anyway welcome again

I live in America, so pretty much anything not incorporating Ayn Rand's economic policies is considered leftist around here, but it's all a matter of perspective. Thanks for the welcome!

[statichaos]

Oh, forgot to mention where I live: Los Angeles, Baldwin Hills neighborhood.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Welcome to the forum. I think it will be interesting for you to lay out your views for us to deconstruct.

[statichaos]

Welcome to the forum. I think it will be interesting for you to lay out your views for us to deconstruct.

I wouldn't expect anything less.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I wouldn't expect anything less.

I like you already. :)

[Ravachol]

I suppose that I favor the Nordic model, though I don't think that there's anything like a perfect system out there.


You're a bit too late for that though as it has outlived its historical use for the stabilization and growth of capital. Its being broken down rapidly. Besides, as someone from the Netherlands, once the pinnacle of the 'Nordic model' together with Scandinavia, its still a load of crap.

Anyway, welcome to Revleft :).

[statichaos]

You're a bit too late for that though as it has outlived its historical use for the stabilization and growth of capital. Its being broken down rapidly. Besides, as someone from the Netherlands, once the pinnacle of the 'Nordic model' together with Scandinavia, its still a load of crap.

Anyway, welcome to Revleft :).

Thanks!

I'm a fan of the model, if not how it's currently being dismantled. Of course, that's largely in comparison to the system prevalent in the United States. It's in much the same way that a starving person may be a fan of gruel, but someone raised on gruel is going to be a fan of more complex fare. I'd prefer to see the Social Democrat model implemented, and from there, I'd be willing to shift towards Democratic Socialism if the people wish for it.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Welcome Statichaos. If you want to post outside OI see if you can ideologically embrace Revolutionary Kautskyism. Kautskyism is Second International-based so it ought to be something you might be able to endorse. We have a poster who names himself after Karl Kautsky's newspaper (Die Neue Zeitung) and uses Kautsky's portriat as an avatar, so some forms of Second International-based ideology is acceptable here. I bet if you read of bit about Kautsky you could fit into that niche and post throughout the forum.

[statichaos]

Certainly worth some research. Thank you.

And I have to admit that I've posted in Chit-Chat and the media oriented threads. I hope that's not cheating, as I haven't really stated anything counter-revolutionary.

[GoddessCleoLover]

It's not cheating IMO. I would hate to see a thoughtful poster like you get restricted and I hope that doesn't happen.

[statichaos]

It's not cheating IMO. I would hate to see a thoughtful poster like you get restricted and I hope that doesn't happen.

I've been admin and moderator at enough forums to know how to watch my step. I'll continue to do so here.

[Marxaveli]

Hi and welcome to the board. Hopefully you will learn through discourse here that social democracy is nothing more than revisionism, and that capitalism cannot be scientifically altered to be a fair system for everyone - which is why we are revolutionary leftists. It will always be a system of haves and have-nots, with the former controlling every aspect of society to protect their interests.

[statichaos]

Hi and welcome to the board. Hopefully you will learn through discourse here that social democracy is nothing more than revisionism, and that capitalism cannot be scientifically altered to be a fair system for everyone - which is why we are revolutionary leftists. It will always be a system of haves and have-nots, with the former controlling every aspect of society to protect their interests.

I like to think that I have an open mind. If I hear a reasonable argument that I haven't heard before, I'll certainly consider it.

I should further state that I joined this site more to learn about the positions of others than to convince others of my own.

[Art Vandelay]

Welcome Statichaos. If you want to post outside OI see if you can ideologically embrace Revolutionary Kautskyism. Kautskyism is Second International-based so it ought to be something you might be able to endorse. We have a poster who names himself after Karl Kautsky's newspaper (Die Neue Zeitung) and uses Kautsky's portriat as an avatar, so some forms of Second International-based ideology is acceptable here. I bet if you read of bit about Kautsky you could fit into that niche and post throughout the forum.

Oh fuck off.


Welcome to the board man, you seem like an open minded guy. Cheers.

