Why the communist left annoys some people

[Devrim]

I still don't even understand what this thread is supposed to be about and I don't want to derail it (if that's even possible) so if someone wants to make a thread dedicated to why the left communist tendency pisses me off more than probably any other, I'd love to go rant in it sometimes. So if someone does that, send me a message and I'll talk to you in that. Goodbye thread.

Please come and rant. ;) I am curious about why, and I will try to help clarify anything that I think maybe a misconception.

Devrim

[Yuppie Grinder]

How rad it is.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well this will be interesting

[Leftsolidarity]

Haha awesome. I'll make sure to post some stuff in here soon. It is Christmas so it might take me some time but I'll drop some rants in this thread to be sure.

[Leftsolidarity]

Here's something I just posted in another thread. It doesn't apply to every single Left Communist but is a definitely a major trend in the tendency.

"I don't think anyone thinks that the left (and yeah, there is a "left") uniting will automatically bring about a revolution. Those who push and work for more unity (I'm speaking from my reasons and the reasons I hear from many others) do so because we realize that it's stupid to not work together over shit that has nothing to do with the struggle at this time. Yes, not every single group/tendency/party/etc. will be able to work together (you kind of prove this point by your seeming to rather prefer to not work together out of priniciple rather than an actual reason) but the vast majority of us on the left share a lot of common ground on many different things.

Unity doesn't mean everyone forms a massive party and everyone gets rid of their political lines. It means we work together out of a common interest, which is what the bourgeoisie already does with themselves. You seem to take the simple position of "The left should try to work together and support each other more." to some stupidly ridiculous extreme and then condemn that extreme.

If you want to sit around and twiddle your thumbs by yourself in a corner just waiting for a revolution to fall into your lap while condemning everyone that trys to organize for that revolution, be my guest. Recognizing our differences and limitations is not the same as actively being opposed to unity (which is what you, and many other leftcoms like you, seem to be). "

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2554260&postcount=10

Btw, I'm not exactly trying to repeat discussions. I'm just dropping reasons as to what pisses me off. It will be nice to look back at an organized collection of my anger.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, no doubt, every political tendency has its armchair critics. Unfortunately, Left-Communist armchair critics often have highly developed theoretical defenses of their armchair positions.
Disproportionately, these buttcore types tend to be dudes, who find in well developed critiques of identity politics excuses to not check their own shit; to behave as unfortunate caricatures of "working class" masculinity. For example, letting their monogamous girlfriends cook and clean for them while they finish their Masters degrees.
I say this in the spirit of comradely criticism, and in hopes that someone more dedicated to the communist left will write a scathing critique of their lazy-ass comrades, and ensure it ends up in their hands.

[o well this is ok I guess]

So, no doubt, every political tendency has its armchair critics. Unfortunately, Left-Communist armchair critics often have highly developed theoretical defenses of their armchair positions.
Disproportionately, these buttcore types tend to be dudes, who find in well developed critiques of identity politics excuses to not check their own shit; to behave as unfortunate caricatures of "working class" masculinity. For example, letting their monogamous girlfriends cook and clean for them while they finish their Masters degrees.
I say this in the spirit of comradely criticism, and in hopes that someone more dedicated to the communist left will write a scathing critique of their lazy-ass comrades, and ensure it ends up in their hands. Yo I usually like your posts but this is pretty bad

You're basically just reiterating stereotypes.

[Devrim]

Disproportionately, these buttcore types tend to be dudes, who find in well developed critiques of identity politics excuses to not check their own shit; to behave as unfortunate caricatures of "working class" masculinity. For example, letting their monogamous girlfriends cook and clean for them while they finish their Masters degrees.

This doesn't relate to my experience at all. In fact the only left communist who I know who is doing a masters' degree is a woman. I really don't know people like this. In my own house my partner (who isn't a left communist) is doing a doctorate degree, and I do the vast majority of the cleaning (as she has an allergic reaction to dust). I probably (just) do most of the cooking, and if we have guests it is nearly always me who cooks.

Relating to this, but also as a more general point, there are very few actual left communists who post on here. Just because somebody has 'left communist' down as a tendency on here doesn't necessarily make them a left communist. The left communist group on RevLeft is for people who want to discuss left communism, and contains people with very different ideas. I would define left communist as somebody who is either a member or a supporter of a left communist organisation. On RevLeft that would include myself, Blake's Baby, Leo and Alf (from the ICC), and Android and Jock (from the CWO). There are a few others, but they post even less than those I mention above.

We do, as you mentioned, have a critique of 'identity politics', but I can't think of left communists on here behaving as you portrayed them.

Devrim

[Conscript]

I think it's their relationship to the rest of the communists that 'annoys'. It's not hard to imagine why someone who calls themselves a communist would dislike being accused of basically being a center-leftist and a part of capital's 'left wing', by someone who claims to be to the left of them.

I personally find the response 'hurp ultra-leftists' even more annoying though.

[Devrim]

I think it's their relationship to the rest of the communists that 'annoys'. It's not hard to imagine why someone who calls themselves a communist would dislike being accused of basically being a center-leftist and a part of capital's 'left wing', by someone who claims to be to the left of them.

Yes, that is pretty understandable. I think that in the past certain left communists have been very shrill screeching 'left wing of capital', which to be honest I don't think has really helped. I think that there are organisations that are quite obviously 'the left-wing of capital', for example the European Social Democratic parties. I would also say that organsations which are involved in administering parts of the capitalist state are also a part of the 'left-wing of capital'. I don't thing just saying 'left-wing of capital' says very much though. I think that you have to explain more how these organisations are directly involved in attacking the working class.

Devrim

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, to clarify, I'm coming out of Atlantic Canada, where the Communist Left isn't really "a thing", with the largest left grouping being around the Trotskyist-heavy "non-sectarian" Solidarity Halifax (http://solidarityhalifax.ca/).
I'm not familiar with many stereotypes about the communist left because it's not a topic of discussion. I am familiar with a handful of individuals who would describe themselves that way politically, all young (late twenties) heterosexual men.
While I am sure they are by no means representative of left communists more broadly, their existence presents itself as a problem. I think that they moved away from anarchist politics for some valid reasons, but also because they found, in left-communism, the excuses they needed.
While I'm partial to left-communist takes on gender and identity more generally, I wonder if some degree of clarification isn't necessary to discourage "dude-bro" behaviour. Similarly, while I think left-communist critiques of activism have merit, I wonder what sort of activity might sharpen said, and simultaneously discourage an apathetic attitude toward ongoing struggles.

[Devrim]

Here's something I just posted in another thread. It doesn't apply to every single Left Communist but is a definitely a major trend in the tendency.

"I don't think anyone thinks that the left (and yeah, there is a "left") uniting will automatically bring about a revolution. Those who push and work for more unity (I'm speaking from my reasons and the reasons I hear from many others) do so because we realize that it's stupid to not work together over shit that has nothing to do with the struggle at this time. Yes, not every single group/tendency/party/etc. will be able to work together (you kind of prove this point by your seeming to rather prefer to not work together out of priniciple rather than an actual reason) but the vast majority of us on the left share a lot of common ground on many different things.

Unity doesn't mean everyone forms a massive party and everyone gets rid of their political lines. It means we work together out of a common interest, which is what the bourgeoisie already does with themselves. You seem to take the simple position of "The left should try to work together and support each other more." to some stupidly ridiculous extreme and then condemn that extreme.

If you want to sit around and twiddle your thumbs by yourself in a corner just waiting for a revolution to fall into your lap while condemning everyone that trys to organize for that revolution, be my guest. Recognizing our differences and limitations is not the same as actively being opposed to unity (which is what you, and many other leftcoms like you, seem to be). "

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2554260&postcount=10

Btw, I'm not exactly trying to repeat discussions. I'm just dropping reasons as to what pisses me off. It will be nice to look back at an organized collection of my anger.

It is fine to raise it like this. Don't worry about repeating.

Like somebody who is arguing with you on that thread, I think that unity has to be based around common activity. Now there are various things that much of the left do, which we don't think have any connection to communist politics. For example we don't think that electorialism or parliamentarianism have anything to offer the working class, and thus wouldn't be involved in it.

Much of what the left does is based around various campaigns of all sorts. Now left communists tend to think that campaign politics are a dead end, so we don't really see any points to build unity around there.

What left communist intervention should (I am not claiming that it always is) be focused around is building autonomy and solidarity within the working class in struggle. I think most left communists would be quite happy to work with anybody around doing that.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

Autonomy and solidarity? What does that mean? Also left communists defining characteristic is calling anybody who has their head in present day, struggling for existing issues, reformist. the quebec student strike? Reformist. National struggles? Reformist. Making sure social security isn't privatized? Reformist. Unles there's a demand written down saying end capitalism (which would be a dumb thing to do seeng as nobody who isn't a communist would buy it) they're reformist. There's such a thing as raising cnsciousess through struggling fo existing demands rising right out of th current state of struggle, which left coms don't see as important.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Ah, lovely thread, if we are speaking about reasons why some Left Comms piss other revolutionaries off than I shall contribute my own thoughts since I think LeftSolidairty and I share some close thoughts on this matter.I can, after all, contribute some wonderful rants when asked... *clears throat*

1: "Leninists/Marxist-Leninists/Trotskyists are the Left wing of capital"- *rolls eyes*... yeah, the people who seek to destroy capitalism are actually Capital's left wing, this makes perfect sense.

2: "Socialism and communism are the same thing"- lol... sure they are, and I am the King of Norway.

3: General disdain for states-good luck winning the revolution without one, I am sure the counterrevolutionaries will listen real well to your unorganized bands of semi-armed workers, work out well, lots of fun for everyone.

I think that is all for now, gotta say though, if I see one more article from Libcom in that Cultural Revolution thread I am going to loose it (not that I read their content anyways since it is all the same nonsense). Okie dokie, I am off to do stuff, just keep in mind that you gusy asked for input on this topic so good day.

[Devrim]

Also left communists defining characteristic is calling anybody who has their head in present day, struggling for existing issues, reformist.

Really we don't. Left communists don't call people reformists. I think I have explained that to you before though.


the quebec student strike? Reformist.

Actually I think that the ICT group in Canada who were involved in this. It is not something I know much about, but there is an article by them about it here (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2012-05-17/red-squares-in-quebec). I would be quite sure it doesn't use the term reformist


National struggles? Reformist.
We don't think that national liberation struggles are reformist. We think they involve the working class giving up their class interests and killing other workers' on behalf of different capitalist factions. You might not disagree with this, but it is a long way from calling it reformist.


Unles there's a demand written down saying end capitalism (which would be a dumb thing to do seeng as nobody who isn't a communist would buy it) they're reformist. There's such a thing as raising cnsciousess through struggling fo existing demands rising right out of th current state of struggle, which left coms don't see as important.

This just isn't true. Left communists see the fight to defend working class living standards as intrinsically linked to the struggle for communism.

To be honest, I think you have some rather strange ideas, the origin of which I am uncertain about, concerning what we think. You could of course try to read something that left communists say and discuss it on the basis of our actual ideas.

Devrim

[Devrim]

So, to clarify, I'm coming out of Atlantic Canada, where the Communist Left isn't really "a thing", with the largest left grouping being around the Trotskyist-heavy "non-sectarian" Solidarity Halifax (http://solidarityhalifax.ca/).
I'm not familiar with many stereotypes about the communist left because it's not a topic of discussion. I am familiar with a handful of individuals who would describe themselves that way politically, all young (late twenties) heterosexual men.
While I am sure they are by no means representative of left communists more broadly, their existence presents itself as a problem. I think that they moved away from anarchist politics for some valid reasons, but also because they found, in left-communism, the excuses they needed.
While I'm partial to left-communist takes on gender and identity more generally, I wonder if some degree of clarification isn't necessary to discourage "dude-bro" behaviour. Similarly, while I think left-communist critiques of activism have merit, I wonder what sort of activity might sharpen said, and simultaneously discourage an apathetic attitude toward ongoing struggles.

