How does one determine if one is living in a "revolutionary period"?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm wondering what people's thoughts on this are...it relates a bit to some discussions I've seen on this board recently.

Anyway, some people and theorists (like, say, the authors of "Nihilist Communism") say that communist organization is pointless (or at least should have different objectives) in a non-revolutionary period, and I was wondering: is there a precise metric that measures how revolutionary a given time period is? How is this determined?

[prolcon]

I couldn't say anything about a precise metric, but I would say that revolutionary periods have historically been defined by open and serious discussion among revolutionary classes about armed insurrection against the government and a forcible transfer of power. The socialist revolution, though, may be preceded by something entirely different. I say this because the dynamic of class in the capitalist epoch is at its most simplified, historically. Past social orders were characterized by networks of power classes and more disparate classes beneath them. Discussion about forcible power transference would've been open between cooperative classes or within individual classes, and discussion became serious as a result of these classes leveraging their power against the ruling class. The proletariat, on the other hand, are the ultimate underclass. Past socialistic attempts at revolution have never been launched by the proletariat alone. In colonial countries like China and Cuba, the national bourgeoisie were revolutionary in their overthrow of the comprador classes. In Russia and other countries, the proletariat was united with a peasant class that was usually more powerful in terms of productive relations and number. Curiously, a "petty" bourgeoisie persists in Western countries, and it seems to behave as yet another buffer between the ruling class and the underclass.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I couldn't say anything about a precise metric, but I would say that revolutionary periods have historically been defined by open and serious discussion among revolutionary classes about armed insurrection against the government and a forcible transfer of power. The socialist revolution, though, may be preceded by something entirely different. I say this because the dynamic of class in the capitalist epoch is at its most simplified, historically. Past social orders were characterized by networks of power classes and more disparate classes beneath them. Discussion about forcible power transference would've been open between cooperative classes or within individual classes, and discussion became serious as a result of these classes leveraging their power against the ruling class. The proletariat, on the other hand, are the ultimate underclass. Past socialistic attempts at revolution have never been launched by the proletariat alone. In colonial countries like China and Cuba, the national bourgeoisie were revolutionary in their overthrow of the comprador classes. In Russia and other countries, the proletariat was united with a peasant class that was usually more powerful in terms of productive relations and number. Curiously, a "petty" bourgeoisie persists in Western countries, and it seems to behave as yet another buffer between the ruling class and the underclass.


Prolcon's description covers the issue nicely IMO. I would just add that one indication of the onset of a revolutionary period might be the radicalization of the petit-bourgeoisie, eg. when it ceases to act as a buffer and begins to support the demands of the proletariat. Of course, the key thing is still the leading role of the proletariat and the development of its revolutionary class consciousness.

[Die Neue Zeit]

On the contrary to the nihilist crap, a revolutionary period for the working class in itself, in the most developed countries, as opposed to dime-a-dozen regime change, is characterized by all of the following:

1) Antagonisms between the state apparatus and the populace more broadly, also known as mass hostilities towards bourgeois regimes;
2) Existence of a mass but institutionalized [worker-]class movement or class-for-itself, also known as the party-movement, derived from nothing less than the "voluntarist" and "substitutionist" model of the pre-WWI SPD and inter-war USPD;
3) Majority political support from the worker class towards its own class movement, or its party-movement, not measured necessarily by potentially unreliable electoral support, and most reliably measured by honest voting membership; and
4) Breakdown of the internal confidence within the state apparatus, also known as instability within the organs of bourgeois regimes.

The radicalization of the petit-bourgeoisie, as suggested unfortunately by Lenin, is actually irrelevant.

[prolcon]

Wait, are you calling what I said "nihilist crap" or are you talking about something else?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The OP mentioned "the authors of 'Nihilist Communism'" and so I derided their apolitical or anti-political garbage.

[Grenzer]

Nihilism is the way to go. Pro-revolutionary conceptions only reflect pre-revolutionary fabrication.

This voluntarist crap should be the stuff of fairly tales and science fiction. The Neo-SPD leading the masses to glory in Germania 2123: Rise of the Workers' Technate, coming soon to a theater near you!

[l'Enfermé]

^The "masses" includes petty-bourgeois scum and the peasantry, so no.

[prolcon]

I wonder if I personally know any peasants.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I wonder if I personally know any peasants.
Probably not, but you don't live in a country like Somalia, Mexico, Laos or Burma, do you?

[International_Solidarity]

We are always living in a Revolutionary Period. More and more people are brought to Socialism everyday in preparation for the revolution itself, and internationally Socialist uprisings occur even in our own day and age. If we really want a Revolutionary Period, we need to create it ourselves, and we have been doing that Internationally. More organization will merely speed up the process, Socialism is inevitable.

[prolcon]

Probably not, but you don't live in a country like Somalia, Mexico, Laos or Burma, do you?

So a revolution at the scale of the United States would probably not have to worry about revisionism assigning a revolutionary character to its peasantry. Although there's something to be said about the complicated character of the petite bourgeoisie, particularly with regards to its political strength.

I think one of the things that's making it so difficult for the left that a revolutionary proletarian culture is difficult to picture. Maybe a vanguard's purpose in this case is to foment a culture of revolutionary thought in a tangible way, but, again, I find that course of action difficult to articulate in a specific way.

[ind_com]

We are always living in a Revolutionary Period.
This.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm wondering what people's thoughts on this are...it relates a bit to some discussions I've seen on this board recently.

Anyway, some people and theorists (like, say, the authors of "Nihilist Communism") say that communist organization is pointless (or at least should have different objectives) in a non-revolutionary period, and I was wondering: is there a precise metric that measures how revolutionary a given time period is? How is this determined?

I think in general we could say it is a time when the question of power in society becomes more open and or a practical question.

IMO we are now in a time of overt class struggle (even if this is not always explicitly clear to all the participants at all times) and a time when an opposition really can be built in a meaningful way.

When we are in a revolutionary period, it will be very difficult to orient ourselves from scratch. The more working class forces have practice and organization and some sliver of organic revolutionary consiousness before the entire society is swept into a social crisis, the better our chances for workers and worker's organizations playing a leading, rather than support (for other class interests) role.

In Egypt, if the worker's movement had been as organized as the Muslem Brotherhood, even if the mass of the working class was not fully consious and won to worker's power, then it would give working class interests a better chance of having an independant role in the uprising, in turn potentially rallying mass support for the worker's movement leading to a situation where the official government can no longer pretend to side with the revolution while actually being beholden to the military and middle class forces. This could create a situation where the question of who rules society becomes a practical concern. But without this kind of independant revolutionary rallying vehicle, workers can play a role of being a major force in the opposition, but they are unable to create their own alternative.

[Die Neue Zeit]

When we are in a revolutionary period, it will be very difficult to orient ourselves from scratch. The more working class forces have practice and organization and some sliver of organic revolutionary consiousness before the entire society is swept into a social crisis, the better our chances for workers and worker's organizations playing a leading, rather than support (for other class interests) role.

This.


But without this kind of independant revolutionary rallying vehicle, workers can play a role of being a major force in the opposition, but they are unable to create their own alternative.

If you mean creating alternatives from within organs right up to and including the bourgeois constructs that are ad hoc popular councils, I agree.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

On the contrary to the nihilist crap, a revolutionary period for the working class in itself, in the most developed countries, as opposed to dime-a-dozen regime change, is characterized by all of the following:

1) Antagonisms between the state apparatus and the populace more broadly, also known as mass hostilities towards bourgeois regimes;
2) Existence of a mass but institutionalized [worker-]class movement or class-for-itself, also known as the party-movement, derived from nothing less than the "voluntarist" and "substitutionist" model of the pre-WWI SPD and inter-war USPD;
3) Majority political support from the worker class towards its own class movement, or its party-movement, not measured necessarily by potentially unreliable electoral support, and most reliably measured by honest voting membership; and
4) Breakdown of the internal confidence within the state apparatus, also known as instability within the organs of bourgeois regimes.

The radicalization of the petit-bourgeoisie, as suggested unfortunately by Lenin, is actually irrelevant.

Yawn.

So, you have a situation where millions of people are banging on the gates at Buckingham Palace/Downing Street flying the flag for Socialism and demanding the end of capital, but if there's not majority worker support for your precious, imagined bureaucratic party then it's not a revolutionary situation?

You're such a sectarian!

[l'Enfermé]

Yawn.

So, you have a situation where millions of people are banging on the gates at Buckingham Palace/Downing Street flying the flag for Socialism and demanding the end of capital, but if there's not majority worker support for your precious, imagined bureaucratic party then it's not a revolutionary situation?

You're such a sectarian!
Several questions: first, do you understand what is "sectarianism" and second, what is a "bureaucratic party"?

But let's ignore that. You describe a situation where millions of Londoners(out of 8 million in Greater London or 14 in the London metropolitan area) stand firmly behind the cause of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This, by definition, implies mass hostility towards the bourgeois government. Condition one is thus fulfilled. The existence of millions of socialists and socialist-sympathizing workers already presupposes a thriving and energetic mass socialist class-movement(which can only take on the form of a party-movement -"Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes." - Marx) and the fact that practically all of London is on its side also implies that the class-movement has majority support from the proletariat, which means conditions 2 and 3 are fulfilled also. And given that millions of workers are on the streets fighting against capital, it's inconceivable to speak of stability within organs of the bourgeoisie's rule or internal confidence, thus condition 4 is fulfilled also.

In other words, to arrive to the point when there are millions of socialists on the streets of London, all of DNZ's 4 conditions have to be fulfilled already.

[GoddessCleoLover]

With respect to the radicalization of the petty bourgeoisie. In a large country like the USA the petty bourgeoisie numbers by my guess about fifty million people. It would seem imperative for this numerous social strata to be favorably disposed toward the revolution. If not, the consequences could be negative. Just sayin'.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Several questions: first, do you understand what is "sectarianism" and second, what is a "bureaucratic party"?