[statichaos]

Oh fuck off.


Welcome to the board man, you seem like an open minded guy. Cheers.

Thank you!

I am interested in Katusky. Any beginning introduction to his theories that you could point me towards?

[Marxaveli]

I would start with Marx and Engels before Kautsky. The Principles of Communism by Engels is an excellent place to start, The German Ideology, Das Kapital vol. 1 (hard but definitely a must), and of course, The Communist Manifesto if you haven't read it yet. I'd also recommend Social Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg ;)

[Art Vandelay]

Thank you!

I am interested in Katusky. Any beginning introduction to his theories that you could point me towards?

I'd begin right here if I were you (it's a short read):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

As far as Kautsky goes, I personally like The Road to Power. Although given where your coming from (a proponent of welfare capitalism) it may not be the best place to start.

[statichaos]

I would start with Marx and Engels before Kautsky. The Principles of Communism by Engels is an excellent place to start, The German Ideology, Das Kapital vol. 1 (hard but definitely a must), and of course, The Communist Manifesto if you haven't read it yet. I'd also recommend Social Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg ;)

I've read Marx and Engles, and dipped into Luxemburg.


I'd begin right here if I were you (it's a short read):

(It won't let me post the link, even in a quote-statichaos)

As far as Kautsky goes, I personally like The Road to Power. Although given where your coming from (a proponent of welfare capitalism) it may not be the best place to start.

Thanks!

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Hello there! It's good to see a new person here! Since the Kautskyite have made their entrance I thought that it might be nice to give you a look at my own tendency, which is Marxist-Leninist-Maoism (Maoism for short, though there is a difference between Mao Zedong thought and Marxist-Leninist-Maoism but we don't need to get into that now, but if you are curious then you can ask)

Marxist-Leninist-Maoism is a modernized form of Maoism that believes that guerrilla warfare is the only legitimate path to political power and that participation in elections are inherently stifling to the revolutionary cause. Maoists are leading revolutions in India, Peru, the Philippines, and to a lesser extent Turkey. (There are a few others but I can't think of them at the moment.

A comrade of mine produced this study guide: http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-maoism-t175401/index.html

However it's a bit long and I feel like it goes far in depth to the nitty gritty of Maoism without giving you a good idea of the contrasts between MLM and other tendencies, plus it seems to be more relevant to classical Maoism and less to Maoism in the modern world. And since you are new here I think that for now you should wait until after you read what other people have suggested to study MLM. Try Marx and Kaufsky first since their views are closer to classical Marxism, then maybe if you feel like it study the economic works of Lenin which attempt to update Marxism for a more modern setting (or at least according to Marxist-Leninists).

I'm going to try to make another reading list for Marxist-Leninist-Maoism that caters more to the controversies related to it, and when I do I'll send it to you in a message.

[statichaos]

Thanks for the introduction, but I have a disdain for violence unless it's absolutely necessary. It's not a moral viewpoint, but a practical one, as revolutions are notoriously unpredictable, with the nastiest people often rising to the top at the end of the day.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Thanks for the introduction, but I have a disdain for violence unless it's absolutely necessary. It's not a moral viewpoint, but a practical one, as revolutions are notoriously unpredictable, with the nastiest people often rising to the top at the end of the day.

If you are regarding the tendency for Vanguardist revolutions to become dictatorships then I think that it's important to note that Maoism does not consider the party exempt from corruption and explicitly upholds that under socialism class struggle from the working class it's self is necessary maintain a dictatorship of the proletariat, and once this dictatorship loses it's democratic charcther it ceases to be a proletarian dictatorship and simply becomes a dictatorship.

Again it's not important that you study Maoism until you've got the basics, but if you have any questions in the mean time then ask me.

[statichaos]

If you are regarding the tendency for Vanguardist revolutions to become dictatorships then I think that it's important to note that Maoism does not consider the party exempt from corruption and explicitly upholds that under socialism class struggle from the working class it's self is necessary maintain a dictatorship of the proletariat, and once this dictatorship loses it's democratic charcther it ceases to be a proletarian dictatorship and simply becomes a dictatorship.