To be fair then, I think it is a bit harsh to condemn left communists because some people you know have read a few left communist things. Also the overwhelming majority of people I know who are left communists are involved in activity, and not apathetic at all.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

I've been called a reformist, and "left of capital" for this kind of stuff, but I suppose not all left communists are homogenious, so its important to realize that. And national liberation as in blacks vs. The bourgeois state is hardly "giving up class interests," if anything dooming working class minorities to be ucked wholesale by the capitalists without solidarity from the white communists is "giving up class interests," and is closer to "the left of capital" than those who recognize racial oppression as an issue for the working clas to deal with by forming actual solidarity with the most oppressed members of society.

[Devrim]

1: "Leninists/Marxist-Leninists/Trotskyists are the Left wing of capital"- *rolls eyes*... yeah, the people who seek to destroy capitalism are actually Capital's left wing, this makes perfect sense.

I sort of answered this one before.


2: "Socialism and communism are the same thing"

I am not sure who you are quoting here. It isn't a typical left communist line though.


3: General disdain for states-good luck winning the revolution without one, I am sure the counterrevolutionaries will listen real well to your unorganized bands of semi-armed workers, work out well, lots of fun for everyone.

Both of the main left communist organisations, the ICC and the ICT, hold a concept of their being a semi-state in the transitional period. I think Lenin did too.

Devrim

[hetz]

On Revleft it seems everyone is pissed off at everyone.

[Leftsolidarity]

On Revleft it seems everyone is pissed off at everyone.

Not you hetz. I love you <3

[Revolutionair]

all young (late twenties) heterosexual men.
What is wrong with being in your late twenties? What is wrong with being heterosexual? What is wrong with being a man?

Your post reeks of sexism.

[Devrim]

I've been called a reformist, and "left of capital" for this kind of stuff, but I suppose not all left communists are homogenious, so its important to realize that.

As I said before, I would be very surprised if anybody who is a member of a left communist organisation had called you a reformist. It isn't one of the terms that they use. As for 'left of capital', well you are a member of an organisation that works in the UK Labour Party, which until a couple of years ago comprised the government of a major capitalist state. While I think that it is a term, which is thrown around pretty much indiscriminately, I don't think it is an inapt way to describe the Labour Party.


And national liberation as in blacks vs. The bourgeois state is hardly "giving up class interests," if anything dooming working class minorities to be ucked wholesale by the capitalists without solidarity from the white communists is "giving up class interests," and is closer to "the left of capital" than those who recognize racial oppression as an issue for the working clas to deal with by forming actual solidarity with the most oppressed members of society.

I understand national liberation struggles as those to 'liberate' nations. Of course we recognise that racial oppression is an issue for the working class. We don't argue that people shouldn't show solidarity with working class minorities, and not all left communists are white.

Devrim

[Leftsolidarity]

What is wrong with being in your late twenties? What is wrong with being heterosexual? What is wrong with being a man?

Your post reeks of sexism.

I think you just proved his point.

[Devrim]

I think you just proved his point.

I think that it emphatically doesn't. It doesn't because the point was that left communists are like this, and the reason it isn't proven is because there is nothing to suggest that the person saying this is a left communist.

For the record I don't think there is anything wrong with being in your late twenties, male or heterosexual. I don't think to point out that people saying certain things were is sexist though.

Devrim

[Leftsolidarity]

This: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2554327&postcount=23

Is why people don't like Left Communists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am curious about why, and I will try to help clarify anything that I think maybe a misconception.

The "communist left" defines sectarianism as not willing to even engage in discussion on fundamental differences. How hypocritical, unless strawmen are on the other side!

When incisive criticisms of strategy (total organizing, against economism and abstentionism) are made because of rediscoveries and new approaches, there's a tendency to slinker away. Otherwise, you would've joined the Revolutionary Strategy group and posted informed criticisms of your own. Your chat with Android earlier this month was quite revealing. :)

As Luis stated:


He has a difficult question to answer, and he is rather not answering it. Disqualifying the questioner is easier

The only counter remarks by a left-com in their defense, thus far, goes like this:


The 'hegelian' bit relates to distinctions between different trends in classical social democracy in terms of theory made by CPGB writer Mike Macnair (academic at Oxford Uni, ex-Trot, IMG). And the latter, he traces a meandering line from Bakunin to syndicalists like Sorel to Luxemburg to left-communists, arguing the link is a spontaneist/economistic politics, and ties it into the former by arguing Hegelian Marxism provides the theoretical substantiation of it. Something like that anyway. I think it is crap, but there you go.

And that's it, really!

[ed miliband]

This: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2554327&postcount=23

Is why people don't like Left Communists.

1. he's not a left communist, he's a member of the spgb, and...
2. what's wrong with what he said?

[Red Banana]

I hate it when Leninists call themselves Left communists because it's hip. That isn't really about Left communists but I keep on seeing it more and more and it really pisses me off.

[Manic Impressive]

This: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2554327&postcount=23

Is why people don't like Left Communists.
oooh we're cross posting now are we? Ok why not it's Xmass



You get others, whom you've seen some of the answers, that say it is state-capitalist, neo-feudalist (lol), and other odd descriptions that I don't know nor care about because I just find them stupid and un-Marxist.
This gave me a good laugh. You don't know something therefore it cannot be true. Impeccable logic there genius boy. I hope you know what capitalism is one day, or at least actually read some Marx. :lol:

and yeah I'm most certainly not a Left communist in any way shape or form

[Os Cangaceiros]

Two of the three left communists I've met (ie, people who belong to a left-com org, the ICC) were nice old men.

Judging from that sample, it would appear that VMC is incorrect. :lol:

[Devrim]

The "communist left" defines sectarianism as not willing to even engage in discussion on fundamental differences.

Well we don't actually, but that is neither here nor there.


When incisive criticisms of strategy (total organizing, against economism and abstentionism) are made because of rediscoveries and new approaches, there's a tendency to slinker away. Otherwise, you would've joined the Revolutionary Strategy group and posted informed criticisms of your own.

It may come as a surprise to your obviously immense ego that there isn't a left communist position on youas the overwhelming majority of left communists don't post here and therefore aren't aware of the idiocy that you spout on this forum. I personally choose not to engage with you as I think you are an absurd buffoon who has never had any connection to any form of class struggle beyond ridiculous pontificating of your mixture of strange reactionary ideas with social democracy, and humpty-dumptesque invented words on the internet at all.

If David Icke (the weird guy there was a thread about on here a few weeks ago who things that the world is run by lizards from outer space) were on here, I wouldn't bother engaging with him either. I'd put you both on a pretty similar level.

Incidentally I think there are many others on this board, from nearly all political tendencies, who have similar, if not exactly the same, opinions of you to me.

Devrim

[Leftsolidarity]

oooh we're cross posting now are we? Ok why not it's Xmass



Yeah, that's kinda what's going on in this thread if you couldn't tell from the first page.



This gave me a good laugh. You don't know something therefore it cannot be true. Impeccable logic there genius boy. I hope you know what capitalism is one day, or at least actually read some Marx. :lol:

and yeah I'm most certainly not a Left communist in any way shape or form.

What? Do I need to understand the ins-and-outs of every odd theory from random people about the DPRK to know that it's probably garbage? I understand (don't agree but simply can follow the analysis) the main couple theories that are put out there and debated about the DPRK. That's all well and good but I really don't care about the pseudo-Marxist anaylsis of "It's a fascist neo-monarchist feudal state!" and all that garbage that's thrown around.

I like you're snobbiness, though, at least you got consistancy going for ya.

And whether you're a Left Communist or not wasn't really the point. You're post summed up exactly what many of them say and their rediculous elitiest sectarianism.

[Devrim]

This: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2554327&postcount=23

Is why people don't like Left Communists.

As people have pointed out, he is an impossiblist, not a left communist, but please don't let details like that get in the way.

Devrim

[Leftsolidarity]

Also, I'd like to clear up the fact that one doesn't need to belong to a specific organization to belong to a particular tendency. I've seen "Well they are in a Leftcom organization so they are Left Communists.", which is nonsense. You can be a Leninist and not belong to a party, doesn't mean you're not a Leninist.

[Devrim]

Also, I'd like to clear up the fact that one doesn't need to belong to a specific organization to belong to a particular tendency. I've seen "Well they are in a Leftcom organization so they are Left Communists.", which is nonsense. You can be a Leninist and not belong to a party, doesn't mean you're not a Leninist.

Well I think if somebody actually belongs to a different organisation, like for example the SPGB, it means it is pretty clear that he is not a left communist.

I think that you do have to have some connection to political activity though to be a communist of any sort. I wouldn't say that you have to be involved in any specific organisation, but I would say you have to be involved in political activity, which for communists is something of a collective nature.

You aren't a left communist because you announce it. You are a left communist if you do collective political work.

Devrim

[Android]

So, no doubt, every political tendency has its armchair critics. Unfortunately, Left-Communist armchair critics often have highly developed theoretical defenses of their armchair positions.

Disproportionately, these buttcore types tend to be dudes, who find in well developed critiques of identity politics excuses to not check their own shit; to behave as unfortunate caricatures of "working class" masculinity. For example, letting their monogamous girlfriends cook and clean for them while they finish their Masters degrees.
I say this in the spirit of comradely criticism, and in hopes that someone more dedicated to the communist left will write a scathing critique of their lazy-ass comrades, and ensure it ends up in their hands.

I am not sure where this impression comes from, specifically. In my own case, I live with 2 Trotskyists - a male and a female - the male Trot tends to be the one who cooks for the house, and the female Trot and me tend to share the washing up. And the cleaning responsibilities tend to be divided evenly, even though I can be a bit lazy on occasion and need to be reminded, so you got me on that.

As far as MA degrees go I am not sure what is being referred to here. Although it might be a reference to the phenomenon in the USA of postgraduate communists. This is less common in UK, although left-communists do have MA degrees as they are more and more common nowadays.

As far as patriarchal division of labour goes, I can only attest for my experience of having stayed with two comrades in the organisation I am a member of, CWO, and neither of them conform to the stereotype patriarchal division of roles, or non-division as it is in the stereotype. In fact as I recall the only individual ever expelled from the CWO was done because of sexist behaviour.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well we don't actually, but that is neither here nor there.

It's what a left-com posted years ago.


It may come as a surprise to your obviously immense ego [...] I personally choose not to engage with you

Who said this was about little me at all? :confused:

I mentioned other writers even a couple of years ago, and you never bothered to engage with their arguments. I'm waiting. Well, not really. My patience can become thin, and my gloves slippery. I've since focused more on simply exposing left-com (non-)strategy for what it is.

[Android]

Also, I'd like to clear up the fact that one doesn't need to belong to a specific organization to belong to a particular tendency. I've seen "Well they are in a Leftcom organization so they are Left Communists.", which is nonsense. You can be a Leninist and not belong to a party, doesn't mean you're not a Leninist.

To belong to a particular political current or tendency, it seem obvious to me that that you have to belong to an organisation or contribute to that tendency through its political work, formally through a group or informally.

Otherwise the meaning of what constitutes a tendency becomes very ambiguous and I think meaningless. To the point where at the extreme anyone who is for workers councils can be described as a council communist.

However, a distinction can be drawn between someone who is a left-communist and someone who is influenced or inspired by the ideas and experience of historical communist lefts.

[Geiseric]

As I said before, I would be very surprised if anybody who is a member of a left communist organisation had called you a reformist. It isn't one of the terms that they use. As for 'left of capital', well you are a member of an organisation that works in the UK Labour Party, which until a couple of years ago comprised the government of a major capitalist state. While I think that it is a term, which is thrown around pretty much indiscriminately, I don't think it is an inapt way to describe the Labour Party.



I understand national liberation struggles as those to 'liberate' nations. Of course we recognise that racial oppression is an issue for the working class. We don't argue that people shouldn't show solidarity with working class minorities, and not all left communists are white.

Devrim

The 4th international ICR worked in UK labor? That's news to me, I didn't know we had a UK section. If anything it would of been to expose the leadership, and not actually facilitate the bureaucracy's efforts.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sorry, to be more explicit, what I'm hoping to get out of this thread is either:

a) Direction to Left-Communist texts that deal, on some level, with privilege/identity beyond critique of dominant left paradigms, and address themselves meaningfully to the conduct of communists in struggle.

b) Failing that, a worthwhile explanation as to why dealing with the "everyday" practice of communists vis- sex, race, ability, class (in this last instance, in its dimensions in everyday experience), is unnecessary or undesirable.