But let's ignore that. You describe a situation where millions of Londoners(out of 8 million in Greater London or 14 in the London metropolitan area) stand firmly behind the cause of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This, by definition, implies mass hostility towards the bourgeois government. Condition one is thus fulfilled. The existence of millions of socialists and socialist-sympathizing workers already presupposes a thriving and energetic mass socialist class-movement(which can only take on the form of a party-movement -"Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes." - Marx) and the fact that practically all of London is on its side also implies that the class-movement has majority support from the proletariat, which means conditions 2 and 3 are fulfilled also. And given that millions of workers are on the streets fighting against capital, it's inconceivable to speak of stability within organs of the bourgeoisie's rule or internal confidence, thus condition 4 is fulfilled also.

In other words, to arrive to the point when there are millions of socialists on the streets of London, all of DNZ's 4 conditions have to be fulfilled already.

You're assuming that the ONLY way a large number of people can come together and believe in a radical idea - nay, make it happen - is through a party-movement. You've not really proved this in any way, aside from providing some bracketed, out-of-context quote from a bloke living 150 years ago.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also, the class-movement is the proletariat. If it's divorced in any way, then you have a political movement, not a class-movement.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Also, the class-movement is the proletariat. If it's divorced in any way, then you have a political movement, not a class-movement.

AFAIK it has to be both a class-movement and a political movement. The political movement must be organically part of the class-movement. Once the "vanguard" is divorced from the class-movement the inevitable result is a dictatorship of the vanguard elite. In other words, the political movement must arise organically from the class-movement and remain organically part of the class-movement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You have it wrong there, Gramsci Guy. Actual class movements are already a subset of generic political movements. You're confusing class movements with mere labour "movements," especially those centered around trade unions.


With respect to the radicalization of the petty bourgeoisie. In a large country like the USA the petty bourgeoisie numbers by my guess about fifty million people. It would seem imperative for this numerous social strata to be favorably disposed toward the revolution. If not, the consequences could be negative. Just sayin'.

As comrade Miles noted before, the best-case scenario for class independence with majority political support is to make the petit-bourgeoisie politically neutral, in order to avoid dependence on them.


In other words, to arrive to the point when there are millions of socialists on the streets of London, all of DNZ's 4 conditions have to be fulfilled already.

Comrade, The Boss is trying to bring the example of May 1968 into the discussion, or any other example without the second and third conditions. The political support was fictitious, as demonstrated by the backlash that brought De Gaulle back to power. At best, that situation could have brought about mere regime change.


You're assuming that the ONLY way a large number of people can come together and believe in a radical idea - nay, make it happen - is through a party-movement. You've not really proved this in any way, aside from providing some bracketed, out-of-context quote from a bloke living 150 years ago.

Believing in a radical idea can happen with those bourgeois constructs that are ad hoc popular councils or organs. Making it happen with clear heads, however, requires nothing less than a mass-institutionalized party-movement, or what you call a "bureaucratic party."

Bureaucracy-As-Process, Revolutionary Careerism, and so on are things the proletariat must master in order to effect a transition that won't break down.

[Note to comrades: Those are two of my buzzwords for First World organizing. I hope you won't interpret them as a sort of "weird, hybrid Stalinism."]

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

AFAIK it has to be both a class-movement and a political movement. The political movement must be organically part of the class-movement. Once the "vanguard" is divorced from the class-movement the inevitable result is a dictatorship of the vanguard elite. In other words, the political movement must arise organically from the class-movement and remain organically part of the class-movement.

Yes I agree, I think that's a good clarification.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Comrade, The Boss is trying to bring the example of May 1968 into the discussion, or any other example without the second and third condition

I'm not *trying*. These examples exist whether you like it or not, and that they exist points to the irrelevance of your insistence that only when the movement is headed by some bureaucratic party can there be a revolutionary situation; there are too many examples in history that show that, as Gramsci Guy rightly points out, political leadership and organisation can arise organically out of a class movement. You can deny this if you want but the proof is in the pudding.




Believing in a radical idea can happen with those bourgeois constructs that are ad hoc popular councils or organs. Making it happen with clear heads, however, requires nothing less than a mass-institutionalized party-movement, or what you call a "bureaucratic party."

You can keep repeating this over again but, as I have said above and in previous posts, there is no justification for this insistence that a situation can only be revolutionary if there exists a movement headed by one of your careerist-ravaged, bureaucratic parties, given that successful political movements generally spawn organically out of class movements.

[GoddessCleoLover]

On the issue of the petty bourgeoisie in a revolutionary situation, it seems more efficacious to seek active support of at least a portion of that class. In a revolutionary situation political passions are at a high pitch, what Trotsky called a "flood tide" and the bourgeoisie will certainly move heaven and earth to retain support of the millions that belong to the petty bourgeois class. Proletarian revolutionaries would do well to encourage the petty bourgeoisie to side with the revolution, since the reactionaries will certainly be seeking petty bourgeois support. In other words, the best way to neutralize the petty bourgeoisie as a class is to gain the support of a substantial portion of that class for the Revolution.

[RedMaterialist]

Here is a precise standard for determining if you live in a revolutionary period.

1. On any given day you see 1,000 (depending on the size of the population) people lying dead in the streets, killed either by capitalist death sqads or your own government.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Here is a precise standard for determining if you live in a revolutionary period.

1. On any given day you see 1,000 (depending on the size of the population) people lying dead in the streets, killed either by capitalist death sqads or your own government.

That would be characteristic of a crisis situation, one that would either become a truly revolutionary situation or the aftermath of a revolutionary situation that ended in the failure of the revolutionary forces.

[Let's Get Free]

A "revolutionary period" is when the overthrow of capitalism is imminent. Right now, we are a million miles away from that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A "revolutionary period" is when the overthrow of capitalism is imminent. Right now, we are a million miles away from that.

I don't think so, actually. I think that within the next 50 years or so, there's going to be a major change. Not necessarily through conscious working class revolution, though...at this point that seems like the least likely path. But perhaps through either major ecological collapse, or through capitalism becoming superfluous due to technological advances.

[Ostrinski]

Also, the class-movement is the proletariat. If it's divorced in any way, then you have a political movement, not a class-movement.I would tend to agree with the first part while the second part I think is a bit confusing because it posits the two as being mutually exclusive while I would argue that they are inseparable. The formation of the proletariat into their own political body to express itself politically. Of course democratic procedures must be the basis of the party and the movement, as the emancipation of the proletariat can only be self-emancipation.

The conflation of parties with bureaucratism and substitutionism is exhausting.

[Grenzer]

Except that since a party is going to be a minority of the class, that means by definition its views are not necessarily the interests of the class itself; only a section of the class. The practical implication of this is that the party cannot take state power. People who advocate party seizure of state power are indeed substitutionists since the party is never going to be as broad as the class itself. If you try to have a party that is broad as the class itself, then ,

1. It's still not going to become as broad as the class itself since not everyone will be a member.
2. It's going to be, at best, an anti-communist reformist party and lay the ground for policies that will open the party to class alien elements and even further to bourgeois ideology, which would already inundate a broad, non-communist party. The idea that just by assembling a party that is full of workers you'll end up with a positive movement towards communism is reductionist and vulgar Marxism.


You can keep repeating this over again but, as I have said above and in previous posts, there is no justification for this insistence that a situation can only be revolutionary if there exists a movement headed by one of your careerist-ravaged, bureaucratic parties, given that successful political movements generally spawn organically out of class movements.

Save your breath, mate. This tripe about "revolutionary careerism" is just self-serving, technocratic nonsense.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Except that since a party is going to be a minority of the class

Why?

[Grenzer]

Why?

Try making a party that contains a majority of the class, and is actually a revolutionary communist party. Get back to me when you do.

Marxist nerds have been preaching this self-aggrandizing fantasy for over a century. It doesn't work.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of "revolutionary careerism", who could forget the time DNZ praised the fascist Golden Dawn for requiring people to rise in the presence of a politician?

Most of his proposals would make a Soviet bureaucrat blush. Stalinism may not be the most correct word to describe it; in reality it's more like an eclectic mixture of fascism, stalinism, and social-democracy.

So what sort of person, pray tell, would be a model for this "revolutionary careerist"? Why none other than DNZ himself.


Not to sound egotistic, but I do consider myself amongst those "proletarians who stand out due to their intellectual development."

DNZ makes appeals less based on any actual understanding or link to revolutionary Marxism, and more on the hopes that no one has done the reading to see through his crap.

[Raúl Duke]

I view things thusly:

On the eve of a revolution, I expect to see a more militant working class, open derision for bourgeois political and socio-economic discourse, contempt for the bourgeoisie, contempt for the government/the state as a ruling-class 'apparatus.' I don't necessarily see the working class, as a whole, to be exactly into radical ideologies (in the sense that they openly label themselves as communists/anarchists or even sympathizers per se; although they might, I'm not a fortune-teller but the deathblow to capitalism will occur in their role as workers not as radical activist types) but in this point they will be more anti-capitalist (i.e. highly critical of capitalism) and a bit more open pro-revolutionary, radical ideologies (and more so once the initial wave of the revolution occurs; where once the working class takes the initial steps of seizing power) however there will probably be substantially more radicals present compared to other periods.

I view the revolution occurring a bit like the February Revolution in Russia, more or less; it will occur organically during the course of the working class pursuing its aims, it will break out when the bourgeois fail to meet them and the militancy of the no-longer timid working class brings about a wave of action that reaches a critical point of no turning back.

[TheOther]

Damn man, I don't know about USA, but I think that poor people in USA always find a way to surive in black market, illegal market, lumpenproletariat activities, like e-bay, side-businesses, young girls getting into prostitution. And many people who before used to work in higher-wage jobs, but because of the neoliberalism economic model of the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations are now mowing lawns, delivering pizzas. And many are very happy working 3 jobs a day. My sister is married with an ultra-right wing Republican Party hillbilly, redneck who is a high school drop out and very dumb. And like all Republican Party voters and Tea Baggers, they behave different from Democrat Party supporters. What I mean is that most voters of that crazy Republican Party have a very Robinson Crusoe, Old-West Lone-ranger, type of Ayn Rand anti-team-work mentality.