Again it's not important that you study Maoism until you've got the basics, but if you have any questions in the mean time then ask me.

Thanks.

I've noticed that "proletarian dictatorship becoming a dictatorship" thing being a sticking point, as those in power often aren't likely to give it up voluntarily.

[Marxaveli]

Which is why the revolution must be a bottom-up affair, as opposed to the top-down ones that we have seen thus far. I also deplore violence, but in the case of a proletarian revolution, I will have to use the good ol' "the ends justifies the means" line. Capitalism itself is an extremely violent, inhumane system, that came into this world soaked in blood, fire, and ash....and most likely, it will have to leave this world in the same manner. We would prefer a revolution with as little violence as possible, and where we can accomplish our goals without the use of violence, we will do so. But we are also realistic. The ruling class will definitely use violence to protect its interests, and likely, we will have to do the same at some point to protect OUR class interests.

[Art Vandelay]

Thanks.

I've noticed that "proletarian dictatorship becoming a dictatorship" thing being a sticking point, as those in power often aren't likely to give it up voluntarily.

This is simply a misunderstanding, one that is very common among new comers to the revolutionary left.

As communists (and anarchists for that matter, but I am a former) we seek a stateless and classless society. A state is inherently a dictatorship, for example the state that we live under today, could perhaps be best described as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. A state must be understood within the context of the material conditions which bring it about, ie: it is a by product of class societies; as long as classes exist, so will a state, and therefor a dictatorship.

In this sense, we can see, that it is not so much "those in power" choosing to "not give up their power voluntarily," but rather the material conditions coming about, which could result in the end of classes, states, and dictatorships, ie: the liberation of humanity.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yea, Mao noticed this too when the Soviet Union under Khrushchev removed the last remainders of inner party democracy and began capitalistic reforms. At this point Mao realized that Stalin's conception of the party as being the leading force in society was flawed and that purges were an ineffective way to deal with the possibility of a Khrushchev. So he argued that the party, much like the workspace and the factory, are spaces for class struggle. During the 60's, when the Maoist faction of the CCP was weak, Deng's faction began a series of capitalist reforms so Mao and his supporters in the student movements began the cultural revolution, which was the only time in history in which a grassroots movement was able to restore socialism in a country that was heading to the path of capitalism (something that Trotsky wanted for Russia but never happened). There is alot of mis-information regarding the cultural revolution so if you ever get some spare time I'd recommend this paper to you for your studies.

http://www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/049_049_CRpaper-Final.pdf

If you want a more academic look that is a bit more critical then I recommend that you look through the China Study Group's archives, it will take you a bit but you'll probably find something good. The above paper was recommended by them and since their website is run by a collection of scholars on the subject I'd say that it's fair to assume that it's reliable.

Here's their site: http://chinastudygroup.net/category/chinese-revolution/cultural-revolution-category/

Adherents to Mao Zedong Thought generally see the event as one of the greatest in history while MLMists are more critical and acknowledge it's flaws while noting the magnutide of what it accomplished.

And again, you're probably thinking "what the hell is this nut doing talking to me about Mao Zedong". I was the same way so feel free to ignore me until you know more

[Marxaveli]

comrade 9mm said it well - the state itself is an instrument of class oppression. To eliminate the State, you have to destroy the conditions that necessitate it to begin with, which is class antagonisms. This is the scientific aspect of Marxism: the ruling class and oppressed class have diametrically opposite interests of one another, that cannot be reconciled, and trying to reform capitalism through policy change means little, because the State itself exists to serve ruling class interests. Only through revolution and the destruction of capitalist relations can we achieve a fair and just society for workers of all ethnicities, backgrounds, creed, gender, sexual orientations, etc.