It's not that I'm trying to paint leftcoms as universally dudebros, only that, for example, there is by comparison volumes of anarchist writings on how one might confront individually oppressive, divisive, and harmful behaviours among anarchists.

[Leftsolidarity]

Well I think if somebody actually belongs to a different organisation, like for example the SPGB, it means it is pretty clear that he is not a left communist.



I didn't say he was. I said that he's statement is what a lot of left communists say and is one of the many reasons they are annoying.




You aren't a left communist because you announce it. You are a left communist if you do collective political work.

Devrim

Soooooo there's only a handful of them in the world then eh?

[Ostrinski]

With regard to the concepts of left wing of capital and certain traditions of the communist movement being bourgeois: perhaps the issue isn't what is being communicated or trying to be communicated but how it is being communicated i.e. the language that is being used. Perhaps there are better ways to show the dead end and futility of Leninism in ways that adherents to Leninism would be more willing to engage with?

On the other hand maybe it cannot be helped. The left wing of capital as a concept is purposed with describing those strands of the left that don't break conclusively with capital and the logic of capital, and one shouldn't have to change their language and the way they communicate politically just to accommodate those that they don't even see as allies.

[Android]

Soooooo there's only a handful of them in the world then eh?

Essentially yes. It is a relatively tiny number of people who are members of left-communist organisations, and when people who are influenced by the ideas are included the number grows a bit, but not by a massive amount.

[Android]

Sorry, to be more explicit, what I'm hoping to get out of this thread is either:

a) Direction to Left-Communist texts that deal, on some level, with privilege/identity beyond critique of dominant left paradigms, and address themselves meaningfully to the conduct of communists in struggle.

b) Failing that, a worthwhile explanation as to why dealing with the "everyday" practice of communists vis- sex, race, ability, class (in this last instance, in its dimensions in everyday experience), is unnecessary or undesirable.

It's not that I'm trying to paint leftcoms as universally dudebros, only that, for example, there is by comparison volumes of anarchist writings on how one might confront individually oppressive, divisive, and harmful behaviours among anarchists.

The reason for the difference in the volume of literature between left-communists and anarchists on the various forms of oppression experienced by minorities is that the anarchist movement take up inter-personal relations, i.e. lifestyle, in a way that left-communists do not. They tend to stay at the level of social relations. For better or for worse.

As far as answering (a) goes, I can not think of any specific left-communist text that would answer your question.

As far as (b) goes I do not think discussion around the everyday practice of various oppressions are unnecessary or undesirable. They are necessary discussions and issues that invariably will present themselves in the course of struggle.

There is connection between the inter-personal and social relationships with these forms of oppression that can be harder to recognise and address, then say exploitation is.

Although I agree with the critique of identity-based politics. I think this criticism of left-communists is a somewhat fair one. We have neglected the theoretical work to understand these issues and at worst, present a crude analysis - i.e. identity as a distraction from class struggle. Most of the literature on these topics which I find useful has not been written from a left-communist perspective, but is compatible, such as some of the writers from a marxist-feminist/materialist-feminist standpoint.

[Ostrinski]

The left communist organizations don't seem to have any desire or motivation to escape their irrelevancy, though, which I think is interesting if not odd. They don't regard themselves as a movement, don't see it as their duty to "build the party" so to speak as they believe the party will be built spontaneously as class struggle intensifies. They don't seem to want to get involved politically because in their view that would be substitutionist. So their refusal to get involved politically translating into them being a tiny irrelevant faction of the communist movement should come as no surprise.

And I respect that that is their position but when you consider that the left communist organizations have a profoundly solid analysis on a great many things (in my personal opinion anyway) but one can't help but feel that it is unfortunate that hardly anyone will ever be exposed to them.

[BeingAndGrime]

so to some it up what annoys people about left communism is its fatalism.

they have a good critique of electoralism, labour struggles, national liberation, anti fascism, activism (catch all term for organising to: stop the war! more wages! save the nhs! etc etc).

Its not that they think capitalism will automatically self destruct, but it seems that they reject most of the typical functions of left parties. Which is fair enough, but what IS a communist meant to do? what do you oranise around? Building the party? And how do you do that? Just selling papers? Trotskyism minus the obsession with trade unions?

[Ravachol]

They don't regard themselves as a movement, don't see it as their duty to "build the party" so to speak as they believe the party will be built spontaneously as class struggle intensifies.

And that's what's refreshing compared to all the dead-end ML sects and their 3 token union officials and Trotskyist student debating and paper sales clubs you encounter at demo after demo who all have some weird christian martyr complex about them 'building the party' and 'guiding the proletariat' or whatever.



Recognizing our differences and limitations is not the same as actively being opposed to unity (which is what you, and many other leftcoms like you, seem to be).


I'm not a leftcom but I've worked with leftcoms (as in, actual members of a leftcom organisation) in the past. That worked out very well despite some serious differences.

It might come across as a surprise to you but I've worked together plenty of times with various Trotskyist organisations (the Dutch section of the IST to be specific) and even with ML organisations in the past. In fact, I used to be a member of a basically leninist/autonomist organisation for years which included both MLs and self-identified 'anarchists' (though looking back our politics were more influenced by Italian autonomism with a heavy dose of leninism than anything else).

On the basis of that experience I can say its both impossible and undesirable to create the false illusion of 'left unity' or other bollocks. Time and again political differences, even our very conception of politics, were so hugely and vastly apart that the notion of 'left unity' did nothing but plaster over the gap until it burst in practice. I don't consider most of 'the left' to be communists, its as simple as that.

[Ostrinski]

Comrade, that second quote comes from leftsolidarity, not me :D

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Left coms tend to have the same sectarian attitude toward other leftists that I saw in the De Leonist Socialist Labor Party when I was a member two decades ago.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Why communists in general annoy people. They divide themselves into oblivion. (no im nat arguing for left unity and all that)

The sino-soviet split being probably one of the greatest clusterfucked splits ever that basically turned into state vs state warfare(SU-PRC, PRC-Vietnam, Vietnam-Cambodia though fuck Pol Pot, and the ALO in Afgh.) and not just ideological bickering. Most of the western CPs were pretty shit by then but then the victory in china gave energy to strggle and the subsequent split killed everything.

That shit makes Hoxha and Trotsky the most irrelevant fucks in history in terms of divisiveness.

[black magick hustla]

a) Direction to Left-Communist texts that deal, on some level, with privilege/identity beyond critique of dominant left paradigms, and address themselves meaningfully to the conduct of communists in struggle.
what you are asking for is tumblr feminism but just cuz' you read tumblr feminism doesn't make you a dudebro. however, people in the ultraleft/leftcom millieu don't really accept priviliege politics as meaningful at all. however, there is a feminist journal called "lies" which is indebted to a lot of ultraleft theory and TC/endnotes have written a lot about gender and communisation etc. they aren't really "left communist" but they are very genealogically related to it.


Failing that, a worthwhile explanation as to why dealing with the "everyday" practice of communists vis- sex, race, ability, class (in this last instance, in its dimensions in everyday experience), is unnecessary or undesirable.
idk actually i have a huge problem with a lot of this shit cuz' it seems to be very specific to the north american millieu. in my experience, it ends up as a a bunch of moonbats guiltripping other moonbats for perceived offences. it's very easy for me to just pull out the brown race card on some shitty anarchist, for example.



It's not that I'm trying to paint leftcoms as universally dudebros, only that, for example, there is by comparison volumes of anarchist writings on how one might confront individually oppressive, divisive, and harmful behaviours among anarchists.

yep. doesn't dispell the fact that most of the anarchos are dudes with testosterone problems either. in fact, the fetishization of violent acts by anarchos, even the SenSitive White Feminist Dudes that you seem to like, probably means that their recepies for good behavior and "noticing privilege" are worth shit

[black magick hustla]

here is a reply to the "privilege politics" stuff by an ultraleftish group

http://blackorchidcollective.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/guest-post-privilege-politics/

[GoddessCleoLover]

here is a reply to the "privilege politics" stuff by an ultraleftish group

http://blackorchidcollective.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/guest-post-privilege-politics/


BMH has demonstrated his sound judgment on this forum and sound judgment is a universal phenomena so one ought to give serious consideration to anything he posts.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That piece from BOC is OK. There are a couple criticisms to be made against "privilege theory" as a sociological theory. The first is that, while it may be true that, when we look at the matter statistically, white people do maintain an advantage against blacks & latinos, privilege theory proponents extrapolate the idea out so that it's literally viewed as something that infects the opinions of every white person, regardless of that white person's background or beliefs. That's a bunch of bullshit that's apparently an article of faith for some identity politicians.

Another thing that irritates me is that "white people" are apparently the only "racial group" that can be acceptably generalized about on the left. I'm talking about incredibly broad, sweeping generalizations. It pisses me off and the reason is not complicated...it's the same reason anyone would get pissed after someone asks them, "god, what is it with people like you? Why are you people so fucked up?"

[Devrim]

The 4th international ICR worked in UK labor? That's news to me, I didn't know we had a UK section.

Looking at this I might be wrong, and I apologise if I am. The list on the ICR wiki page gives this list of members though:


Algeria—Socialist Workers Organization works inside the larger mass-based Workers Party
Bangladesh—Democratic Workers Party (works as a tendency within it)
Belgium—International Socialist Organisation (OSI)
Benin—Benin Section of the Fourth International
Bolivia—The Spark
Brazil—The Work
Britain—British Section of the Fourth International works inside the British Labour Party
Burundi—Workers Political Circle
Chad—Chad Section of the Fourth International
Chile—Socialist Workers Organization
China—Chinese supporters of the Fourth International
Corte d'Ivoire—Corte d'Ivoire Section of the Fourth International
Croatia—Section of the Fourth International in ex-Yugoslavia
Denmark—Danish Section of the Fourth International
Dominican Republic—Dominican Supporters of the Fourth International
Ecuador—Socialist Workers Organization
France—Internationalist Communist Current (works inside the larger Independent Workers Party
Gabon—Gabon supporters of the Fourth International
Germany—German Section of the Fourth International works inside the German Social Democracy.
Greece—Greek Section of the Fourth International
Guadeloupe—Guadeloupe Section of the Fourth International
Haiti—Socialist Workers Party of Haiti (works inside the larger Parti Oeuvre Socialist)
Italy—Italian supporters of the Fourth International
India—Indians supporters of the FI (Kolkata and Mumbai)
Korea—Korean supporters of the Fourth International
Martinique—supporters of the Fourth International
Mexico—Socialist Workers Organization
Nicaragua—Trotskyist Circle of Nicaragua
Palestine—Section of the Fourth International
Peru—Peruvian Section of the Fourth International (Works inside the broader Partido Trabajodores del Campo y Ciudad)
Portugal—Internationalist Socialist Party
Romania—Workers Politics
Russia—Russian Section of the Fourth International
Rwanda—Workers Political Circle
Senegal—Socialist Workers Organization
Serbia—Section of the Fourth International in ex-Yugoslavia
South Africa/Azania—Azanian Section of the Fourth International works and leads the larger Socialist Party of Azania
Spain—Internationalist Socialist Workers Party
Sweden—Swedish Supporter of the Fourth International
Switzerland—Union of Workers Political Circles
Togo—Togo Section of the Fourth International
Tunisia—supporters of the Fourth International
Turkey—Revolutionary Workers League
Ukraine—Ukraine Section of the Fourth International
Uruguay—Section of the Fourth International in Uruguay
United States—Socialist Organizer
Venezuela—Venezuelan Section of the Fourth International


If anything it would of been to expose the leadership, and not actually facilitate the bureaucracy's efforts.

We obviously have a very different view of the nature of social democracy today. I would imagine that you would call the UK Labour Party either a reformist (that word again) party, or something like a bourgeois workers' party. We would just say it is a bourgeois party.

Even if you think you can 'expose the leadership' of this type of party, surely you can understand people who say that these parties are the 'left wing of capital' (though personally I don't think the Labour Party is even that 'left wing' nowadays.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't have an intimate understanding of left communism, but if there is something that slightly irks me about left communism is that it does seem to be quite ideologically pure.

Well, I say it irks me, but when I come to think of it, I don't have a huge problem with it these days. A few years ago I wouldn't have been able to understand what you might call 'mature sectarianism' - I found Devrim for example to be somewhat patronising and exclusive in terms of his attitude to theory and theoretical education, but actually now I just understand him to be correct.