So I don't know man, but with millions and millions of poor people with that suicidal Robinson Crusoe old-west lone ranger worldview, I think that they prefer to die and rot in hell like Vigo Mortesen in the apocalyptic movie The Road, than be outgoing, friendly, cooperative and open-minded toward supporting an anti-war progressive third party for 2016 elections

.



You're assuming that the ONLY way a large number of people can come together and believe in a radical idea - nay, make it happen - is through a party-movement. You've not really proved this in any way, aside from providing some bracketed, out-of-context quote from a bloke living 150 years ago.

[Ostrinski]

Except that since a party is going to be a minority of the class, that means by definition its views are not necessarily the interests of the class itself; only a section of the class. The practical implication of this is that the party cannot take state power. People who advocate party seizure of state power are indeed substitutionists since the party is never going to be as broad as the class itself. If you try to have a party that is broad as the class itself, then ,Of course it is not always going to be a minority of the class, what a baseless assertion. There is no reason that the politically conscious section of the working class cannot communicate a communist program to the rest of the working class - if they can't, then that doesn't say anything particularly good about the prospects of working class emancipation. Unless, of course, you think the politically advanced section of the working class should go ahead and seize power without the consent of the rest of the class. Which is the only practical implication of this particular perspective.

And of course - even the anarchists will tell you that it is unlikely that the entire whole of the working class will be won over to socialism before the revolution. It'd be nice, but it's not likely enough to consider it a reachable aim or to build a strategic initiative on such a premise. That doesn't make the rest going on without them "substitutionist." Substitutionism means a bureaucratic elite usurping or otherwise assuming the rule of the workers in a dictatorship of the proletariat i.e. what happened in the Soviet Union.


2. It's going to be, at best, an anti-communist reformist party and lay the ground for policies that will open the party to class alien elements and even further to bourgeois ideology, which would already inundate a broad, non-communist party. The idea that just by assembling a party that is full of workers you'll end up with a positive movement towards communism is reductionist and vulgar Marxism.http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv85/Mexcello/strawman.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/herring.gif

[Luís Henrique]

I wonder if I personally know any peasants.

I do.

I have to travel to meet them, but I have more than once participated in their meetings.

Luís Henrique

[hetz]

Lenin once said something along the lines of a revolutionary period being the time when the ruling class can’t rule in the old way, and workers won’t be ruled in the old way.
Anyone know the full quote?

[robbo203]

I don't think so, actually. I think that within the next 50 years or so, there's going to be a major change. Not necessarily through conscious working class revolution, though...at this point that seems like the least likely path. But perhaps through either major ecological collapse, or through capitalism becoming superfluous due to technological advances.

Neither of these two things denote the "overthrow of capitalism" which implies a conscious political choice and people can only make that choice when they have something in mind to put in the place of capitalism - viz a non market stateless alternative to capitalism aka socialism. Without a majority wanting and understanding this alternative capitalism remains firmly in place.

It might collapse as a result of external factors and the major ecological collapse you refer to is a case in point. But this is not an example of capitalism being "overthrown". Technological development per se is never going to render capitalism superfluous - only a conscious socialist majority aware of the technological potential we possess to sustain a future socialist society can do that . Nor is the falling rate of profit to which some so called marxists display an almost religious attachment going to bring about capitalism's demise. As Rosa Luxemburg put it in her Anti-Critique “there is still some time to come before capitalism collapses because of the falling rate of profit -- roughly until the sun burns out”.

[black magick hustla]

On the issue of the petty bourgeoisie in a revolutionary situation, it seems more efficacious to seek active support of at least a portion of that class. In a revolutionary situation political passions are at a high pitch, what Trotsky called a "flood tide" and the bourgeoisie will certainly move heaven and earth to retain support of the millions that belong to the petty bourgeois class. Proletarian revolutionaries would do well to encourage the petty bourgeoisie to side with the revolution, since the reactionaries will certainly be seeking petty bourgeois support. In other words, the best way to neutralize the petty bourgeoisie as a class is to gain the support of a substantial portion of that class for the Revolution.

i think the petty bourgeosie by nature is one of the most conservative demographics of society. i think some individual members, particularly those who have intellectual leanings, like professors, sometimes lean to the left. however, i would dare to say that the petit bourgeosie is even more conservative than the bourgeosie, after all, its the source of basically all right wing conspiracy theories, the tea party, libertarian nutcases, fascism, etc. nothing more gross than a conversation between lawyers or dentists imho. even intellectual p.bourgeosie like professors have managerial mentality which makes them use "revolutionary" sounding ideas for technocratic aspirations. that's why stalinism was super popular between professors and scientists in the 30s, seemed to appeal their "autistic side" of micromanaging capitalist economy under the law of reason (and by reason they mean professors/engineers basically) )nstead of letting it run amok.

i am not really a workerist but i think in general, only individuals of that class can attain "communist" consciousness, not that class in general

[Devrim]

I am obviously not old enough to have been involved in politics through a revolutionary period, but I am old enough to remember when there was a more intense period of class struggle. Perhaps we could even say that between 1968-1981 we were in a sort of potentially pre-revolutionary period. Although it is hard to explain exactly the feeling is completely different. There is a sort of general awareness that the working class is able to at least impose itself to a certain extent, which was completely absent during the 1990s and 2000s. Perhaps today there is some sort of return of that feeling with for example the events in Egypt, where workers strikes were one of the main reasons for the fall of the government. However, I don't think that this is general yet, nor do I think that the class struggle is at the level that it was in the 1980s let alone the 1970s.

Devrim

[ComingUpForAir]

The breakdown of the nuclear family, legitimization of gays, decline of religion.. these are three very hopeful signs.. combined with greater class inequality.. I mean it feels like everything is getting further apart at the same time that it's getting closer together.. i can't wait to see how the 10 year olds who are raised on facebook and have their whole lives connected to eachother are going to turn out.. surely as gramsci said, LIFE IS ALWAYS REVOLUTION.. perhaps a violent overthrow isn't how it will happen? I speak as a novice marxist

[hetz]

i think the petty bourgeosie by nature is one of the most conservative demographics of society. i think some individual members, particularly those who have intellectual leanings, like professors, sometimes lean to the left.
I think Marx and Lenin thought otherwise. IIRC they often talked of the petit bourgeoisie which is "revolutionary" but only to a certain point.

[Categories+Sheaves]

Anypony here familiar with Badiou's shtick of the revolutionary event?

[Art Vandelay]

Except that since a party is going to be a minority of the class, that means by definition its views are not necessarily the interests of the class itself; only a section of the class.

Why does this party have to be a minority of the class? But regardless of that, as long as the party was composed of the most class conscious sections of the proletariat, then it would be acting in the revolutionary interests of the proletarian class; even if it was simply a minority of the class, would it not?

Also the implication of your statement above, is that you view it as impossible for the majority of the proletarian class to achieve class consciousness pre-revolution. What does this say then, about the tangible possibility of the self emancipation of the working class.


The practical implication of this is that the party cannot take state power. People who advocate party seizure of state power are indeed substitutionists since the party is never going to be as broad as the class itself.

Now I could be wrong, but as I stated above (and which seems to be further shown below) is that you think it is impossible for the majority of the proletarian class to be won over to a communist program before the revolution (otherwise a mass party would indeed be a possibility), now if the party cannot take state power, then how are we ever going to surpass capital?

What I've gotten from your positions, is that you (1) view it as impossible for the majority of the class to achieve socialist consciousness pre-revolution and (2) the minority of the class which has achieved socialist consciousness cannot seize state power; how exactly is this revolution going to unfold then?


If you try to have a party that is broad as the class itself, then ,

1. It's still not going to become as broad as the class itself since not everyone will be a member.

Well it of course won't contain every member of the proletariat, such an assertion would be absurd, as it is clear to everyone that there will always be backwards and reactionary sections of the proletariat.


2. It's going to be, at best, an anti-communist reformist party

Once again the implication here is that a majority of the working class cannot achieve socialist class consciousness.


and lay the ground for policies that will open the party to class alien elements and even further to bourgeois ideology,

That's fucking bullshit and you know it. There will be membership restrictions to avoid just that. If anything popular organs (such as workers councils) are what let reactionaries and class alien elements into decision making positions.


which would already inundate a broad, non-communist party. The idea that just by assembling a party that is full of workers you'll end up with a positive movement towards communism is reductionist and vulgar Marxism.

No one is making that claim though, that's a complete strawman and given your familiarity with many of our political positions, it comes across as slander and intellectual dishonesty.

No one here has ever made the claim that we just need to get all the workers into one big old party and we will advance to socialism collectively. Show me one statement by anyone in this thread (Q, DNZ, myself) where any of us advocate anything short of allowing class conscious members of the proletariat into the political party. If anything DNZ has been accused of the opposite, as he's been condemned as 'authoritarian' for his belief that ad hoc popular organs will have to be subjugated to the proletarian party, to stop just what you stated above: class aliens and reactionaries from gaining any sorts of political sway.


Try making a party that contains a majority of the class, and is actually a revolutionary communist party. Get back to me when you do.

The Bolsheviks. Also that's a horrible argument anyways, just cause something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean its impossible. By that logic I could make the following statement:

'Try organizing the working class for the overthrow of capitalism. Socialists have been trying that for over a century. Get back to me when you do.'

:rolleyes:


Oh, and while we're on the subject of "revolutionary careerism", who could forget the time DNZ praised the fascist Golden Dawn for requiring people to rise in the presence of a politician?

Most of his proposals would make a Soviet bureaucrat blush. Stalinism may not be the most correct word to describe it; in reality it's more like an eclectic mixture of fascism, stalinism, and social-democracy.