As long as nation states, borders, governments and market relations exist, there exist classes: those who own property, and those who do not.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

comrade 9mm said it well - the state itself is an instrument of class oppression. To eliminate the State, you have to destroy the conditions that necessitate it to begin with, which is class antagonisms. This is the scientific aspect of Marxism: the ruling class and oppressed class have diametrically opposite interests of one another, that cannot be reconciled, and trying to reform capitalism through policy change means little, because the State itself exists to serve ruling class interests. Only through revolution and the destruction of capitalist relations can we achieve a fair and just society for workers of all ethnicities, backgrounds, creed, gender, sexual orientations, etc.

As long as nation states, borders, governments and market relations exist, there exist classes.

Yep, most Marxists agree on this, the main difference is just how to get their and what "socialism" means.

[statichaos]

This is simply a misunderstanding, one that is very common among new comers to the revolutionary left.

As communists (and anarchists for that matter, but I am a former) we seek a stateless and classless society. A state is inherently a dictatorship, for example the state that we live under today, could perhaps be best described as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. A state must be understood within the context of the material conditions which bring it about, ie: it is a by product of class societies; as long as classes exist, so will a state, and therefor a dictatorship.

In this sense, we can see, that it is not so much "those in power" choosing to "not give up their power voluntarily," but rather the material conditions coming about, which could result in the end of classes, states, and dictatorships, ie: the liberation of humanity.

Oh, don't mistake me. I'm not a newcomer, though I can see where I might have given that impression. I've been reasonably familiar with Marxist doctrine since I was a teenager, and with a few of the major offshots, including Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Anarcho-communism, and a handful of others.

Once the material conditions come about for an end to these things, let me know. In my admittedly limited corner of the world, I'm not seeing it, and I'm certainly not seeing any taste for overthrowing the existing order, even among the poorest and most oppressed people. Some because they've bought into the lie, and others because--if I may be brutally honest--most of those they've encountered on the revolutionary left have been remarkably poor at explaining their positions in a way that those who would usually be in the target audience can relate to.

Perhaps the capitalist system needs to be totally overthrown, perhaps not. I certainly remain skeptical of any idea of historical inevitability, though I've always been open to an argument that will change my mind. As things stand, though, and with what I observe, the best current option seems to be to create change through the democratic process, allowing people to become used to the idea of worker-controlled industries, and eventually (and hopefully) reaching a point where we achieve some sense of equilibrium as a society.

But any attempt to do so through blood, through destruction, and through the violence that inherently seems to follow revolution will only serve to give birth to a system of blood, destruction, and violence.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Historic inevitability for the demise of capitalism? That one isn't very hard.

Here's a video explaining the tendency of the rate of profit to decline:
http://vimeo.com/28609702#at=0

Here's a paper that proves that the rate of profit has indeed declined

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=econ_workingpaper:
(considering the complex mathmatics involved, no one will blame you if you just take a glance at it and say "yep, that looks right".

[statichaos]

Historic inevitability for the demise of capitalism? That one isn't very hard.

Here's a video explaining the tendency of the rate of profit to decline:


Here's a paper that proves that the rate of profit has indeed declined


(considering the complex mathmatics involved, no one will blame you if you just take a glance at it and say "yep, that looks right".

Invalid URL on the second one, can't watch the first till tomorrow. Had to remove the links, since it won't let me post them till I've reached 100 posts.

[Marxaveli]

Oh, don't mistake me. I'm not a newcomer, though I can see where I might have given that impression. I've been reasonably familiar with Marxist doctrine since I was a teenager, and with a few of the major offshots, including Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Anarcho-communism, and a handful of others.

Once the material conditions come about for an end to these things, let me know. In my admittedly limited corner of the world, I'm not seeing it, and I'm certainly not seeing any taste for overthrowing the existing order, even among the poorest and most oppressed people. Some because they've bought into the lie, and others because--if I may be brutally honest--most of those they've encountered on the revolutionary left have been remarkably poor at explaining their positions in a way that those who would usually be in the target audience can relate to.