Left communism may be small in number and somewhat irrelevant in terms of the current left struggle, but given that the left is not really at the centre of any political - let alone particularly effective revolutionary - activity currently, I don't see that as a valid criticism. For instance, is there really anything to gain from the SWP calling some Left-com sect 'tiny and irrelevant' because they have a couple of hundred - instead of a couple of thousand - members? No, for me it is petty point scoring.

Rather, the left-com conceptualisation and understanding of history, from an historical material perspective (i'd probably include some others here, such as the SPGB in Britain), means that they understand that hyper-activism and anti-austerity rage is:

a) largely ineffective as capital is strong, and perhaps more importantly
b) we are not in a revolutionary period and, if that is the case, you cannot 'magic' a revolution and you have to adapt your strategy accordingly.

If there is anything else that annoys me about left-communism it is their conceptualisation of the party. This probably doesn't apply to the more council-inclined left coms, but I feel as though that if it were Bordiga in Russia instead of Lenin (and his party instead of the Bolsheviks), that there still may have been the possibility of the revolution turning into a dictatorship of the party, merely because the party exists. But that is a theoretical annoyance, I respect that the left-coms at least have a strong theoretical underpinning to their defence of the existence of the communist party.

[bricolage]

one problem with left communism is that every text or leaflet I've ever been handed by the icc/other left communist groups seem to be cut and paste jobs with the same text they've used since the 60s but just changing the time or place to whatever strike or demo is going on at the time. and i'm not even talking about theoretical ideas or anything I'm talking about archaic/esoteric language and an awful sense of aesthetics. I mean in 2010 there was all the student/ema stuff going on here which obviously had its limitations but was essentially shit loads of young people dealing with the fact they have no future and smashing stuff u
p accordingly, and the stuff like icc was giving out was quite frankly embarrassing. it's a real problem I think.

[Ravachol]

one problem with left communism is that every text or leaflet I've ever been handed by the icc/other left communist groups seem to be cut and paste jobs with the same text they've used since the 60s but just changing the time or place to whatever strike or demo is going on at the time. and i'm not even talking about theoretical ideas or anything I'm talking about archaic/esoteric language and an awful sense of aesthetics. I mean in 2010 there was all the student/ema stuff going on here which obviously had its limitations but was essentially shit loads of young people dealing with the fact they have no future and smashing stuff up accordingly, and the stuff like icc was giving out was quite frankly embarrassing. it's a real problem I think.

Yeah its the same here, the ICC has been mixing with various struggles in the Netherlands (student protests, cleaners strike, healthcare strikes, etc.) since a few years and the points they put forward are generally sound and refreshing when compared with the usual trot & ml blabla or activist stuff from the more 'antiauthoritarian' milieu. But the language and vocabulary they use is really off-putting and archaic and sometimes downright esoteric (even to those used to the vocabulary of the radical left). I think its kind of a shame because they often make interesting points (though I disagree on many matters as well).

[Devrim]

one problem with left communism is that every text or leaflet I've ever been handed by the icc/other left communist groups seem to be cut and paste jobs with the same text they've used since the 60s but just changing the time or place to whatever strike or demo is going on at the time. and i'm not even talking about theoretical ideas or anything I'm talking about archaic/esoteric language and an awful sense of aesthetics. I mean in 2010 there was all the student/ema stuff going on here which obviously had its limitations but was essentially shit loads of young people dealing with the fact they have no future and smashing stuff up accordingly, and the stuff like icc was giving out was quite frankly embarrassing. it's a real problem I think.


Yeah its the same here, the ICC has been mixing with various struggles in the Netherlands (student protests, cleaners strike, healthcare strikes, etc.) since a few years and the points they put forward are generally sound and refreshing when compared with the usual trot & ml blabla or activist stuff from the more 'antiauthoritarian' milieu. But the language and vocabulary they use is really off-putting and archaic and sometimes downright esoteric (even to those used to the vocabulary of the radical left). I think its kind of a shame because they often make interesting points (though I disagree on many matters as well).

Yes, I agree with both of these points. The language that the ICC in particular uses can be very problematic. When I was a member I tried very hard to get them to change it, but I don't think they really realised how bad it is, and how much of a problem it is. As I said in another thread recently, the ICC in its older sections is very old. I think that they have a bit of a demographic crisis. What it means is that they don't really have anybody to pull them up and tell them that something is rubbish. Not that they listen when people do anyway.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Well, I say it irks me, but when I come to think of it, I don't have a huge problem with it these days. A few years ago I wouldn't have been able to understand what you might call 'mature sectarianism' - I found Devrim for example to be somewhat patronising and exclusive in terms of his attitude to theory and theoretical education, but actually now I just understand him to be correct.

Sorry :blushing:

Actually could you explain why you thought that because it isn't something I intend to do, at least not always. :)

Devrim

[Devrim]

Left coms tend to have the same sectarian attitude toward other leftists that I saw in the De Leonist Socialist Labor Party when I was a member two decades ago.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here, please?

Devrim

[Devrim]

The left communist organizations don't seem to have any desire or motivation to escape their irrelevancy, though, which I think is interesting if not odd.

I think that they do have the desire. How to do it is a difficult question though, and obviously it isn't being done very well.


They don't regard themselves as a movement, don't see it as their duty to "build the party" so to speak as they believe the party will be built spontaneously as class struggle intensifies. They don't seem to want to get involved politically because in their view that would be substitutionist. So their refusal to get involved politically translating into them being a tiny irrelevant faction of the communist movement should come as no surprise.

I can completely understand why you would think that, but left communists are actually for building a party, and it is only council communists who sort of have the attitude you mention about substitutionism. Obviously something is going severly wrong here if this is the impression you get.


so to some it up what annoys people about left communism is its fatalism.

I don't think that we are fatalistic.



Its not that they think capitalism will automatically self destruct, but it seems that they reject most of the typical functions of left parties. Which is fair enough, but what IS a communist meant to do? what do you oranise around? Building the party? And how do you do that? Just selling papers? Trotskyism minus the obsession with trade unions?

These are good questions, but perhaps beyond the discussion on this thread.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Soooooo there's only a handful of them in the world then eh?

As Android said there are very few left communists. I don't think we have ever claimed otherwise.


I didn't say he was. I said that he's statement is what a lot of left communists say and is one of the many reasons they are annoying.

As you pointed out above there aren't a lot of left communists. I think that a lot of people on here, as shown by this thread don't really understand what left communism is or what we say. That is quite understandable. After all we are very small groups. What tends to happen on RevLeft over this is that people dump lots of things that they see as 'ultra-leftist' into the left communism basket leading to ideas such as left communists being against the party for instance, which is not in any way true.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

one problem with left communism is that every text or leaflet I've ever been handed by the icc/other left communist groups seem to be cut and paste jobs with the same text they've used since the 60s but just changing the time or place to whatever strike or demo is going on at the time. and i'm not even talking about theoretical ideas or anything I'm talking about archaic/esoteric language and an awful sense of aesthetics. I mean in 2010 there was all the student/ema stuff going on here which obviously had its limitations but was essentially shit loads of young people dealing with the fact they have no future and smashing stuff up accordingly, and the stuff like icc was giving out was quite frankly embarrassing. it's a real problem I think.


But the language and vocabulary they use is really off-putting and archaic and sometimes downright esoteric (even to those used to the vocabulary of the radical left). I think its kind of a shame because they often make interesting points (though I disagree on many matters as well).

Wow, and some left-coms are accusing others of being in a time warp! Pot, meet kettle!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Sorry :blushing:

Actually could you explain why you thought that because it isn't something I intend to do, at least not always. :)

Devrim

I didn't mean it as a personal insult, really, but I just used to find you quite closed to the idea that other tendencies may have something to offer either the working class today, or to theoretical Marxism in some future time. However, i'm a lot more sympathetic to your ideas now, I must say. And I respect you a great deal as a poster, so really my criticisms in the previous post were directed at left-communism in general, rather than you personally. Sorry if I came across at all as rude/insulting, wasn't my aim!:blushing:

[Ravachol]

Wow, and some left-coms are accusing others of being in a time warp! Pot, meet kettle!

What are you talking about?

[Devrim]

I didn't mean it as a personal insult,... Sorry if I came across at all as rude/insulting, wasn't my aim!:blushing:

No, I didn't take it as one. I was just wondering how to avoid coming across that way in the future.

Devrim

[Devrim]

What are you talking about?

Please don't encourage him.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

The bottom line: left-communist strategy has no practical relevance or positive lessons for us workers today, offering nothing about mass class independence. Left-communist strategy had no practical relevance or positive lessons for the working class during past periods deemed "revolutionary" (WWI and after, the late 60s, the 70s) by left-coms.

[Android]

The bottom line: left-communist strategy has no practical relevance or positive lessons for us workers today, offering nothing about mass class independence. Left-communist strategy had no practical relevance or positive lessons for the working class during past periods deemed "revolutionary" (WWI and after, the late 60s, the 70s) by left-coms.

By now, I think we are very familiar with your mantra. It really is not interesting in any way. It is original to you and warped alright but not in a temporal sense.

The originality of your viewpoint is the problem. I know from talking to members of CPGB they view you as an embarrassment, like a horrible bastard, i.e. unwanted, weird political off-spring.

[Q]

The originality of your viewpoint is the problem. I know from talking to members of CPGB they view you as an incredible embarrassment, like a horrible bastard, i.e. unwanted, weird political off-spring.

Nice try, but I know for a fact that you're more than exaggerating things. It is true that they view him as a "little odd", a comment I got a year or two back at the end of a CU, but not nearly to the extend you're insinuating. Thanks for playing though.

[Ravachol]

The bottom line: left-communist strategy has no practical relevance or positive lessons for us workers today, offering nothing about mass class independence. Left-communist strategy had no practical relevance or positive lessons for the working class during past periods deemed "revolutionary" (WWI and after, the late 60s, the 70s) by left-coms.

I, for one, am happy with the political relevance of your strategizing (or the whole CPGB for that matter) for 'us workers today'.

[Android]

Nice try, but I know for a fact that you're more than exaggerating things. It is true that they view him as a "little odd", a comment I got a year or two back at the end of a CU, but not nearly to the extend you're insinuating. Thanks for playing though.

Yes and no. In one sense you are right. There is a spectrum of views on DNZ. It starts at "he's a little odd, takes the Kautsky revival work in his own direction and introduces too much of his stuff" type sentiment, to "he's bloody mental". I presented the latter view in my previous post since it is the one that most of the people who were/are in and around CPGB that I know held.

The gap between the two views is not that great though, none of them take him seriously. Discussions when his name pops up quickly assumes the quality of discussing something weird. Which you laugh about.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes and no. In one sense you are right. There is a spectrum of views on DNZ. It starts at "he's a little odd, takes the Kautsky revival work in his own direction and introduces too much of his stuff" type sentiment, to "he's bloody mental". I presented the latter view in my previous post since it is the one that most of the people who were/are in and around CPGB that I know held.

Look who's doing the gossiping here? :rolleyes:

I bet you asked only the newbies and sympathizers.


I, for one, am happy with the political relevance of your strategizing (or the whole CPGB for that matter) for 'us workers today'.

Now look at who's the sectarian, cheering for workers' inability to organize politically!

[Android]

Look who's doing the gossiping here? :rolleyes:

I bet you asked only the newbies and sympathizers.


It is not gossiping, everyone with the possible exception of Q considers you a political weirdo.

Hate to break it to you, but CPGB is incredibly small, about the same size or a bit bigger then either of the two left-communist organisations in the UK. And they don't really have many newbies since they are losing members rather then gaining them at the moment. And there sympathisers tend to be of an older generation, so if they know of you its only from your letters in the WW. I generally don't know many of these people, so no.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is not gossiping, everyone with the possible exception of Q considers you a political weirdo [...] so if they know of you its only from your letters in the WW. I generally don't know many of these people, so no.

Something tells me you've contradicted yourself here. "Everyone considers" vs. "I generally don't know." :laugh:

Besides, "only from my letters" means the the volume of my work far exceeds my published and unpublished letter submissions, controversial or otherwise.

[Q]

Besides, "only from my letters" means the the volume of my work far exceeds my published and unpublished letter submissions, controversial or otherwise.