This anti-DNZ whitch hunt is really getting lulzy; overnight you went from considering him a comrade and agreeing with many of his positions, to treating him with contempt. You want to attack him, try doing it politically, I'm sure he'd been more than happy to respond.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Neither of these two things denote the "overthrow of capitalism" which implies a conscious political choice and people can only make that choice when they have something in mind to put in the place of capitalism - viz a non market stateless alternative to capitalism aka socialism. Without a majority wanting and understanding this alternative capitalism remains firmly in place.

It might collapse as a result of external factors and the major ecological collapse you refer to is a case in point. But this is not an example of capitalism being "overthrown". Technological development per se is never going to render capitalism superfluous - only a conscious socialist majority aware of the technological potential we possess to sustain a future socialist society can do that . Nor is the falling rate of profit to which some so called marxists display an almost religious attachment going to bring about capitalism's demise. As Rosa Luxemburg put it in her Anti-Critique “there is still some time to come before capitalism collapses because of the falling rate of profit -- roughly until the sun burns out”.

You're right, I should've clearly stated that I meant simply capitalism coming to an end and something else replacing it, not it's overthrow.

In regards to technology, I actually do think that capitalism will be extremely difficult to keep in place if there's technological advances which promote super-abundance. This has already happened with digital technology, and if certain technologies are developed (like some of MIT's work on molecular reconstitution, 3d printing etc) it could happen in other areas as well.

[Devrim]

The breakdown of the nuclear family, legitimization of gays, decline of religion..

What do these things have to do with whether it is a revolutionary period or not. I think that the breakdown of the nuclear family, and the 'legitimization of gays' (in certain counties) are tendencies within capitalism, which having nothing to do with the power of the working class.

I am not even sure if there is a decline in religion. On a broader historical view perhaps so, but over the past decade or so I would say there has been an increase in it.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

What do these things have to do with whether it is a revolutionary period or not. I think that the breakdown of the nuclear family, and the 'legitimization of gays' (in certain counties) are tendencies within capitalism, which having nothing to do with the power of the working class.

Also, they are mutually exclusive: the "legitimation of gays" comes as an obvious reinforcement of the nuclear family (gays can now marry, ie, form nuclear families). I see the nuclear family changing and remorphing, but I don't see it breaking down by no means; indeed it was having a worse time in the late sixties and early seventies when people were thinking of "communes" and "free love".

I would say the "legitimation of gays" is a tendency withing capitalism, but that the breakdown of the nuclear family is not.


I am not even sure if there is a decline in religion. On a broader historical view perhaps so, but over the past decade or so I would say there has been an increase in it.

This would probably be geography-related. In Brazil I think the last decade was a time of evident decline of organised religion, though with some paradoxical effects such as the proliferation of neopentecostal cults. I imagine someone living in the Middle East, or in the Southern United States, or perhaps Eastern Europe, might have the opposite impression, and that perhaps such impression is correct for their specific geographical regions.

A decline in (organised) religion is also a tendency within capitalism; but it goes hand in hand with an increasing sacralisation of everything relating to commodities and commodification, which is even more conspicuous than the decline of older forms of religion.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

On topic, I don't know what a "revolutionary period" is. I know what a revolutionary situation is; if you wonder whether you are in a revolutionary situation or not, look at the State; if it still functions, you are not in a revolutionary situation.

Luís Henrique

[Grenzer]

Why does this party have to be a minority of the class? But regardless of that, as long as the party was composed of the most class conscious sections of the proletariat, then it would be acting in the revolutionary interests of the proletarian class; even if it was simply a minority of the class, would it not?

If you're not in a revolutionary period, then most of the class is not going to be for revolution. This is common sense. If the majority of the class was for revolution, then we'd be in a revolutionary period. And to the question: no, that's substitutionism and corresponds to the usual stereotype of Leninism. This is why the party cannot take state power.


What I've gotten from your positions, is that you (1) view it as impossible for the majority of the class to achieve socialist consciousness pre-revolution and (2) the minority of the class which has achieved socialist consciousness cannot seize state power; how exactly is this revolution going to unfold then?

Then you don't really understand my positions. A proletarian dictatorship was established in Paris; the workers in Russia established the organs for their dictatorship entirely separate from the party, and they did so "spontaneously" in both instances. The significance of this suggests a fundamental flaw with the Kautskyite conception of class consciousness and how it spreads, especially with DNZ's revisionist bullshit that class struggle does not exist without a mass party.

One of the big problems that I have noticed is that while you folks tend to emphasize that at the beginning of the 20th century, Lenin was influenced by the SPD, the fact that his politics at the time of the revolution were qualitatively different is ignored. The experiences of the Bolsheviks and the world proletariat were formulated in the 21 points of the Comintern, wholly endorsed by Lenin, made a strong break with many of the core theoretical assumptions of Kautskyism. One might argue that they did not go far enough in breaking form Kautskyism, and I would agree, but its significance should not be understated.


That's fucking bullshit and you know it. There will be membership restrictions to avoid just that. If anything popular organs (such as workers councils) are what let reactionaries and class alien elements into decision making positions.

Bourgeois ideology will not be avoided by having a membership that is restricted to workers. There is nothing "bullshit" about the statement that a non-communist party will not have communist politics. This is, again, common sense. Workers' councils are for workers, this should also be common sense. They are not popular organs, but organs for dictatorship.


No one is making that claim though, that's a complete strawman and given your familiarity with many of our political positions, it comes across as slander and intellectual dishonesty.

Actually, you just did exactly that with statement above this.


No one here has ever made the claim that we just need to get all the workers into one big old party and we will advance to socialism collectively. Show me one statement by anyone in this thread (Q, DNZ, myself) where any of us advocate anything short of allowing class conscious members of the proletariat into the political party. If anything DNZ has been accused of the opposite, as he's been condemned as 'authoritarian' for his belief that ad hoc popular organs will have to be subjugated to the proletarian party, to stop just what you stated above: class aliens and reactionaries from gaining any sorts of political sway.

Actually he has gone on record several times in PM saying that reformists should be allowed into the party so long as they are proletarian. This is a classical Kautskyist position that can only lead to disaster.


A "workers government" coming to power in Greece should roll the lessons of Argentina, Iceland, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador all rolled into one. The first two countries implemented Post-Keynesian monetary and labour measures, plus Argentina defaulted to screw the IMF.

There are radical criticisms to be made of this combination, of course, but this big punch would be a good start.

Blatant reformism, and apparently it's "a good start".


Too many times has the left been caught with its pants down by saying that "[Pro-labour] reforms are impossible" only to be caught flat-wrong.

More reformism.


[On the subject of SYRIZA's adoption of "alternative culture]Welcome developments, I think

How could anything done by a capitalist party be considered a welcome development? It's because, as he's stated on numerous occasions, that the adoption of a workers-only membership policy would by default move the party in the correct direction; that you can actually work backwards from a blatantly capitalist party to a proletarian one. He's said the same of Die Linke as well.


[praising the fascist Golden Dawn's requirement of having members stand for politicians]if the right-populist Golden Dawn can do it, why can't Syriza and the Greek left in general?

Nothing needs to be said on here. Well, one does have to applaud him for his effort to rebrand a fascist party as merely "right-populist" but he's not fooling anyone who's read the news.


For those interested in truly "demanding the impossible" and in structural, radical, pro-labour reform, instead of some "no demands" mantra or "transitional" sloganeering, this PowerPoint presentation is an easy read on the fundamentals of Radical Post-Keynesianism:

http://faculty.buffalostate.edu/joth...esentation.pdf

More reformism.


The Bolsheviks. Also that's a horrible argument anyways, just cause something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean its impossible. By that logic I could make the following statement:

No. The Bolshevik party never had a majority of the Russian working class in its ranks, or anything close to that so your argument is totally invalid.



This anti-DNZ whitch hunt is really getting lulzy; overnight you went from considering him a comrade and agreeing with many of his positions, to treating him with contempt. You want to attack him, try doing it politically, I'm sure he'd been more than happy to respond.

This is simply untrue. I have long acknowledged many of DNZ's positions as reactionary, including this bizarre incarnation of 21st century menshevism: "Third World Caesarean Socialism", his tankie positions on the Stalinist states, unity with reformists, support of handing anarchists over to the police, and others. It was voluntarism and building the party I liked, not DNZism, which has always been very blatantly reactionary. If one accepts voluntarism, then that leads to all kinds of unpleasant compromises that one shouldn't be making.

DNZ has gotten away with saying things many times over that would get anyone else banned in a heartbeat. Supporting military coups, slavery as "primitive socialist accumulation", handing over "hooligans" to the police, and so on. DNZ is an egomaniac and reactionary, and the evidence for this is overwhelming. I don't know why there is a small subset of people who are so unwilling to see this. The only reason DNZ has this weird influence on this forum is because of most of the good users have been purged out. DNZ is quite simply the wannabe Lyndon LaRouche of Social-Democracy.

Ismail has said that he's been told by DNZ that he doesn't actually read any books; he just skims the snippets on Google Books. He just reads enough to pick up on the rhetoric and to sound like he knows what he's talking about when in reality his knowledge of Marxism is nonexistent and his conception of communism is even less than that.

He's even trying to get his supporters into moderator positions so they can abuse their powers and provide him cover while attacking his opponents. Ostrinski has said that he was contacted directly about this, and refused to be a party to it. I am not sure how any reasonable person can defend this.

In light of this, a critical and hostile orientation towards DNZ and his nonsense is totally warranted. You should really step back and take an objective look at all of this and realize that you've been made a fool of.

DNZ's constant invocation of "revolutionary strategy" is a total farce, no different from the Brezhnevites who cry out about "actually existing socialism". It's smokescreen for his reactionary bean counting and siding with Capital. End this joke; it's gone on for far too long.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks encompassed not even one percent of the population on the eve of the revolution and never encompassed more than 15%.