Perhaps the capitalist system needs to be totally overthrown, perhaps not. I certainly remain skeptical of any idea of historical inevitability, though I've always been open to an argument that will change my mind. As things stand, though, and with what I observe, the best current option seems to be to create change through the democratic process, allowing people to become used to the idea of worker-controlled industries, and eventually (and hopefully) reaching a point where we achieve some sense of equilibrium as a society.

But any attempt to do so through blood, through destruction, and through the violence that inherently seems to follow revolution will only serve to give birth to a system of blood, destruction, and violence.

I don't think most Marxists view the destruction of capitalism as inevitable, this seems to be a misconception by both communists and anti-communists alike.

We do view the destruction of capitalism as necessary though, for humans to be able to reach their maximum potential as a species being. Under capitalism this will never happen - it is as scientifically impossible as a rubber ball never meeting the ground after it bounces, it always will due to gravity.

Trying to change capitalism through reforms is futile, it is a utopian idea at best. It's like saying "if only capitalists were more ethical and moral, we could make the system work". Won't ever happen. We have fundamental and irreconcilably different interests from the capitalist class, who will always see to it that their interests are protected first and foremost. If this wasn't the case, we'd settle for being social democrats.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Does this work?
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=econ_workingpaper

[statichaos]

Does this work?


Yes. Unfortunately, my familiarity with mathematics of this sort is shaky at best, meaning that I cannot come to a fair judgment of the stated evidence. I do thank you for the link, though.

[Ostrinski]

Welcome Statichaos. If you want to post outside OI see if you can ideologically embrace Revolutionary Kautskyism. Kautskyism is Second International-based so it ought to be something you might be able to endorse. We have a poster who names himself after Karl Kautsky's newspaper (Die Neue Zeitung) and uses Kautsky's portriat as an avatar, so some forms of Second International-based ideology is acceptable here. I bet if you read of bit about Kautsky you could fit into that niche and post throughout the forum.Is this supposed to be a subliminal biff? There's nothing that our social democratic friend would find useful in Kautsky (unless, as I'm assuming, you're referring to renegade Kautsky or post-1909 Kautsky) that he wouldn't find in Leninism, except of course for its own renegade elements.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Is this supposed to be a subliminal biff? There's nothing that our social democratic friend would find useful in Kautsky (unless, as I'm assuming, you're referring to renegade Kautsky or post-1909 Kautsky) that he wouldn't find in Leninism, except of course for its own renegade elements.

In Gramsci's defense, Kaufsky's orthodoxy makes him a good source of what a Marxist analysis of the early 20th century would be like

[Prometeo liberado]

Oh thank god you're sympathetic to the left. For a while there I thought we'd have to go on without you. Please.
You gonna keep it real up in here or does Ismail have to bust a reference up out on you? Word.

[Yuppie Grinder]

comrade 9mm said it well - the state itself is an instrument of class oppression. To eliminate the State, you have to destroy the conditions that necessitate it to begin with, which is class antagonisms. This is the scientific aspect of Marxism: the ruling class and oppressed class have diametrically opposite interests of one another, that cannot be reconciled, and trying to reform capitalism through policy change means little, because the State itself exists to serve ruling class interests. Only through revolution and the destruction of capitalist relations can we achieve a fair and just society for workers of all ethnicities, backgrounds, creed, gender, sexual orientations, etc.

As long as nation states, borders, governments and market relations exist, there exist classes: those who own property, and those who do not.

Nice post, but always remember that workers will never be free until they are no longer workers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Question, while we're at it: As I'm skeptical regarding revolutions that don't involve a peaceful transition of power outside of the democratic process, and believe in a certain amount of private enterprise, does that put me under "Opposing Ideologies"?Yes as others have said - you probably understand this already, but just to spell it out - OI isn't punishment, it's just a way to prevent the rest of the board from being full of people who say, "Obama's a socialist (eitrher in a good or bad connotation)" and "Go back to Russia" etc.

In fact, OI used to be much more full of rabid right wingers during the Bush years and now the right-wingers seem to be more like sub-groups of right-libertaianism if anything and the rest are just people who might be interested in the left, but have some reactionary specific positions on abortion or immigration or something. Personally I would like it if we changed it to "Other Ideologies" just to take it away from the old connotation of that part of the board ("Caged Kiddies") when it was more of a dumping ground for right-wing trolls.