To be honest, your letters often do seem quite a bit "out of tone". A little more context would not be unhelpful, to say the least.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For that I do apologize, comrade, but still I'm waiting for their Internet forum and/or blog comment-style software.

[Q]

For that I do apologize, comrade, but I'm still waiting for their Internet forum and/or blog comment-style software.

Don't count on that any time soon. Better start other avenues.

[l'Enfermé]

Maybe the BA should create a "Gossip" forum where members can say mean things to each other, instead of spamming serious forums with this crap, no?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I want a "why pan- leftism annoys the living shit out of me" rant thread plz.

[Leftsolidarity]

I want a "why pan- leftism annoys the living shit out of me" rant thread plz.

Then start one? There already kind of is, though, which is the "stop idealizing left unity" thread.

[Drosophila]

I want a "why pan- leftism annoys the living shit out of me" rant thread plz.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/stop-idealizing-left-t177297/index.html?p=2554234#post2554234

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Can you elaborate on what you mean here, please?

Devrim
Just the "left of capital" thing that many left coms push about other anti-capitalist leftists. While we didn't use that terminology in the SLP, we did have that attitude.

[Ravachol]

Just the "left of capital" thing that many left coms push about other anti-capitalist leftists. While we didn't use that terminology in the SLP, we did have that attitude.

So because some folks don't buy into the 'big leftie get together' con and don't think that everything waving a red flag is immediately in their camp, its down to an 'attitude'? I can understand those who are seen as being the left-wing of capital don't see themselves as such (obviously) but I don't see why others should care about that. By your logic, everyone who sees him/herself as an 'anti-capitalist' cannot possibly operate within the logic of capital. In which case you'll have to take your complaint up with a certain mr. Marx who wasn't too fond of a certain mr. Proudhon. I'm sure that was a sectarian attitude though.

[Leftsolidarity]

So because some folks don't buy into the 'big leftie get together' con and don't think that everything waving a red flag is immediately in their camp, its down to an 'attitude'? I can understand those who are seen as being the left-wing of capital don't see themselves as such (obviously) but I don't see why others should care about that. By your logic, everyone who sees him/herself as an 'anti-capitalist' cannot possibly operate within the logic of capital. In which case you'll have to take your complaint up with a certain mr. Marx who wasn't too fond of a certain mr. Proudhon. I'm sure that was a sectarian attitude though.

There's a difference between recognizing what is actually what would be considered "the left-wing of capital" and being a sectarian prick (which is you).

The Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries were "the left-wing of capital" during the Russian Revolution. There's really no going around that because they literally just tried to manage a capitalist system. The Bolsheviks (which I think it was you who said yesterday that they are 'left-wing of capital' but perhaps that was someone else) were strictly opposed to that and overthrew the capitalists. So I find calling people who adhere to their viewpoints "the left-wing of capital" extremely ironic (plus the fact of when the hell did any ultra-leftist groups successfully carry out the overthrow of capitalism?).

The modern day "left-wing of capital" would be Social Democrats and they don't really deny that. Other than that, these other revolutionary anti-capitalist tendencies have different approaches and views on things but, no matter how close-minded and sectarian you want to be, all seek the overthrow of capitalism instead of it's management. You're not the only true anti-capitalist in the world no matter how much you want to think you're better than everyone else.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So because some folks don't buy into the 'big leftie get together' con and don't think that everything waving a red flag is immediately in their camp, its down to an 'attitude'?
Yes, it's an attitude of superiority toward other leftists. That was my experience in De Leonism, and many left coms come across the same way.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Now look at who's the sectarian, cheering for workers' inability to organize politically! You've basically just said that the failings of working-class organization is its inability to follow your particular political outlines.
How sectarian.

[bcbm]

The Bolsheviks (which I think it was you who said yesterday that they are 'left-wing of capital' but perhaps that was someone else) were strictly opposed to that and overthrew the capitalists.

and then became them.


So I find calling people who adhere to their viewpoints "the left-wing of capital" extremely ironic

thats nice


(plus the fact of when the hell did any ultra-leftist groups successfully carry out the overthrow of capitalism?).

never because, in fact, it has never happened anywhere.


Other than that, these other revolutionary anti-capitalist tendencies have different approaches and views on things but, no matter how close-minded and sectarian you want to be, all seek the overthrow of capitalism instead of it's management.

i don't think just repeating all the time this makes it true


You're not the only true anti-capitalist in the world no matter how much you want to think you're better than everyone else.

Yes, it's an attitude of superiority toward other leftists.

i dont think its an issue of being superior or thinking one is better its an issue of a disagreement over political issues

[Leftsolidarity]

and then became them.




never because, in fact, it has never happened anywhere.






I disagree but that's a fundamental difference of our tendencies I would suppose.



i don't think just repeating all the time this makes it true






Same to those always throwing around "the left-wing of capital" statements. It's not the repeation but the actual fact that the basis of their ideology is on the overthrow of capitalism.


i dont think its an issue of being superior or thinking one is better its an issue of a disagreement over political issues

Political disagreements is different than thinking you're the only true communists

[bcbm]

I disagree but that's a fundamental difference of our tendencies I would suppose.

you got it


Same to those always throwing around "the left-wing of capital" statements. It's not the repeation but the actual fact that the basis of their ideology is on the overthrow of capitalism.

i am more of a results oriented guy personally


Political disagreements is different than thinking you're the only true communists

splitting hairs

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

i dont think its an issue of being superior or thinking one is better its an issue of a disagreement over political issues
You don't think you're superior or better, you just think other communist tendencies are wrong. However you care to spin it, the result is the same.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You don't think you're superior or better, you just think other communist tendencies are wrong. However you care to spin it, the result is the same.

Well some of us have to be wrong, right?

[bcbm]

You don't think you're superior or better, you just think other communist tendencies are wrong. However you care to spin it, the result is the same.

how is this unique? everyone thinks the others are wrong, often even within their own 'tendency'

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

how is this unique? everyone thinks the others are wrong, often even within their own 'tendency'
Yes, I think left coms are wrong on this point, but I'm not going to suggest they're not real communists because of it. That's the difference.

[Devrim]

Just the "left of capital" thing that many left coms push about other anti-capitalist leftists. While we didn't use that terminology in the SLP, we did have that attitude.


Yes, it's an attitude of superiority toward other leftists. That was my experience in De Leonism, and many left coms come across the same way.


You don't think you're superior or better, you just think other communist tendencies are wrong. However you care to spin it, the result is the same.

A lot of people seem to see this as problematic, so there is obviously something to it. Of course as has been previously pointed out everybody believes their own ideas are correct, or they wouldn't hold them. However, as Danielle and others have suggested there is something more here.

I think that the root of it is quite simple. We don't consider those who support capitalist wars (in which we include national liberation struggles) to be communists. For us this is not a question of somebody having the wrong tactics, but of them openly supporting different capitalist factions, and advocating that workers go and kill other workers on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

There are other political currents who we disagree with who don't take sides in capitalist wars. To give an example of one who posted in this thread, the 'impossibilist' current (SPGB/WSM) have never taken sides in capitalist wars. While I think that their politics are very wrong, I do think that they are communists. The same would apply to many, but not all anarchists, and I would imagine (though I am not that familiar with it and can't be 100% sure) DeLeonism.

For us this is a class line, which is probably why we come across as we do. It isn't always expressed very well, and in fact is often expressed very badly. It is the basic reason why we come across like this though.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

i personally only use the term "left wing of capital" to organizations that are influential enough to actually form the left wing of capitalist management - i.e. social democracy and official communism. some three man trotskyist sect in tenessee is simply just that, a sect. same with the marcytes or the maoists in the US. not to say that leftcom/ultraleft groups aren't sects either, although being a sect doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong, its just that your group is out of touch with the class-as-a-movement (i.e. sects act more as a subculture/fraternity than anything else).

[black magick hustla]

also, idk people who say "ultralefts/leftcoms" havent won a revolution dont really get it or w/e. leftcom/ultraleft is not a strategy/a way of organizing or winning the revolution, like people's war or anarchosyndicalism. it's more of a worldview, to be fair. even if a leftcommunist group does "practical work", it mostly exists as a microscopical tendency in already existing class movements. there are a few tenets but the way i see it is that a change of capitalist management, no matter the ideological orientation, is simply that, a change of capitalist management. if one orients itself towards communism then one can't only just talk about change of capitalist management. left communism, as different from just "ultraleft" does offer some specific pointers about the role of organizations, but it's mostly a descriptive argument based on a theoretical evaluation of the class struggle, than strategical pointers imho

[p0is0n]

2: "Socialism and communism are the same thing"- lol... sure they are, and I am the King of Norway.

Out of interest, would you like to clarify as to what is so ridiculous about this? Did Marx and Engels not use the terms interchangeably? Did Lenin and Stalin not at one point also use the terms interchangeably? What am I missing?


On a personal level I find left communist thought more interesting than annoying. Many times I find myself agreeing with left-com positions as presented by various posters, although that is not to say that there are not things that I disagree with.

[Devrim]

i personally only use the term "left wing of capital" to organizations that are influential enough to actually form the left wing of capitalist management - i.e. social democracy and official communism. some three man trotskyist sect in tenessee is simply just that, a sect. same with the marcytes or the maoists in the US. not to say that leftcom/ultraleft groups aren't sects either, although being a sect doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong, its just that your group is out of touch with the class-as-a-movement (i.e. sects act more as a subculture/fraternity than anything else).

I agree with this. I am not sure if I would go as far as using the term myself, but this is a much better use.

Perhaps the question of determining which organisations it can apply to can sometimes be a bit difficult. If you look at a group like the CWI, I don't think that they are actually managing parts of any capitalist state at the moment. However, I can remember the 'Militant', which is the group they came from running one of the major English cities. At that point they certainly were fulfilling that function.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

yea, i like the term because it's provocative and summarizes the point quite nicely. also, there is only so much you can sugarcoat when you your position consist of rejecting the sacred cows of the left lol

[robbo203]

The Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries were "the left-wing of capital" during the Russian Revolution. There's really no going around that because they literally just tried to manage a capitalist system. The Bolsheviks (which I think it was you who said yesterday that they are 'left-wing of capital' but perhaps that was someone else) were strictly opposed to that and overthrew the capitalists. .

No they didnt. Or, at least, if you mean by this the individual private capitalists whose businesses were nationalised by decree, what the Bolsheviks did was to simply replace these with their own newly emergent state capitalist class - the nomenklatura - who ultimately controlled the means of production via their strangehold on the state machine and hence, in de facto terms, effectively owned these means as a collective class rather than as merely private individuals. In short, the state capitalists simply stepped into the shoes left vacant for the most part by the private capitalists

Lenin himself had no illusions about the continued existence of capital in Russia and regarded state capitalism as a "step forward". He did conceal his enthusiasm for that preeminently capitalist institution - the banking sector - and in his warped definition of "socialism", declared:

Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;..A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? October 1, 1917 Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 87-136

With that in mind how you can possibly say the Bolsheviks did not constitute the left wing of capital, defies all common sense. They were the very epitome of the left wing of capital

Oh and there is also this nice little juicy quote from the horses mouth which should put the matter beyond dispute - when in October 1921 Lenin instructed the Russian wage slaves in the following candid terms:


Get down to business all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them, Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running an economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. (Collected Works, Vol. 33 page 72).

[Sea]

You seem to be very good at playing the quote Lenin game.

Tell me, Robbo, do you deliberately pick and choose in such a way to make the Bolsheviks look bad or do you simply read with your eyes closed?

It seems rather silly to paint the Bolsheviks as the "left wing of capital" seeing as not all Bolsheviks thought the same way as Lenin. I really hate to bust your bubble but Lenin wasn't the only one in the party.

None of your little demonizing quotes represent anything that Lenin saw as desirable. He was discussing how to transition from capitalism to communism, this necessitates some period where capital still exists during the transition. To say that this is "the very epitome of the left wing of capital" when it is not even what the Bolsheviks were working towards is just delusional.

[Rusty Shackleford]

disregarding 'sides' in a complicated multi-dimensional conflict and simply stating: "i support the workers' struggle" regardless of whether or not it materially exists in a class centered manner. What i mean by materially existing in a class centered manner is not "workers are struggling to make ends meet" but "workers are consciously struggling to emancipate labor."