Grigory Zinoviev:


Our Central Committee has decided to deprive certain categories of party members of the right to vote at the Congress of the party. Certainly it is unheard of to limit the right voting within the party, but the entire party has approved this measure, which is to assure the homogeneous unity of the Communists So that in fact, we have 500,000 members who manage the entire State machine from top to bottom

Wikipedia:


The average party member was very young. In 1907, 22% of Bolsheviks were under 20, 37% were 20-24 and 16% were 25-29. By 1905, 62% of the members were industrial workers (3% of the population in 1897[9]).[10] 22% of Bolsheviks were gentry (1.7% of the total population), 38% were uprooted peasants, compared with 19% and 26% for the Mensheviks. In 1907 78.3% of the Bolsheviks were Russian and 10% were Jewish (34 and 20% for the Mensheviks). Total membership was 8,400 in 1905, 13,000 in 1906 and 46,100 by 1907 (8,400, 18,000, 38,200 respectively for the Mensheviks). By 1910 both factions together had fewer than 100,000 members

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik


In 1918 it had a membership of approximately 200,000. In the late 1920s under Stalin, the party engaged in a heavy recruitment campaign (the "Lenin Levy") of new members from both the working class and rural areas. This was both an attempt to "proletarianize" the party and an attempt by Stalin to strengthen his base by outnumbering the Old Bolsheviks and reducing their influence in the party.

In 1925 there were 1,025,000 communist party members in a population of 147 million.[2] In 1927, after an intensive recruitment campaign, membership rose to 1,200,000[3]

By 1933, the party had approximately 3.5 million members but as a result of the Great Purge party membership was cut down to 1.9 million by 1939.[citation needed] In 1986, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had over 19 million members or approximately 10% of the USSR's adult population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union

It's highly unrealistic to think 51% of the working class will join the ranks of one party, which also happens to be not a bourgeois socialist party, but a genuine revolutionary communist one.

[GoddessCleoLover]

On topic, I don't know what a "revolutionary period" is. I know what a revolutionary situation is; if you wonder whether you are in a revolutionary situation or not, look at the State; if it still functions, you are not in a revolutionary situation.

Luís Henrique

This. Didn't Lenin believe that the inability of the ruling class to govern was a prerequisite to revolution?

[Die Neue Zeit]

On topic, I don't know what a "revolutionary period" is. I know what a revolutionary situation is; if you wonder whether you are in a revolutionary situation or not, look at the State; if it still functions, you are not in a revolutionary situation.

Luís Henrique

If the state is not functioning, the situation might not necessarily be revolutionary. Mere regime change might be in the works.


It's highly unrealistic to think 51% of the working class will join the ranks of one party, which also happens to be not a bourgeois socialist party, but a genuine revolutionary communist one.

However, you pointed to an opportunistic formation that deliberately discouraged mass membership by its definition of "vanguard." The Romanian CP had only a third of adults as members tops, but it too falls under the same group.

[Art Vandelay]

The Bolsheviks encompassed not even one percent of the population on the eve of the revolution and never encompassed more than 15%.

Grigory Zinoviev:



Wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union

It's highly unrealistic to think 51% of the working class will join the ranks of one party, which also happens to be not a bourgeois socialist party, but a genuine revolutionary communist one.

From the opening blurb on the same wiki page you just quoted:


The Bolsheviks, founded by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov, were by 1905 a mass organization consisting primarily of workers under a democratic internal hierarchy governed by the principle of democratic centralism, who considered themselves the leaders of the revolutionary working class of Russia.

[Art Vandelay]

If you're not in a revolutionary period, then most of the class is not going to be for revolution. This is common sense.

Of course.


If the majority of the class was for revolution, then we'd be in a revolutionary period.

This isn't entirely true, at least in my opinion, although I think you'd disagree, which is fair enough. However I do stand by Kautsky's conception of what constitutes a revolutionary situation. I am sure you are familiar with it, so I don't feel the need to outline his five conditions which must be met for a situation to be revolutionary.


And to the question: no, that's substitutionism and corresponds to the usual stereotype of Leninism. This is why the party cannot take state power.

But what I want to know is why the most militant and class conscious sections of the proletariat can not objectively act in the revolutionary interests of the proletariat.


Then you don't really understand my positions.

That is probably true.


A proletarian dictatorship was established in Paris; the workers in Russia established the organs for their dictatorship entirely separate from the party, and they did so "spontaneously" in both instances.

So do you no longer believe that the USSR in its infancy was a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat?

Indeed the working class can 'spontaneously' set up organs for their dictatorship, however I view a revolutionary vanguard as a pre requisite for the successful seizure of state power. 'Spontaneity' cannot be relied upon.


In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes every effort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends to maintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political domination of the propertied classes resulting from it;

Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

1871; Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action.


By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. In the period under discussion, the middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the revolutionary youth in Russia.

Hence, we had both the spontaneous awakening of the working masses, their awakening to conscious life and conscious struggle, and a revolutionary youth, armed with Social-Democratic theory and straining towards the workers.

Lenin; WITBD; 1902.


This shows that all worship of the spontaneity of the working class movement, all belittling of the role of “the conscious element”, of the role of Social-Democracy, means, quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers. All those who talk about “overrating the importance of ideology”,[12] about exaggerating the role of the conscious element,[13] etc., imagine that the labour movement pure and simple can elaborate, and will elaborate, an independent ideology for itself, if only the workers “wrest their fate from the hands of the leaders”. But this is a profound mistake. To supplement what has been said above, we shall quote the following profoundly true and important words of Karl. Kautsky on the new draft programme of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party:

Lenin; WITBD; 1902


The significance of this suggests a fundamental flaw with the Kautskyite conception of class consciousness and how it spreads, especially with DNZ's revisionist bullshit that class struggle does not exist without a mass party.

Well I'm not DNZ and I don't believe that class struggle doesn't exist outside of the party. Class struggle exists continually around us, everyday, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. In all honesty, given my background in insurrectionary anarchism, I don't know why anyone would think otherwise (I'm not claiming that you were saying I hold that belief, but I do see alot of us get lumped in with some of his beliefs for no reason in particular). In all honesty, I'd consider myself one of the least sectarian people on this board. I get along with trots and left-coms fairly well and would work with any of them in real life. On top of that, if we were at a demo, I'd probably end up doing alot of the shit that the insurrectionaries would be. Just cause I think a vanguard party is necessary to successfully seize state power, doesn't mean that I don't find property destruction personally liberating; on top of that, I think that black bloc is a seriously underused tool, the possibility of organizing mass looting and redistribution of goods among poorer neighborhoods would be a great development.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I don't understand why all of us 'revolutionary Marxists' or 'orthodox Marxists' are catching flack because DNZ has certain convictions. The 'revolutionary Marxists' user group was never centered around DNZ and in all honesty this slur of 'DNZites' (not saying you were using it) is absurd.


One of the big problems that I have noticed is that while you folks tend to emphasize that at the beginning of the 20th century, Lenin was influenced by the SPD, the fact that his politics at the time of the revolution were qualitatively different is ignored.

This is something I'd have to get back to you on, after I finally get my hands on Lenin Rediscovered. However I have listened to talks with Lars Lih where he goes over some of the positions he takes in the LR and I must say that his case was fairly compelling.


The experiences of the Bolsheviks and the world proletariat were formulated in the 21 points of the Comintern, wholly endorsed by Lenin, made a strong break with many of the core theoretical assumptions of Kautskyism. One might argue that they did not go far enough in breaking form Kautskyism, and I would agree, but its significance should not be understated.

Could you elaborate on some of these breaks?

Even if he did make a break with 'Kautskyism' or what have you, I don't see how this matters. The point isn't to uphold any of these thinkers as infallible, but rather that you evaluate them, take what is good and leave the rest.


Bourgeois ideology will not be avoided by having a membership that is restricted to workers.

Restricted to class conscious militant workers, in my opinion and yes it would.


There is nothing "bullshit" about the statement that a non-communist party will not have communist politics.

Who is talking about a 'non-communist party?'


This is, again, common sense. Workers' councils are for workers, this should also be common sense. They are not popular organs, but organs for dictatorship.

The problem with workers councils is that they allow reactionary and backwards sections of the proletariat a chance to gain decision making power.


Actually, you just did exactly that with statement above this.

No I didn't, because I never stated that membership restrictions will be, 'oh your a worker, come on in.'


Actually he has gone on record several times in PM saying that reformists should be allowed into the party so long as they are proletarian. This is a classical Kautskyist position that can only lead to disaster.

Well since this is in PM's I would of never seen it, but this is surely no position of mine.


Blatant reformism, and apparently it's "a good start".

More reformism.

Again, why are DNZ's positions projected onto others?


How could anything done by a capitalist party be considered a welcome development? It's because, as he's stated on numerous occasions, that the adoption of a workers-only membership policy would by default move the party in the correct direction; that you can actually work backwards from a blatantly capitalist party to a proletarian one. He's said the same of Die Linke as well.

You should engage in polemics with him about this then, cause none of these are representative of my positions.


No. The Bolshevik party never had a majority of the Russian working class in its ranks, or anything close to that so your argument is totally invalid.


I'd be interested in seeing statistics of the size of the Bolsheviks in 1917, as compared to the total population of the working class in Russia.


This is simply untrue. I have long acknowledged many of DNZ's positions as reactionary, including this bizarre incarnation of 21st century menshevism: "Third World Caesarean Socialism", his tankie positions on the Stalinist states, unity with reformists, support of handing anarchists over to the police, and others. It was voluntarism and building the party I liked, not DNZism, which has always been very blatantly reactionary. If one accepts voluntarism, then that leads to all kinds of unpleasant compromises that one shouldn't be making.

So you were able to be interested in some of the positions that he held (party building for example) but were able to also not adopt some of his 'reactionary and bizzare' positions. Why is it incapable for myself to be doing the same?


DNZ has gotten away with saying things many times over that would get anyone else banned in a heartbeat. Supporting military coups, slavery as "primitive socialist accumulation", handing over "hooligans" to the police, and so on.

So have many others: we have a member of the BA, who has a sexist reference as his username, yet no one cares. There are plenty of people who could have easily been banned in the past, as well as others who were banned without proper justification. It's revleft, this shit happens.