At any rate, I think debates with "open" (in the sense of willing to have honest debate) liberals and reformists, (and dem-socs) would be healthy for this site and help revolutionary comrades develop themselves - since these subjects are more likely to come up as political debates IRL within movements we might be involved in.

So welcome and I hope you stick around so that we can build up more of a culture of exchanges around these questions.

[statichaos]

I don't plan on going anywhere. No worries.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I don't plan on going anywhere. No worries.

Bummer

[Comrade #138672]

Welcome to the forum. It's an excellent learning environment.

[statichaos]

Welcome to the forum. It's an excellent learning environment.

Thanks. That's exactly what I was hoping for.

[Art Vandelay]

Oh, don't mistake me. I'm not a newcomer, though I can see where I might have given that impression. I've been reasonably familiar with Marxist doctrine since I was a teenager, and with a few of the major offshots, including Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Anarcho-communism, and a handful of others.

Cool, sorry for the misconception, may I ask if any particular tendency you've ever come across has ever seemed appealing to you?


Once the material conditions come about for an end to these things, let me know. In my admittedly limited corner of the world, I'm not seeing it, and I'm certainly not seeing any taste for overthrowing the existing order, even among the poorest and most oppressed people.

Well of course not, were at a historical period with significantly low class consciousness; let alone the fact that I believe you said you come from the U.S.A. perhaps the country with the lowest class consciousness in the world. History doesn't move in a straight line, but in leaps and bounds and we are just now exiting a historical period of reaction. However, take a look at occupy, which began in your neck of the woods; for all its faults, at least people are starting to vocalize that the system is unequal and not working, regardless of the fact that they may not quite understand the forces at play.


Some because they've bought into the lie, and others because--if I may be brutally honest--most of those they've encountered on the revolutionary left have been remarkably poor at explaining their positions in a way that those who would usually be in the target audience can relate to.

Indeed, the left sucks and really needs to get its shit together.


Perhaps the capitalist system needs to be totally overthrown, perhaps not.

I'd like to think that it should be obvious at this point that capitalism is not only no longer a progressive force in human history, but also clearly not working and destroying our world at an ever increasing pace, but I don't blame you for being skeptical.


I certainly remain skeptical of any idea of historical inevitability, though I've always been open to an argument that will change my mind.

Historical materialism would be that argument my friend, although I don't feel the need to go into that at the moment. Capitalism's destruction is indeed inevitable, it is simply unsustainable to have a system based on constant growth (which requires unlimited resources) in a world with limited resources. However, while capitalism's demise is a historical inevitability, it is not inevitable what will replace it.


As things stand, though, and with what I observe, the best current option seems to be to create change through the democratic process, allowing people to become used to the idea of worker-controlled industries, and eventually (and hopefully) reaching a point where we achieve some sense of equilibrium as a society.

I would be interested in seeing how you think workers can achieve any significant gains at the ballot box.


But any attempt to do so through blood, through destruction, and through the violence that inherently seems to follow revolution will only serve to give birth to a system of blood, destruction, and violence.

That doesn't make sense at all.

[Blake's Baby]

The American Revolution is of course the primary example of a revolution that did not give birth to a system of 'blood, destruction and violence' (unless one wishes to look at the process from the point of the Native Americans or black slaves of course) but in terms of the revolutionaries themselves, even military men like Washington, they went about building a confident and fairly tolerant and stable state. So, no, revolutions do not necessarily 'eat their own children' as the saying has it, that's a myth that the bourgeoisie find it convenient to use against the notion of revolutionary politics (of course, their own revolutions against feudalism are a different matter...).

So the fact that many revolutions (the 'English Civil War', the French Revolution, the 'Russian Revolution' etc) have led to such situations must be explained by something other than the 'inherent' blood, destruction and violence of revolution.