And i will give credit to BMH for their thread related to, but separate from this one, discussing the "reductionism-into-class" deal. It generated a bit of thought and got me to post this. I also want to make clear that i am not stating that this may be what BMH intended for it to be interpreted as, but this is the feeling i get from left-communists. A sort of fetishization of the working class and of Marx and others of the "left communist tradition" (not to say that leninists and others dont have their own 'greats' which get lionized or over glorified)

just a quick thought.

[robbo203]

You seem to be very good at playing the quote Lenin game.

Tell me, Robbo, do you deliberately pick and choose in such a way to make the Bolsheviks look bad or do you simply read with your eyes closed?

It seems rather silly to paint the Bolsheviks as the "left wing of capital" seeing as not all Bolsheviks thought the same way as Lenin. I really hate to bust your bubble but Lenin wasn't the only one in the party.

None of your little demonizing quotes represent anything that Lenin saw as desirable. He was discussing how to transition from capitalism to communism, this necessitates some period where capital still exists during the transition. To say that this is "the very epitome of the left wing of capital" when it is not even what the Bolsheviks were working towards is just delusional.

Come off it . If anyone is delusional it would be those who imagine the Bolshehviks were, or could be, anything other than the left wing of capital.

The quotes are instructive enough and incidentally there are plenty more I could have chosen from that and other other sources to support my thesis. More important than the quotes, though, was what actually happened on the ground and the plain and undeniable fact that the outcome of the Bolshevik revolution was the emergence of a system of state-run capitalism.

Of course Lenin wasnt the only Bolshevik and there were shades of opinion within the Bolshevik Party. Indeed there were times when Lenin himself was in a dsitinct minority in the internal wranglings within the Party. But that doesnt not in th least detract from the fact that, as a whole, the Bolsheviks were unquestionably the "left wing of capital" by virtue of their identification with and support for a system of state capitalism

[Conscript]

was what actually happened on the ground and the plain and undeniable fact that the outcome of the Bolshevik revolution was the emergence of a system of state-run capitalism.

Which will be producered by every other revolution that fails to spread, especially one that already lacks the accounting and control capitalism has. State capitalism was inevitable, and a first step in development. You should be thankful bolshevism tied this, an expression of the interests of russian workers in a nationally scaled revolution, to the international revolution. The other 'left wings of capital' weren't going to do so, except maybe the left SR.

This quote to me is more evidence of anarchism's marginal differences from marxism (in practice anyway) being opportunistically bloated by people who think they can 'reclaim' the past and create a unique position with a lenin quote on state capitalism.

Whether or not the SRs and such represented the left wing of capital or not is irrelevant, they did not push the most revolutionary program. As far as international revolution goes, bolshevism was russia's best chance. There was no one else capable of doing the job, thankfully for the left though there's plenty of more faded revolutionaries to pass around and fetishize.

[Red Enemy]

|LENIN SAID "STATE CAPITALISM"! HE THEREFORE IS WANTING TO ACHIEVE STATE CAPITALISM ALONE, HE IS EVIL ANTI-COMMUNIST STATE CAPITALIST, LEFT WING OF CAPITAL!!!!

Seriously, the idiotic notion that Lenin or the Bolsheviks were state capitalists, is absurd and worn out. The Socialist Party of Great Britain still spouts the nonsense, but nobody who understands what the word "context" means, takes them seriously on that point. We've all read the quotes where Lenin praises "state capitalism" as an advancement. Yes, state capitalism in the context of a workers state, in transition from BACKWARD TSARIST RUSSIAN capitalism to communism. Not in the context as we understand state capitalism today; the Cliffite, Marxist-Humanist or Bordigist understanding.

I'm not a Leninist. Closer, really, to Left Communism. I am opposed to him and his war communism, ban on factions, ban on parties. The difference is, I understand WHY he did these things, and for that, I can forgive him.

Just do us all a favour, and drop the "Lenin and the Bolsheviks are the 'left wing of capital'" bullshit.

[Let's Get Free]

Seriously, the idiotic notion that Lenin or the Bolsheviks were state capitalists, is absurd and worn out.

Have you ever read Marx on capitalism? The USSR had a system of generalized wage-labor, didn't it? Didn't Marx say that wage-labor presupposes capital and vice versa? Didn't Engels say that the more the state takes over the means of production the more citizens it exploits, and the more it becomes the 'national capitalist?'


The Socialist Party of Great Britain still spouts the nonsense, but nobody who understands what the word "context" means, takes them seriously on that point. We've all read the quotes where Lenin praises "state capitalism" as an advancement. Yes, state capitalism in the context of a workers state, in transition from BACKWARD TSARIST RUSSIAN capitalism to communism. Not in the context as we understand state capitalism today; the Cliffite, Marxist-Humanist or Bordigist understanding.

The USSR wasn't some sort of transitional society between capitalism and communism. It was a form of state capitalism that was not going to go anywhere. The is no road to socialism via state capitalism, whether it is under a so called 'worker state' or otherwise, and that theory has been thoroughly discredited.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Seriously, the idiotic notion that Lenin or the Bolsheviks were state capitalists, is absurd and worn out. The Socialist Party of Great Britain still spouts the nonsense, but nobody who understands what the word "context" means, takes them seriously on that point. We've all read the quotes where Lenin praises "state capitalism" as an advancement. Yes, state capitalism in the context of a workers state, in transition from BACKWARD TSARIST RUSSIAN capitalism to communism. Not in the context as we understand state capitalism today; the Cliffite, Marxist-Humanist or Bordigist understanding.

I'm not a Leninist. Closer, really, to Left Communism. I am opposed to him and his war communism, ban on factions, ban on parties. The difference is, I understand WHY he did these things, and for that, I can forgive him.

Just do us all a favour, and drop the "Lenin and the Bolsheviks are the 'left wing of capital'" bullshit.

This post is totally weird. I don't think the point is to "forgive" Lenin, or to make any ethical/moral judgement of the Bolsheviks one way or the other. That whole exercise is pretty tired. Rather, I think the goal is to evaluate whether or not the Soviet Union was a state-capitalist party-dictatorship - almost definitely, in my opinion - and whether or not the Bolshevik model is in any way useful to communists in a contemporary context. While we can understand "why" the Bolsheviks programme was what it was, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be subject to criticism from our current vantage point. In fact, I think it's quite necessary.

[Red Enemy]

Have you ever read Marx on capitalism? The USSR had a system of generalized wage-labor, didn't it? Didn't Marx say that wage-labor presupposes capital and vice versa? Didn't Engels say that the more the state takes over the means of production the more citizens it exploits, and the more it becomes the 'national capitalist?'Again, context escapes us. We are talking in the context of a workers state, whose goal is the abolition of the capitalist system. How does one go about that? For Lenin and the Bolsheviks, it seems that advancing the system to a "state capitalism" which is different than the state capitalism which came afterward, was a step forward.


The USSR wasn't some sort of transitional society between capitalism and communism. It was a form of state capitalism that was not going to go anywhere. The is no road to socialism via state capitalism, whether it is under a so called 'worker state' or otherwise, and that theory has been thoroughly discredited.Yes, it wasn't going anywhere, because the world revolution had failed. I never said there was "a road to socialism via state capitalism". Remember, however, the "state capitalism" as discussed by Lenin, is not the state capitalism as described by Dunayevskaya, Cliff, Bordiga, etc. It was just a phrase.


This post is totally weird. I don't think the point is to "forgive" Lenin, or to make any ethical/moral judgement of the Bolsheviks one way or the other. That whole exercise is pretty tired. Rather, I think the goal is to evaluate whether or not the Soviet Union was a state-capitalist party-dictatorship - almost definitely, in my opinion - and whether or not the Bolshevik model is in any way useful to communists con-temporarily. While we can understand "why" the Bolsheviks programme was what it was, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be subject to criticism from our current vantage point. In fact, I think it's quite necessary.
I never said the point was to "forgive Lenin". I merely stated that, in understanding why, one can be critically supportive of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Yes, I AGREE that the workers state fell into a state-capitalist (as we understand it today) dictatorship! However, it wasn't because Lenin was "the left wing of capital" and a state capitalist from the start, no.

It was because of the material conditions that Soviet Russia faced.

If you actually read what I said, you would find that I was merely attacking the notion that Lenin was a state capitalist. It wasn't some scathing defense of everything that is Lenin or Bolshevik.

Fuck me.

[Let's Get Free]

Again, context escapes us. We are talking in the context of a workers state, whose goal is the abolition of the capitalist system.

The Bolshevik regime was not a so-called 'workers state,' if such a thing can even said to be coherent or possible. Their goal was not the abolition of capitalism, but the replacement of private capitalist class with a newly emergent state capitalist class, the top level of the bureaucracy who had full control over the means of production and the surplus, which is precisely what constitutes a capitalist class in Marxian terms.


How does one go about that? For Lenin and the Bolsheviks, it seems that advancing the system to a "state capitalism" which is different than the state capitalism which came afterward, was a step forward.
It is true that Lenin argued that since private capitalism could not develop in Russia, there would have to be a system of 'state capitalism' to build the prerequisites for the transition to socialism, and in that sense he did see state capitalism as a progressive, rather than a counter revolutionary development.

[Blake's Baby]

Have you ever read Marx on capitalism? The USSR had a system of generalized wage-labor, didn't it? Didn't Marx say that wage-labor presupposes capital and vice versa? Didn't Engels say that the more the state takes over the means of production the more citizens it exploits, and the more it becomes the 'national capitalist?'
...

Well said.



...The USSR wasn't some sort of transitional society between capitalism and communism. It was a form of state capitalism that was not going to go anywhere. The is no road to socialism via state capitalism, whether it is under a so called 'worker state' or otherwise, and that theory has been thoroughly discredited.

There is no road at all from capitalism to socialism, if it's isolated in one country - unless you believe that socialism in one country is possible.

It was not the Bolsheviks' adoption of state capitalist policies that caused the failure of the revolution in Russia, rather it was the failure of the revolution that caused the adoption if state capitalist policies.

[Red Enemy]

The Bolshevik regime was not a so-called 'workers state,' if such a thing can even said to be coherent or possible.Dictatorship of the Proletariat, yes. It was short lived, before material conditions forced a dictatorship of the party.


Their goal was not the abolition of capitalism, but the replacement of private capitalist class with a newly emergent state capitalist class, the top level of the bureaucracy who had full control over the means of production and the surplus, which is precisely what constitutes a capitalist class in Marxian terms.That was NOT their goal. You know it wasn't, and you can't keep spouting anti-Lenin nonsense like that. What led to the creation of a state capitalist bureaucracy was precisely the failure of the world revolution.



It is true that Lenin argued that since private capitalism could not develop in Russia, there would have to be a system of 'state capitalism' to build the prerequisites for the transition to socialism, and in that sense he did see state capitalism as a progressive, rather than a counter revolutionary development.Yes, as I have said.

[Let's Get Free]

That was NOT their goal. You know it wasn't, and you can't keep spouting anti-Lenin nonsense like that. What led to the creation of a state capitalist bureaucracy was precisely the failure of the world revolution.


Once in power, Lenin implemented this vision of socialism being built upon the institutions created by monopoly capitalism. This was not gone accidentally or because no alternative existed. On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power, the factory committees brought their model of workers' self-management of the economy into being. At each point the party leadership overruled them. The Bolshevik alternative was to vest both managerial and control powers in organs of the state which were subordinate to the central authorities, and formed by them.The civil war, the failure of the revolution to spread, etc merely accelerated the Bolsheviks state capitalist policies.

[Blake's Baby]

And if the Bolsheviks had, for example, instituted a model of economic organisation based on the recommendations of the factory committees, would socialism have been possible in Russia?

[Red Enemy]

Once in power, Lenin implemented this vision of socialism being built upon the institutions created by monopoly capitalism. This was not gone accidentally or because no alternative existed. On three occasions in the first months of Soviet power, the factory committees brought their model of workers' self-management of the economy into being. At each point the party leadership overruled them. The Bolshevik alternative was to vest both managerial and control powers in organs of the state which were subordinate to the central authorities, and formed by them.The civil war, the failure of the revolution to spread, etc merely accelerated the Bolsheviks state capitalist policies.
You just reneged on your claim that Lenin wanted to institute state capitalism only. You now criticize his method of achieving socialism.

What was it?