DNZ is an egomaniac

You'd have to show some compelling evidence for this, as that would be damn near impossible to diagnose over the internet.


and reactionary, and the evidence for this is overwhelming. I don't know why there is a small subset of people who are so unwilling to see this. The only reason DNZ has this weird influence on this forum is because of most of the good users have been purged out. DNZ is quite simply the wannabe Lyndon LaRouche of Social-Democracy.

This supposed 'influence' is being highly overstated by all those leading this anti-DNZ campaign.


Ismail has said that he's been told by DNZ that he doesn't actually read any books; he just skims the snippets on Google Books. He just reads enough to pick up on the rhetoric and to sound like he knows what he's talking about when in reality his knowledge of Marxism is nonexistent and his conception of communism is even less than that.


Perhaps he can't afford them? DNZ, unlike many of us here, is an actual worker. Any member of the working class interested in communism, is a positive thing. On top of that, DNZ (regardless of whatever you think of his politics) is one of the only members on this board who actually 'thinks' as opposed to just regurgitate the rhetoric that they've heard other board members spout.


He's even trying to get his supporters into moderator positions so they can abuse their powers and provide him cover while attacking his opponents. Ostrinski has said that he was contacted directly about this, and refused to be a party to it. I am not sure how any reasonable person can defend this.

I'm not interested in internet drama.


In light of this, a critical and hostile orientation towards DNZ and his nonsense is totally warranted. You should really step back and take an objective look at all of this and realize that you've been made a fool of.

I know where I am coming from and where I am going politically and I've made up my mind on my own thank you very much. Again this obsession that DNZ is so greatly influencing all of us, is just beyond absurd. I have very limited contact with him in all honesty. If anyone drew me to 'orthodox' Marxism it was Q and his thoughts on demarchy. While I might not be the most theoretically advanced member of the board, I'm hardly making a fool out of myself. If anyone is making a fool of themselves its someone who switches over night from being a 'Kautsky revivalist' to an 'anti-kautskyist,' or from hurling the slur of 'bakuninism' at left communists, to being a left communist themselves the next day.


End this joke; it's gone on for far too long.

Was it always just a joke for you? Or is it just a joke now, since you've had a change of heart, politically speaking.

[black magick hustla]

I think Marx and Lenin thought otherwise. IIRC they often talked of the petit bourgeoisie which is "revolutionary" but only to a certain point.

i think marx's petit bourgeosie is different than the current incantations of it. before, the petit bourgeosie had a lot of social intersections with the skilled layers of the working class. today the petit bourgeosie is sociologically insulated from the proletariat and it festers with it a specific culture and inclination. when i think of the petit bourgeosie today i think of lawyers, dentists, doctors,managers and small buisnessmen. very different from artisans imho

[black magick hustla]

The petit bourgeosie revealed its ugly head with the rise of fascism. they were its most willing soldiers. the petit bourgeosie is by nature made of workaholics, that is why they love discipline and "order" and identify with it ideologically much more than the bourgeosie, for that matter.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you're not in a revolutionary period, then most of the class is not going to be for revolution. This is common sense.Of course.

Actually, I think the logic is the other way around from what you quoted. If most of the class isn't gonna give its all, then we're not in a revolutionary period for the working class. You quoted a modus ponens logical error.


Well I'm not DNZ and I don't believe that class struggle doesn't exist outside of the party. Class struggle exists continually around us, everyday, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

Genuine class struggle is political. The class struggle you refer to is mainly from the non-worker classes. Recall Warren Buffett's plutocratic quote? Any "fightback" at the moment is at the level of mere labour disputes.


Just cause I think a vanguard party is necessary to successfully seize state power, doesn't mean that I don't find property destruction personally liberating; on top of that, I think that black bloc is a seriously underused tool, the possibility of organizing mass looting and redistribution of goods among poorer neighborhoods would be a great development.

I almost stepped in to express a premature disagreement, comrade, but I guess the political emphasis should be on "redistribution of goods among poorer neighborhoods." I would venture, however, that 99.9% of Black Bloc mass looting historically doesn't result in such redistribution.


This is something I'd have to get back to you on, after I finally get my hands on Lenin Rediscovered. However I have listened to talks with Lars Lih where he goes over some of the positions he takes in the LR and I must say that his case was fairly compelling.

Just wait till you read what Lars Lih wrote about what Lenin thought of Kautsky after WITBD, none of which was a "break with Kautskyism."


So you were able to be interested in some of the positions that he held (party building for example) but were able to also not adopt some of his 'reactionary and bizzare' positions. Why is it incapable for myself to be doing the same?

For the record, TWCS is not "21st century Menshevism." Any such crap would still leave some segment of the bourgeoisie in charge. "Supporting military coups" is within either the TWCS context contemporarily or the Paris Commune's National Guard historically.


Perhaps he can't afford them? DNZ, unlike many of us here, is an actual worker. Any member of the working class interested in communism, is a positive thing. On top of that, DNZ (regardless of whatever you think of his politics) is one of the only members on this board who actually 'thinks' as opposed to just regurgitate the rhetoric that they've heard other board members spout.

He's saying BS. I have a number of DOCs and PDFs, and the "snippets" I read are much bigger than that. Most of Chapter 1 of Lih's WITBD book being on Google Books is hardly a "snippet."

Other than that, yes I'm an actual worker.


If anyone drew me to 'orthodox' Marxism it was Q and his thoughts on demarchy. While I might not be the most theoretically advanced member of the board, I'm hardly making a fool out of myself. If anyone is making a fool of themselves its someone who switches over night from being a 'Kautsky revivalist' to an 'anti-kautskyist,' or from hurling the slur of 'bakuninism' at left communists, to being a left communist themselves the next day.

Even I, a "bad cop" for those comrades interested in adapting orthodox Marxism to modern circumstances (since you mentioned comrade Q, a "good cop" in my view), never hurled "Bakuninism" at left-coms as frequently as that flip-flopper did. :lol:

[Geiseric]

We are currently living in a revolutionary situation and have been since the late 1800s. The missing factor, the only missing factor is the proper leadership of the working class when the times are crucial. For example instead of saying let's general strike during WW2, the CP-USA rode the popular front bandwagon, supported the no strike pledge at a time when unions were at their largest in history, became a bourgeois organization, and to this day is a dying, decaying shell of opportunists. The Black Panther Party would of been capable of leading a revolution in the black community, so would Malcolm X's OAAU, which he formed before he died, but they were put down by the pigs. The communists who actually held bolshevik positions regarding the war in WW2 were also put down by the government and the remnents of the Stalinist CP-USA which ratted out the SWP during the Smith Trials in the 40's. I don't know much about the CP during Vietnam. But we're in many imperialist wars and the epoch of capitalist growth due to the offensive of the past 40 years is over, I don't see why nobody else thinks this is a "revolutionary situation."

The thing we need to do is forge links with the working class by taking the lead in struggles that rise naturally out of the working class, such as Michigan as we're seeing now, the immigrants rights movement, the social health care movement, the education movement, womens rights, etc. Call me a reformist, I don't give a shit. It's better than sitting on your ass on the computer.

[l'Enfermé]

If you're not in a revolutionary period, then most of the class is not going to be for revolution. This is common sense. If the majority of the class was for revolution, then we'd be in a revolutionary period. And to the question: no, that's substitutionism and corresponds to the usual stereotype of Leninism.
What is this talk of "revolutionary periods"? Why do you insist that this "Kautsky-shite" conception is a real one? Comrade, you must abandon this notion. You're an Ultra-left now.


This is why the party cannot take state power.
"The" party has taken power in the past and if the worker's movement is ever rebuilt again, it could in the future.



Then you don't really understand my positions. A proletarian dictatorship was established in Paris;
According to the official Marxist rhetoric but in private Marx dismissed the Commune as a "mere" rising of a "town under exceptional conditions" and said the majority of the Commune was in "no sense" socialist. The only actual socialists in the Commune were the Blanquists and the First International-affiliated Proudhonians. Really all of its genuinely revolutionary acts were spearheaded by the Blanquists(with support from some Proudhonians).


the workers in Russia established the organs for their dictatorship entirely separate from the party, and they did so "spontaneously" in both instances.
In 1905, yes, but in 1917 the Soviets weren't "spontaneous" in the least, all the main ones like in Petrograd were primarily Menshevik affairs in the beginning. But I don't understand how you can say that the workers established the organs for their dictatorship in either 1905 or in 1917, the workers never held power in 1905 at all and neither did they in 1917. Did the Soviets decide foreign policy, set taxes, control the police or the military? Not at all. The Soviets, in themselves, were completely impotent and merely symbolic. Their real strength lay in the socialist delegates and the socialist parties the delegates represented.

The organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat were set up but they sat there unused, rusting, until the party came in and took charge.


The significance of this suggests a fundamental flaw with the Kautskyite conception of class consciousness and how it spreads, especially with DNZ's revisionist bullshit that class struggle does not exist without a mass party.
Open class struggle. Open class struggle is by definition political class struggle. Only a mass party-movement can wage a class struggle of any relevance that is worth mentioning.


One of the big problems that I have noticed is that while you folks tend to emphasize that at the beginning of the 20th century, Lenin was influenced by the SPD, the fact that his politics at the time of the revolution were qualitatively different is ignored. The experiences of the Bolsheviks and the world proletariat were formulated in the 21 points of the Comintern, wholly endorsed by Lenin, made a strong break with many of the core theoretical assumptions of Kautskyism. One might argue that they did not go far enough in breaking form Kautskyism, and I would agree, but its significance should not be understated.
Read Lars Lih's research.




Bourgeois ideology will not be avoided by having a membership that is restricted to workers. There is nothing "bullshit" about the statement that a non-communist party will not have communist politics. This is, again, common sense. Workers' councils are for workers, this should also be common sense. They are not popular organs, but organs for dictatorship.
If they are organs for dictatorship only socialist workers would be let in, but if all workers are let in, they ARE popular organs.