Anyway, statichaos, you don't believe in historical inevitability, you said so earlier.

[GoddessCleoLover]

In Gramsci's defense, Kaufsky's orthodoxy makes him a good source of what a Marxist analysis of the early 20th century would be like

This is the sense in which my suggestion was intended. My views are more in alignment with those of Rosa Luxemburg than Karl Kautsky.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

This is the sense in which my suggestion was intended. My views are more in alignment with those of Rosa Luxemburg than Karl Kautsky.

Yea, I'm a Maoist so in my opinion Karl Kaufsky was an evil dogmatist who ate babies. But of course, divorced from my political opinion, I can state that objectively Karl's analysis was probably the closest to that of Karl Marx, and for a beginner that is the best place to start. It's always important to begin with the basics before entering the tendency wars

[statichaos]

The American Revolution is of course the primary example of a revolution that did not give birth to a system of 'blood, destruction and violence' (unless one wishes to look at the process from the point of the Native Americans or black slaves of course)

Well, yeah, that's pretty much how I'm looking at it.


but in terms of the revolutionaries themselves, even military men like Washington, they went about building a confident and fairly tolerant and stable state.

Except for the aforementioned slaves and native tribes.


So, no, revolutions do not necessarily 'eat their own children' as the saying has it, that's a myth that the bourgeoisie find it convenient to use against the notion of revolutionary politics (of course, their own revolutions against feudalism are a different matter...).

Agreed with the last part


So the fact that many revolutions (the 'English Civil War', the French Revolution, the 'Russian Revolution' etc) have led to such situations must be explained by something other than the 'inherent' blood, destruction and violence of revolution.

Revolutions are annoyingly unpredictable, and as I stated elsewhere, the biggest bastards at the table often end up taking control at the end.


Anyway, statichaos, you don't believe in historical inevitability, you said so earlier.

Allow me to rephrase: I don't believe in the historical inevitability of the workers' revolution. Whether or not it would be a positive thing I can't say.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, yeah, that's pretty much how I'm looking at it.



Except for the aforementioned slaves and native tribes...

But the genocide of the Native Americans, and the Triangular Trade, pre-existed the Revolution, so they can't be a result of it.

The 'eating of the children' thesis is pretty specific - it states that revolutions inevitably result in a violent, factionalised society that turns on internal enemies, because the act of revolution (going and living by violence, cutting yourself off from parts of society, overcoming humanity for the sake of 'the cause' etc) dehumanises people and produces a violent class of leaders who think that the answer to dissent is to kill people. That's the point.

The American revolution does not have these characteristics. You can't port 'any' violence in and say it's the same. Other wise I can point to any violent society that hasn't had a recent revolution and claim 'that's what not having a revolution does for you'. Would you consider that a valid form of argument?



...
Agreed with the last part



Revolutions are annoyingly unpredictable, and as I stated elsewhere, the biggest bastards at the table often end up taking control at the end...

Can do, but 'often' isn't the same as 'inevitably'. And if the bastards are already at the table, what then?



...
Allow me to rephrase: I don't believe in the historical inevitability of the workers' revolution. Whether or not it would be a positive thing I can't say.

Yeah, let's leave the workers' revolution to one side; you said you don't believe in historical inevitability, so I'm asking if you believe in the historical inevitability of revolutions eating their own children?

[Ostrinski]

My views are more in alignment with those of Rosa Luxemburg than Karl Kautsky.


Yea, I'm a Maoist Both had their roots in some way or other in German social democracy :laugh:

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Both had their roots in some way or other in German social democracy :laugh:

Which had it's roots in Marxism :)

[Yazman]

Bummer

The Introductions board is here to welcome new users and help introduce them to the community.

If you don't have something nice to say, then don't post. Quite frankly I don't give a damn whether you approve of somebody's politics or not - if you're not here to welcome new users or assist them in some way, don't post in Introductions.

Now that that's out of the way - WELCOME TO REVLEFT!

If you have any comments, problems/issues or concerns while you're here, please feel free to send me a private message :)