[Red Banana]

And if the Bolsheviks had, for example, instituted a model of economic organisation based on the recommendations of the factory committees, would socialism have been possible in Russia?

No one here is psychic so there's no real way to know what policy decisions might have helped ignite international revolution. Though if they had a program based on workers self management worth imitating, that might have helped a little bit.

It wouldn't have been 'socialism' in the immediate, but perhaps a more legitimate proto-DotP that might have had more potential to spread revolution, if the material conditions were favorable, which as I said above, we will never know.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You just reneged on your claim that Lenin wanted to institute state capitalism only. You now criticize his method of achieving socialism.

What was it?

Subjectively, the Bolsheviks were aiming at socialism, and I don't think anybody would argue otherwise. Their strategy, however, was to build state capitalism. Since they succeeded in the latter, and not the former, we should understand them accordingly.

[Alf]

sorry to go back to an earlier part of this discussion, but I wanted to respond to bricolage's criticisms of what we gave out in the student/EMA struggles in Britain in 2010. I don't agree at all that the language we used in the leaflet below is written in incomprehensible esoteric jargon, but perhaps bricolage can read or reread the text and explain what he/she means a bit more. Although this is specifically about the ICC and our style of writing or speaking, I think the idea that the communist left is a kind of dinosaur surviving from the past is applied more widely than to just the ICC. I'm not of course denying that we may have some vestigal saurian features.

Student/worker demonstrations: We need to control our own struggles!
Submitted by ICConline on November 17, 2010

The leaflet below was given out at the large meeting held at King's College on Monday 15th November, under the auspices of the left wing of the unions (Education Activists Network). We would welcome comments, criticisms, and above all, offers to distribute it or improve and update it in this period leading up to next week's Day of Action. A comrade from the ICC's section in Toulouse, which has been very active in the movement for struggle committees and assemblies, was able to speak at the meeting; and despite a frontal attack on the French union strategies, was widely applauded. We will try to piece together more elements about this meeting.


For a long time, it has seemed that the working class in Britain has been stunned into silence by the brutality of the attacks being launched by the new government: forcing the disabled back to work, forcing the jobless to work for nothing, raising the pension age, savage spending cuts in the education sector, hundreds of thousands of jobs to go throughout the public sector, trebling of university tuition fees and scrapping Education Maintenance Allowance bonuses for 16-18 year old students...the list is endless. The workers’ struggles that have taken place recently – BA, tube, fire service - have all been kept in strict isolation.

But we are an international class and the crisis of this system is also international. In Greece, Spain, and most recently France there have been massive struggles against the new austerity drives. In France the reaction against the pension ‘reforms’ provided a focus for growing discontent throughout society, but especially among the youth.

The huge demonstration in London of 10 November showed that the same potential for resistance exists in the UK. The sheer size of the demo, the involvement of both students and education workers, the refusal to be limited to a tame march from A to B, all this expresses a widespread feeling that we cannot accept the logic behind the state’s assault on living conditions. The temporary occupation of Tory HQ was not the result of a conspiracy by a handful of anarchists but the product of a far wider anger, and the vast majority of students and workers supporting the demo refused to go along with the condemnation of this action by the NUS leadership and the media.

Many have said it: this demonstration was just the beginning. Already a second day of action and demonstration is being organised for the 24th November. For the moment such actions are being organised by the ‘official’ organisations like the NUS who have already shown that they are part of the forces of order. But that is no reason for not participating massively in the demonstrations. On the contrary, coming together in large numbers is the best basis for creating new forms of organisation that can express the real needs of the struggle.

Before such demonstrations or days of action, how do we move forward? We need to call for meetings and general assemblies in the universities, colleges and schools, open to all students and workers, both to build support for the demonstrations and discuss their aims.

The initiative by some comrades to form ‘radical student and worker blocs’ on the demonstrations should be supported – but wherever possible they should meet in advance to discuss exactly how they intend to express their independence from the official organisers.

We need to learn from recent experiences in Greece – where occupations (including the occupation of union HQ) – were used to create a space where general assemblies could be held. And what was the experience in France? We saw an important minority of students and workers in many towns holding street assemblies not only at the end of the demos but on a regular basis while the movement was going forward.

We also need to be clear that in future the forces of order will not keep to the softly softly approach of 10 November. They will be tooled up and looking to provoke us into premature clashes to give them a pretext for displays of force– this has been a common tactic in France. The organisation of self-defence and solidarity against the forces of repression needs to come out of collective discussion and decision.

The struggle is not just in the education sector. The entire working class is under attack and the resistance needs to be spread consciously to both public and private sectors. Controlling our own struggles is the only way to extend them.

International Communist Current, 15/10/10.

[robbo203]

Seriously, the idiotic notion that Lenin or the Bolsheviks were state capitalists, is absurd and worn out. The Socialist Party of Great Britain still spouts the nonsense, but nobody who understands what the word "context" means, takes them seriously on that point. We've all read the quotes where Lenin praises "state capitalism" as an advancement. Yes, state capitalism in the context of a workers state, in transition from BACKWARD TSARIST RUSSIAN capitalism to communism. Not in the context as we understand state capitalism today; the Cliffite, Marxist-Humanist or Bordigist understanding.

I'm not a Leninist. Closer, really, to Left Communism. I am opposed to him and his war communism, ban on factions, ban on parties. The difference is, I understand WHY he did these things, and for that, I can forgive him.

Just do us all a favour, and drop the "Lenin and the Bolsheviks are the 'left wing of capital'" bullshit.

LOL about the misquote from me but lets look at this attempt - or what passes as an attempt - of yours at a critique of the state capitalist thesis.

I shall wade through and largely ignore the woollyminded fluffy stuff about my "idiotic" "absurd" and "worn out" notion that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were state capitalists which, in any case, is is not quite what I said. I said they - the Bolsheviks - were instrumental in bringing about a system of state capitalism in which a different form of capitalist class emerged - the state capitalists or nomenklatura - to largely replace the private capitalists of old. We are talking here of the high level decision-makers - the state enterprise managers, the military bosses, the political top dogs and so on and so forth. It is they who collectively as a de facto capitalist class, and not as private individual capitalists, owned and controlled the means of production and, above all, the disposal of the economic surplus.

Most Bolsheviks or, should I say, members of the Communist party (so called) were emphatically NOT members of this ruling capitalist class but low level functionaries and the like, as things panned out after the civil war. Indeed, at the time of the Russian revolution there was a rapid influx of workers into the party in the first rush of naive enthusiam, many of whom later left in disillusionment. The party machine at that time had little control over the membership but steadily and remorsely transformed the party over the next few years into the supreme tool of capitalist dictorship but, even then, as I said most party members were not members of the state capitalist class by any means

So, please - if you are going to criticise someone get your criticism straight and dont put words into people's mouths - OK?

And, second point - try at least to be a little consistent. You admit that Lenin praised state capitalism but add lamely that this was in the context of the so called "workers state". ( He also admired the German state capitalist war economy, incidentally, and urged that Russia should imitate it - which kinda blows a hole in your argument anyway)

But hold on here. "State capitalism", however you dress it up, still denotes the existence of "capital" as a socio economic relationship does it not? Thats why it is called state capitalism or did you not realise this? In which case would you care to think again about your rash and foolish assertion that the claim that "Lenin and the Bolsheviks are the 'left wing of capital'" is just "bullshit". Its not actually. Its plain common sense!

If you want to know what bullshit looks like or should I say, smells like, I suggest you turn to your own crappy little idea that the Bolsheviks instituted some kind of "workers state". Really? A "workers state" in which a top down "one man" management model of industrial relations was imposed industrywide, in which independent working class resistance was brutally crushed and even trade unions were assimilated into, and became an arm of, the state machine to be used against the workers, in which even you acknowlege political dissent was mercilessly eliminated. Some "workers state"! It was a capitalist state in which millionaires prospered (see Reg Bishop's Soviet Millionaires) and the Red Fat Cats grew fatter while the ordinary Russian workers were ruthlessly explioted in what the Trots nicely but misleadingly called a system of "primitive socialist accumulation". Swap the word "socialist" for "state capitalist" and you got it spot on


Ah, but you " understand" Lenin and therefore "forgive" him . How jolly sporting of you, old chap! Can't have the great unwashed getting all Bolshie, eh!. They need discipline and Lenin is or was our man to do the job. Check out that "Get down to business" lecture Lenin gave to the workers which I quoted earlier on this thread if you think Im just parodying him.

Well, to tell the truth, I dont quite see it in your terms which seems to imply that it was all the fault of Lenin and, but for him, such things would not have happened. Lenin was just the mouthpeice of a movement (which is why the Lenin quotes serve quite a useful purpose - to shed light on that movement) which had only one option before it and that was the development of capitalism by the ruthless removal of all precapitalist obstacles to that development. To become, in short. the left wing of capital

And that, friend, is clearly something that you dont seem to "understand"

[bricolage]

sorry to go back to an earlier part of this discussion, but I wanted to respond to bricolage's criticisms of what we gave out in the student/EMA struggles in Britain in 2010.
hmmm yeah reading back that's not as bad as I remember, I mean I don't think it's the most exciting thing and I don't like sentences like 'looking to provoke us into premature clashes to give them a pretext for displays of force', also I always thought talking to school kids about general assemblies is a bit weird cos when I was at school all I associated assemblies with was every wednesday morning where the headteacher would give some speech and someone would talk about football results... but I remember thinking it was a lot worse at the time, was that the only thing you handed out?

[robbo203]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat, yes. It was short lived, before material conditions forced a dictatorship of the party.
.

Absurd . There was no "dictatorship of the proletariat" before material conditions forced a dictatorship of the party. Thats like saying you can have a slave society run in the interests of the slaves. The proles might have been more assertive in the shape of the Factory Committees and so on but even then, the economic system in which they were operated was one in which the interests of capital must of its very nature prevail over the interests of wage labour.


Apparently it needs to be said again and again and again because some people here still don't seem to get it - YOU CANNOT RUN A CAPITALIST ECONOMY IN THE INTERESTS OF WAGE LABOUR.

The political assertiveness of workers in no way alters this. Its like saying that the "popular capitalism" which swept Mrs Thatcher to power was one in which the interests of workers prevailed since the political base of her support was very largely working class just itching to become part of that so called "property owning democracy". The one thing does not imply the other at all and I would have thought this was fundamental to a Marxian perspective on these matters



That was NOT their goal. You know it wasn't, and you can't keep spouting anti-Lenin nonsense like that. What led to the creation of a state capitalist bureaucracy was precisely the failure of the world revolution.
.

This presuppose that a "world revolution" was in the offing in some sense which is sheer romantic nonsense. There was no mass mandate whatsoever for socialism ANYWHERE - including Russia Even if hypothetically (and we are talking very hypothetically), a revolution had got underway elsewhere it would STILL not have been possible for socialism to have been introduced under the conditions that Russia faced in 1917.

You must just as well argue the reverse - that the world revolution failed because Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution - for all this argument is worth!

[Blake's Baby]

... Even if hypothetically (and we are talking very hypothetically), a revolution had got underway elsewhere it would STILL not have been possible for socialism to have been introduced under the conditions that Russia faced in 1917...

Yeah. Because you can't have socialism in one country.

[Leftsolidarity]

This thread has completely changed topics

[TheGodlessUtopian]

This thread has completely changed topics

As what usually happens.

[zimmerwald1915]

This thread has completely changed topics
Thank goodness. The starting topic (here, dump on my tendency, why don'tcha) wasn't too promising.

[Leftsolidarity]

Thank goodness. The starting topic (here, dump on my tendency, why don'tcha) wasn't too promising.

Yay for derailing threads? :confused:

If you don't like the thread then don't follow it. Not a hard concept.
It's supposed to be a place to dump reasons about why Left Communists and Ultra-leftists piss people off and was started so other threads wouldn't get derailed.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yay for derailing threads? :confused:

If you don't like the thread then don't follow it. Not a hard concept.
It's supposed to be a place to dump reasons about why Left Communists and Ultra-leftists piss people off and was started so other threads wouldn't get derailed.

It is also important to mention how said thread was started by said Left Comm/ultra-leftist

[Luís Henrique]

I know from talking to members of CPGB they view you as an embarrassment, like a horrible bastard, i.e. unwanted, weird political off-spring.