Actually he has gone on record several times in PM saying that reformists should be allowed into the party so long as they are proletarian. This is a classical Kautskyist position that can only lead to disaster.
I don't agree with this.



Blatant reformism, and apparently it's "a good start".



More reformism.

I don't think you know what "reformism" means. Reformism isn't promoting reform, reformism is thinking that reform by a bourgeois government could peacefully and steadelly lead to socialist society.


How could anything done by a capitalist party be considered a welcome development? It's because, as he's stated on numerous occasions, that the adoption of a workers-only membership policy would by default move the party in the correct direction; that you can actually work backwards from a blatantly capitalist party to a proletarian one. He's said the same of Die Linke as well.
I have always disagreed with Q's and DNZ's pro-SYRIZA stuff(wait, is Q pro-SYRIZA? I don't remember :( ). But they don't listen. :)



Nothing needs to be said on here. Well, one does have to applaud him for his effort to rebrand a fascist party as merely "right-populist" but he's not fooling anyone who's read the news.
I've always found it proper etiquette to stand up when someone new enters the room, unless it's a child or a teenager, so I'm actually fine with that.



More reformism.
You still don't understand what reformism is comrade.



No. The Bolshevik party never had a majority of the Russian working class in its ranks, or anything close to that so your argument is totally invalid.
No, no they didn't.


This is simply untrue. I have long acknowledged many of DNZ's positions as reactionary, including this bizarre incarnation of 21st century menshevism: "Third World Caesarean Socialism", his tankie positions on the Stalinist states, unity with reformists, support of handing anarchists over to the police, and others. It was voluntarism and building the party I liked, not DNZism, which has always been very blatantly reactionary. If one accepts voluntarism, then that leads to all kinds of unpleasant compromises that one shouldn't be making.
I also have disagreements with DNZ re. TWCS(my position is that the proletarian in the Third World should maintain a lenient dictatorship over the peasantry and other anti-socialist elements) and the Stalinists but you are completely mispresenting DNZ's position on that KKE-gets-attacked-with-molotovs-by-hooligans-and-hands-them-over-to-cops thing. I have no issue with handing over Molotov-slinging lunatics to the police, regardless of their politics.


DNZ has gotten away with saying things many times over that would get anyone else banned in a heartbeat.
Because the BA is so obscenely biased in his favour. ;)


Supporting military coups, slavery as "primitive socialist accumulation", handing over "hooligans" to the police, and so on.Oooh, this again.


DNZ is an egomaniac and reactionary, and the evidence for this is overwhelming.
Egomaniac? That's a new one.


I don't know why there is a small subset of people who are so unwilling to see this.
It's because we're emotionally stunted nerds and schizophrenics.


The only reason DNZ has this weird influence on this forum is because of most of the good users have been purged out.
And all of them, convienetly, were your fellow Ultra-Lefts, of course.


DNZ is quite simply the wannabe Lyndon LaRouche of Social-Democracy.
I must correct you if you wanna play this game: DNZ is the Lyndon LaRouche of Social-Proletocracy


Ismail has said that he's been told by DNZ that he doesn't actually read any books; he just skims the snippets on Google Books. He just reads enough to pick up on the rhetoric and to sound like he knows what he's talking about when in reality his knowledge of Marxism is nonexistent and his conception of communism is even less than that.
Ok


He's even trying to get his supporters into moderator positions so they can abuse their powers and provide him cover while attacking his opponents. Ostrinski has said that he was contacted directly about this, and refused to be a party to it. I am not sure how any reasonable person can defend this.
What a fucking asshole, given that I'm a lieutenant of the DNZite Nerd Brigade, I would have thought he would have involved me in this cunning plan. DNZ: I'm very upset over your leaving me out.


In light of this, a critical and hostile orientation towards DNZ and his nonsense is totally warranted. You should really step back and take an objective look at all of this and realize that you've been made a fool of.

I think I'm gonna keep on treating DNZ in a comradely fashion, like I do most people around here. My critical and hostile orientation shall be left for "comrades" that can't miss a single chance to make personal attacks against their political opponents.


DNZ's constant invocation of "revolutionary strategy" is a total farce, no different from the Brezhnevites who cry out about "actually existing socialism". It's smokescreen for his reactionary bean counting and siding with Capital. End this joke; it's gone on for far too long.
Constant invocation? What? "Revolutionary Strategy" is Q's group and the book was written by Macnair. I searched the forum for posts that include the words "Revolutionary Strategy" and the last one where DNZ brought up the subject of "revolutionary strategy" was in October.

The real joke is your obsession with making everyone hate "DNZites" and "Kautsky-shites"(that -shite thing is very clever, GB). "Hostile orientation", eh? ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is this talk of "revolutionary periods"? Why do you insist that this "Kautsky-shite" conception is a real one? Comrade, you must abandon this notion. You're an Ultra-left now.

Well, the framework is real. We're just not in such a period.


Did the Soviets decide foreign policy, set taxes, control the police or the military? Not at all. The Soviets, in themselves, were completely impotent and merely symbolic. Their real strength lay in the socialist delegates and the socialist parties the delegates represented.

The organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat were set up but they sat there unused, rusting, until the party came in and took charge.

To be fair, cabinet-style governance and management contributed much to foreign policy, taxes, and so on.


If they are organs for dictatorship only socialist workers would be let in, but if all workers are let in, they ARE popular organs.

And the moreso in cases of proletarian demographic majorities.


I don't agree with this.

I don't think you know what "reformism" means. Reformism isn't promoting reform, reformism is thinking that reform by a bourgeois government could peacefully and steadelly lead to socialist society.

He's twisting my words. That's only one condition. The other condition is a fundamental rejection of reform coalitions.


I have always disagreed with Q's and DNZ's pro-SYRIZA stuff(wait, is Q pro-SYRIZA? I don't remember :( ). But they don't listen. :)

Comrade, you should post more about your reservations for SYRIZA. I'm focusing more on its actual party-building activity. If you've "always disagreed," you haven't posted enough of it.



Nothing needs to be said on here. Well, one does have to applaud him for his effort to rebrand a fascist party as merely "right-populist" but he's not fooling anyone who's read the news.I've always found it proper etiquette to stand up when someone new enters the room, unless it's a child or a teenager, so I'm actually fine with that.

He's not referring to the Golden Dawn fascists. He's referring for some reason to the right-populist but not fascist Independent Greeks led by Kammenos, and I posted an article of an overture of his towards SYRIZA.


I also have disagreements with DNZ re. TWCS(my position is that the proletarian in the Third World should maintain a lenient dictatorship over the peasantry and other anti-socialist elements)

Again, you should post your comradely criticisms!



DNZ is quite simply the wannabe Lyndon LaRouche of Social-Democracy.I must correct you if you wanna play this game: DNZ is the Lyndon LaRouche of Social-Proletocracy

Now you've lost me! :p ;)


What a fucking asshole, given that I'm a lieutenant of the DNZite Nerd Brigade, I would have thought he would have involved me in this cunning plan. DNZ: I'm very upset over your leaving me out.

We will discuss the grand master plan later. :ninja:

[black magick hustla]

We are currently living in a revolutionary situation and have been since the late 1800s. The missing factor, the only missing factor is the proper leadership of the working class when the times are crucial.


lol right. can you say anything that isn't digested from the old goat's mouth? there's been 200 years of different "leaders" taking the lead. perhaps, something else is missing than trotsky clones imho

[GoddessCleoLover]

It would seem apparent that something other than correct leadership is lacking. Taking on bourgeois cultural hegemony in the age of mass communication would be a challenge under any circumstances. The failure of many revolutions and their dictatorial excesses have only made the road forward more difficult and uncertain.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It would seem apparent that something other than correct leadership is lacking. Taking on bourgeois cultural hegemony in the age of mass communication would be a challenge under any circumstances. The failure of many revolutions and their dictatorial excesses have only made the road forward more difficult and uncertain.

And that's exactly why we propose adapting the Alternative Culture (Vernon Lidtke), the Permanent Campaign (Lars Lih), and all things orthodox Marxism to today's circumstances. That pervasive, institutional approach to mass organization is way more than "correct leadership."

[black magick hustla]

Taking on bourgeois cultural hegemony in the age of mass communication would be a challenge under any circumstances.

This is an important question though. A lot of leftists are obsessed with carrying on the kulturkampf against the bourgeosie. Whole academic departments are geared around deconstructing semiotically tv-shows and books through some sort of left wing orientation. However, how effective are these things? Culture is just superstructure and racist and sexist workers are the ones that make revolution. Is class struggle a question of a focused campaign on debating the ideas of the ruling class or is it something else?

[Geiseric]

lol right. can you say anything that isn't digested from the old goat's mouth? there's been 200 years of different "leaders" taking the lead. perhaps, something else is missing than trotsky clones imho

Trotsky clones? Hardly, we simply need people with responsibility to the working class to not sell out, like the anarcho syndicallist leadership did in spain, when they refused to crush the bourgeois government, or when the KPD refused to capitalize on the ruhr occupation, which was in itself a chance for a revolution in germany.

[Luís Henrique]

Actually, I think the logic is the other way around from what you quoted. If most of the class isn't gonna give its all, then we're not in a revolutionary period for the working class. You quoted a modus ponens logical error.

Notice that the question isn't "what makes a revolutionary period", but "how do you know if it is a revolutionary period". We know we have the flu because we sneeze and have a temperature, though evidently we don't have the flu because we sneeze and have a temperature.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

We are currently living in a revolutionary situation and have been since the late 1800s.

This is evidently either false or meaningless. There is a difference - an enormous difference - between an actual revolutionary situation (like Europe in 1848, France, or rather Paris, in 1871, Spain in 1873, Mexico in 1910, Russian in 1917, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy in 1918, Spain in 1936, Cuba in 1958, Nicaragua in 1978, Iran in 1979, Albania in 1996, Argentina in 2002, etc.) and non-revolutionary situations, such as Brazil in 1995, the United States in 1943, or Germany in 2007.


The missing factor, the only missing factor is the proper leadership of the working class when the times are crucial.

If the working class is the force that can revolutionise society, how does it come it isn't able to even shape its own leadership? What kind of deus ex machina is the working class leadership?


For example instead of saying let's general strike during WW2, the CP-USA rode the popular front bandwagon, supported the no strike pledge at a time when unions were at their largest in history, became a bourgeois organization,

Wait. If it is a bourgeois organisation, it evidently cannot be the leadership of the working class. If it was the leadership of the working class, how comes it turned into a "bourgeois organisation"?


The Black Panther Party would of been capable of leading a revolution in the black community, so would Malcolm X's OAAU, which he formed before he died, but they were put down by the pigs.

So the blame is on our enemies, for resisting our efforts? But what else would they do, since they are our enemies?

If an organisation is capable of leading a revolution, it must be able to not be smashed by the pigs. If it is unable to avoid being smashed by the pigs, it doesn't make sence to say it is, or would be, able to make a revolution.


The thing we need to do is forge links with the working class

If we need to forge links with the working class, it means we are not working class, and consequently that "we" are not revolutionary at all. If the working class is a revolutionary class, it doesn't need anyone - not even "us" - to forge links with it.


by taking the lead in struggles that rise naturally out of the working class, such as Michigan as we're seeing now, the immigrants rights movement, the social health care movement, the education movement, womens rights, etc.

All of those are working class struggles. How are we supposed to "take the lead" of working class struggles if we aren't working class - moreso without actually blunting the revolutionary potential of such struggles by giving them a non-working class leadership?


Call me a reformist, I don't give a shit. It's better than sitting on your ass on the computer.

I don't think calling you a "reformist" is an appropriate criticism of your positon, though, of course, I am pretty sure the "let's do nothing so that we don't spoil the 'natural course of things' people will call you exactly that. While of course sitting their asses on (the chair (or so I hope) in front of their) computers.

Luís Henrique

[GoddessCleoLover]

This is an important question though. A lot of leftists are obsessed with carrying on the kulturkampf against the bourgeosie. Whole academic departments are geared around deconstructing semiotically tv-shows and books through some sort of left wing orientation. However, how effective are these things? Culture is just superstructure and racist and sexist workers are the ones that make revolution. Is class struggle a question of a focused campaign on debating the ideas of the ruling class or is it something else?

IMO leftist academics take Gramsci to an illogical extreme. Suffice to say that all in all Antonio would have rather been organizing the Italian Communist Party rather than writing his Prison Notebooks. Unfortunately, Signor Mussolini deprived him of the former option.:glare:

[The Machine]

when i think of the petit bourgeosie today i think of lawyers, dentists, doctors,managers and small buisnessmen. very different from artisans imho

Aren't lawyers, doctors and other professionals supposed to be "skilled workers" in the marxist sense since they don't own their own means of production and are technically exploited for their labor? I agree with the analysis that highly paid professionals generally have their interests more in line with the bourgeois than regular workers, but I thought the petit bourgeois in the marxist sense was small time businessmen who owned the means of production.

This might be for another thread, but one of my main criticisms of the Marxian class analysis has always been that it doesn't take income and status into account and lumps highly paid professionals in the same group with regular workers even though the two groups have hardly anything in common, socially or politically.

[Revoltorb]

Aren't lawyers, doctors and other professionals supposed to be "skilled workers" in the marxist sense since they don't own their own means of production and are technically exploited for their labor? I agree with the analysis that highly paid professionals generally have their interests more in line with the bourgeois than regular workers, but I thought the petit bourgeois in the marxist sense was small time businessmen who owned the means of production.

This might be for another thread, but one of my main criticisms of the Marxian class analysis has always been that it doesn't take income and status into account and lumps highly paid professionals in the same group with regular workers even though the two groups have hardly anything in common, socially or politically.

Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. who own or are partners in their own (small or not) practices/firms would be petty-bourgeois but those who sell their knowledge to others to earn a living are proletariat all the same. Highly paid relative to most, certainly, but proletariat nonetheless. This is where the whole theory of alienation comes in. People aren't just going to be upset because they are paid shitty wages (they are and should be upset at this) but also because they don't command the full product of their labor power. False consciousness of non petty-bourgeois professionals manifests itself in precisely the manner you described.

[Art Vandelay]

Actually, I think the logic is the other way around from what you quoted. If most of the class isn't gonna give its all, then we're not in a revolutionary period for the working class. You quoted a modus ponens logical error.

I didn't know what modus ponens was, interesting.


Genuine class struggle is political. The class struggle you refer to is mainly from the non-worker classes. Recall Warren Buffett's plutocratic quote? Any "fightback" at the moment is at the level of mere labour disputes.


I agree that the class struggle must be waged on a political level for the proletariat to pose a serious threat to state power. This doesn't change the fact that class struggle is a daily occurrence.


I almost stepped in to express a premature disagreement, comrade, but I guess the political emphasis should be on "redistribution of goods among poorer neighborhoods." I would venture, however, that 99.9% of Black Bloc mass looting historically doesn't result in such redistribution.


I don't know if it has ever happened in the past, but yes the black bloc is not used properly as a tool by the left at all. The ultra-lefts would prefer to smash a window to 'break the spell' rather than smash that window to create a tangible benefit for the working class. This idea needs to be fleshed out more, however it would be a great way to turn the black bloc into something which rather than being demonized by the working class, could perhaps make them more sympathetic to our efforts.


Just wait till you read what Lars Lih wrote about what Lenin thought of Kautsky after WITBD, none of which was a "break with Kautskyism."

I plan on ordering Lenin Rediscovered soon :) Its going to be a long read, however.


He's saying BS. I have a number of DOCs and PDFs, and the "snippets" I read are much bigger than that. Most of Chapter 1 of Lih's WITBD book being on Google Books is hardly a "snippet."

Given that the book is like 900 pages or something, I'd have to venture to say that chapter 1 from that book would be a fairly large section.


Other than that, yes I'm an actual worker.

Unlike many of us. While I do sell labor power to make pocket money, I'm a student and come from a fairly privileged background. I don't feel any shame over this, anymore, however I found it weird for members of the revolutionary left to be able to expect ordinary workers to be able to buy physical copies of every theoretical work their interested in, let alone poke fun at the fact that they can't.


Even I, a "bad cop" for those comrades interested in adapting orthodox Marxism to modern circumstances (since you mentioned comrade Q, a "good cop" in my view), never hurled "Bakuninism" at left-coms as frequently as that flip-flopper did. :lol:

In all honesty, outside of Rafiq and the comrade formally know as Borz, I think GB is the only person I heard use that 'slur.'

[l'Enfermé]

^I don't think the vast majority of the proletariat will ever feel any sympathizy for face-less mobs donned in completely black dress and masks, i.e the BB(black? really? its like fucking riot cops but without the shields). The thing breeds only suspicion from the workers, no one is accountable, and personally I find the whole face-covering business tasteless and on the verge of cowardice. I don't think the Black Bloc is a salvageable tactic at all.

[GoddessCleoLover]

^I don't think the vast majority of the proletariat will ever feel any sympathizy for face-less mobs donned in completely black dress and masks, i.e the BB(black? really? its like fucking riot cops but without the shields). The thing breeds only suspicion from the workers, no one is accountable, and personally I find the whole face-covering business tasteless and on the verge of cowardice. I don't think the Black Bloc is a salvageable tactic at all.

This. I have done some RW political work and don't believe that I could sell workers on the Black Bloc if my life depended upon it. Not taking any moral position just speaking from my experience.

[hetz]

I'd instinctively stay away from them.

[Ocean Seal]

I don't think so, actually. I think that within the next 50 years or so, there's going to be a major change. Not necessarily through conscious working class revolution, though...at this point that seems like the least likely path. But perhaps through either major ecological collapse, or through capitalism becoming superfluous due to technological advances.
For what its worth those two scenarios seem less likely than the working class revolution. Major ecological collapse is on its way, but that won't immediately change capitalism. Also technological advances will be answered with legislation, and capitalism will survive them, if it is not destroyed by the working class. Capitalism will stop science, it will stop history, if the working class is not there to carry it on.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I'd instinctively stay away from them.

Me too. I want to smash the state apparatus and I won't settle for store windows.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^I don't think the vast majority of the proletariat will ever feel any sympathizy for face-less mobs donned in completely black dress and masks, i.e the BB(black? really? its like fucking riot cops but without the shields). The thing breeds only suspicion from the workers, no one is accountable, and personally I find the whole face-covering business tasteless and on the verge of cowardice. I don't think the Black Bloc is a salvageable tactic at all.

Not that I disagree with you, comrade, but wasn't there an incident in Spain recently about a local government-sanctioned break-in of stores to redistribute goods (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/31/spanish-robin-hood-marchers-andalusia)? By this, I mean that even the mayor himself encouraged the action. :confused:

[Blake's Baby]

What is this talk of "revolutionary periods"? Why do you insist that this "Kautsky-shite" conception is a real one? Comrade, you must abandon this notion. You're an Ultra-left now...

Oh, us 'ultra-Lefts' believe in revolutionary periods.


...
According to the official Marxist rhetoric but in private Marx dismissed the Commune as a "mere" rising of a "town under exceptional conditions" and said the majority of the Commune was in "no sense" socialist. The only actual socialists in the Commune were the Blanquists and the First International-affiliated Proudhonians. Really all of its genuinely revolutionary acts were spearheaded by the Blanquists(with support from some Proudhonians)...

You don't understand what you're seeing.

The Commune was a proletarian dictatorship. But it wasn't socialist 'and nor could it be'. Why not? Because it didn't abolish capitalism. It was proletarian in that it was of and for the working class but it was not socialist in that it could not and did not transcend capitalism.

[criticalrealist]

I realize that the OP is almost 4 years old. However, in light of recent events throughout the world - including a rise in neofascism and authoritarianism - I would say that we are in a revolutionary period. The dialectical contradictions of late capitalism are increasing. However, they need to be harnessed. So far, I have not seen left-wing groups take advantage of these changes.