I don't know if this has anything to do with left communism at all, but it certainly does have a lot to do with "annoying". Such attitude is irresponsible and bigoted. Die Neue Zeit makes political points here; I disagree with most of them, but this is it: political disagreement. The attempt to make someone sound or look as a loony because of their political views is something we should not indulge in. After all, if we are communists or anarchists and do engage in talking about politics with non-communists or simply non-political people, we should know that many if not most of our points are thought of as crackpottery by many people.

Tell us why and where he is wrong. Do not try to ridicule him - or anyone else - because you dislike his ideas or the way he expresses them.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

I don't know if this has anything to do with left communism at all, but it certainly does have a lot to do with "annoying". Such attitude is irresponsible and bigoted. Die Neue Zeit makes political points here; I disagree with most of them, but this is it: political disagreement. The attempt to make someone sound or look as a loony because of their political views is something we should not indulge in. After all, if we are communists or anarchists and do engage in talking about politics with non-communists or simply non-political people, we should know that many if not most of our points are thought of as crackpottery by many people.

Tell us why and where he is wrong. Do not try to ridicule him - or anyone else - because you dislike his ideas or the way he expresses them.

I don't see anything annoying here. Android, to my knowledge, knows the CPGB people well - better in fact than DNZ and his fellow CPGB fans. To be honest I have no doubt what he says about how the CPGB regards him is entirely accurate. Make no mistake, DNZ is a loony and I have no problem with calling a spade a spade. However Android wasn't exactly doing that - he was rather saying that even people who DNZ make a fetish of do it. Why not say it if it's true?

As a historical materialist and a communist, I am interested in discussing the thoughts of individuals only so far as they represent the viewpoints of organizations or political currents. I have little interest in or time for self-styled intellectuals. Compared to the farce that is DNZ, even Bob Avakian is a tragedy.

[Luís Henrique]

Back on topic, is "annoying" a political concept, or, as I would rather think of it, an aesthetical one?

Because one thing is to say why one disagrees with a given tendency - in this case "left communism" - and another is to say why the individual or collective behaviour of the members of said tendency look or sound disagreeable to us. Certainly, those things are not unrelated, but they are also not the same.

"Left communism" can hardly annoy me, in that sence, because it is an inexistent tendency in the actual working class movement in Brazil and particularly in Brasília. So I don't meet them, don't see them trying to lead the movement in this or that way, don't hear their ideas struggling to get into practice; my contact with such ideas is limited to revleft, more or less like my contact with transexuals or Asperger's syndrome bearers.

On another level, what I see from their ideas here in RevLeft gets me rolling my eyes more often than not. There seems to be an absolute lack of reflection on the actual struggles of workers; everything is immediately transformed into an abstraction. For instance, the attitude about occupied factories: workers shouldn't demand their nationalisation - for this merely means they will be exploited by the State instead of by private capitalists. They shouldn't also try to run the factory themselves, as this would imply they exploiting themselves. Then what should they do? Go jobless, purely and simply? So it seems. Another example: the attitude towards bourgeois democracy. It seems it is irrelevant whether we live under a regime that tolerates, to a certain extent, our organisations and struggles, or under a regime that systematically drowns them in blood. As if our struggles were irrelevant, or even noxious, unless they immediately prompted the State to kill or arrest everybody. Connected to this, there is a tendency to downplay the importance of working class individuals - as if the class wasn't composed primarily of individuals. This seems tied to a very bourgeois and idealist notion of history - as if history had goals of itself, to which the working class, and more so individual workers are mere tools (I find this unacceptable: if we are going to have a revolution to make for a better life for everybody, I'm in; if we are going to have a revolution to fulfill some teleological goal of the Automatic Subject, regardless if this results in more joy and love and peace, I'm out).

Those problems seem tied to the absence of a serious reflection on what should the actions or revolutionaries be, in situations when an immediate revolutionary uprising is not at hand. Since nothing short of some kind of "absolute revolution" is worth anything, our actions, whatever they are, in non-revolutionary situations become characterised as "reformist", or, to use the "correct" jargon, as playing the role of "left wing of capital". This in practice results in a permanent, bitter and arrogant dismissal of any practical attempt at giving a political sence to struggle, combined with a complete absence of alternative (in this, it is different, and worse, than the behaviour of anarchists, Trotskysts, Maoists, Stalinists, etc: at least those when they tell you that you are wrong, reformist, or outright reactionary, do point to a course of action they deem the correct one). And this bitterness and arrogance starts, of course, crossing the line between political and aesthetical, between disagreement and annoyance.

A bit comically, this is topped with incoherence; when the "communist left" abandons its unimpeachable line of absolute-inaction-because-all-action-is-bourgeois, it fares in fact worse, perhaps much worse, than Trotskyists or even Stalinists (and perhaps even than social-democrats): it supports a reactionary law-and-order movement by the Venezolan jeunesse dorée...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I don't see anything annoying here. Android, to my knowledge, knows the CPGB people well - better in fact than DNZ and his fellow CPGB fans. To be honest I have no doubt what he says about how the CPGB regards him is entirely accurate. Make no mistake, DNZ is a loony and I have no problem with calling a spade a spade. However Android wasn't exactly doing that - he was rather saying that even people who DNZ make a fetish of do it. Why not say it if it's true?

As a historical materialist and a communist, I am interested in discussing the thoughts of individuals only so far as they represent the viewpoints of organizations or political currents. I have little interest in or time for self-styled intellectuals. Compared to the farce that is DNZ, even Bob Avakian is a tragedy.

Either he is irrelevant, and should be ignored, or his ideas are dangerous and noxious, and should be exposed for what they are. Ad hominems are wrong in any case.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Double post, sorry.

[Luís Henrique]

Well some of us have to be wrong, right?

We are all wrong. Or is there an absolute Truth, to which some of us are in some way linked to?


how is this unique? everyone thinks the others are wrong, often even within their own 'tendency'

Yes, we deem our ideas are provisionally correct, to the extent of our knowledge and capabilities. But unless we are paranoid, we know that it is impossible to be completely right, and so that we must be mistaken about some things or other. This is the point of collective discussion and democracy, isn't it?

Luís Henrique

[Android]

I want to post about the discussion way back in the thread on the concept of the left wing of capital. I will side step the annoyance about my post on DNZ. I do not regret the post and if it annoyed some people, that I lack their sense of decency. Then, so be it.

As Devrim noted earlier in the thread there is a negative reaction against the term and concept, in some instances simply the term alone due to the way it is and has been used. It would be interesting to find out the origins of and first use of the term. I suspect it is an import from French, since I have the impression it is quite widely used by French ultra-left groups, even more widely then those based outside of France.

I think a lot of the hostility to the concept arises from the frequency of its use. It has tended to be used by some as an all purpose slogan against any manifestation of the traditional left. Sloganeering replacing cogent analysis. I guess in that way it appears not all that different from the Sparts stuff about 'ostensibly revolutionary/socialist groups', i.e. a means by which to define yourself as the only true ones, against all competitors in the political/sect market place.

However, I think it is defensible, in theory, both in the narrow sense outlined earlier by Devrim and BMH, and in a more broader sense.

In a previous thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simple-question-one-t149207/index.html?t=149207) that discussed a similar theme. A former user ZeroNowhere succinctly outlines the essence of the concept whether it is called 'left wing of capital', 'bourgeois left', 'leftism', 'the traditional left', or 'the prevention of communism' (http://libcom.org/history/prevention-communism-radical-chains) - is the abandonment of working-class autonomy:


They are the left wing of capital because they wish to compromise the independence of the labour movement, hence reinforce capitalism despite leftist rhetoric. This view of the ICC is based on the simply rejection of 'consciousness raising' ideology, and the recognition that, "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society," so that communism is based around the workers' movement, not around professing belief in some ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. This is the concrete content of communism, as opposed to utopian socialism and the left wing of capital. Socialism is a result of an independent workers' movement, and political action as a class, of struggle rather than sudden enlightenment of some sort. As such, if a group seeks to compromise the independence of the proletarian movement, then despite professed aims they fall into the left wing of capital, the labour fakirs. The ICC have problems with many groups, but the left wing of capital is not simply groups which the ICC disagrees with, and indeed the ICC disagrees with other groups, such as the internationalist anarchists, without proclaiming them the left wing of capital.

Ultimately, all that the ICC's position is based on is the rejection of revisionism, which still has wide currency amongst the left, even those who would nominally attack Bernstein for 'revisionism', and then attack everybody else as well.

[Leo]

"Left communism" can hardly annoy me, in that sence, because it is an inexistent tendency in the actual working class movement in Brazil and particularly in Brasília. So I don't meet them, don't see them trying to lead the movement in this or that way, don't hear their ideas struggling to get into practice; my contact with such ideas is limited to revleft, more or less like my contact with transexuals or Asperger's syndrome bearers.To my knowledge, the only self-described left communist organization in Brazil - the ICC - is absolutely tiny. This doesn't mean we aren't involved in the struggles, obviously, however it may well mean that it is so tiny that it doesn't exist in Brasilia.

OpOp, which, again to my knowledge, doesn't describe itself as left communist, but has close positions is larger though how large I don't know.

Just because you haven't empirically observed something doesn't mean it doesn't happen though. I can cite countless examples of decades of left communist involvement in working class struggles as well as countless leaflets for and analyses of these struggles - in some of which I personally was involved.


There seems to be an absolute lack of reflection on the actual struggles of workers; everything is immediately transformed into an abstraction. For instance, the attitude about occupied factories: workers shouldn't demand their nationalisation - for this merely means they will be exploited by the State instead of by private capitalists. They shouldn't also try to run the factory themselves, as this would imply they exploiting themselves. Then what should they do? Go jobless, purely and simply? So it seems.It rather seems that you haven't read what the left communists say about the actual struggles. We support demands directly about workers' living and working conditions, and suggest workers to take control of their own struggles from the unions via workers' assemblies and struggle committees. As a strategy, we generally say expanding the struggle is the way to go, as it more than often is. Just because we aren't trade-unionists, nationalists or for self-management doesn't mean we don't offer anything to the struggle - quite the contrary, we actually try to help the workers win.


Another example: the attitude towards bourgeois democracy. It seems it is irrelevant whether we live under a regime that tolerates, to a certain extent, our organisations and struggles, or under a regime that systematically drowns them in blood. As if our struggles were irrelevant, or even noxious, unless they immediately prompted the State to kill or arrest everybody.We aren't saying it is irrelevant, we're saying it isn't something the working class has a choice in. Contrary to what democrats claim, we the left communists say that even in the most advanced democracy workers don't have a choice in where the country is going. What we say is that the question is about the balance of forces between classes, and workers' best line of defense is unity, solidarity and struggle - not supporting democratic or whatever bourgeois factions or regimes.


Connected to this, there is a tendency to downplay the importance of working class individuals - as if the class wasn't composed primarily of individuals.Downplay the importance of working class individuals in what sense? In the struggle, we defend that every individual worker should be able to speak his or her mind freely, and should be respected even when criticized. We see communism as a free association of creative individuals fulfilling their human capacities and desires to the fullest extent.


This seems tied to a very bourgeois and idealist notion of history - as if history had goals of itself, to which the working class, and more so individual workers are mere tools (I find this unacceptable: if we are going to have a revolution to make for a better life for everybody, I'm in; if we are going to have a revolution to fulfill some teleological goal of the Automatic Subject, regardless if this results in more joy and love and peace, I'm out).I'm sorry, but I have no idea where this is coming from.


A bit comically, this is topped with incoherence; when the "communist left" abandons its unimpeachable line of absolute-inaction-because-all-action-is-bourgeois, it fares in fact worse, perhaps much worse, than Trotskyists or even Stalinists (and perhaps even than social-democrats): it supports a reactionary law-and-order movement by the Venezolan jeunesse dorée...A movement which you consider to be a rectionary law-and-order movement by the Venezolan jeunesse dorée.

This is not, however, about the position of the left communists in general - it is about the position of the ICC specifically. Here's what our Venezuelan comrades had to say in response to these criticisms: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/students-may-2007

The readers can decide for themselves as they can decide if this is much worse than supporting bloodthirsty nationalist gangs and imperialist wars where the workers butcher each other like the Trotskyists or the Stalinists universally do.


Either he is irrelevant, and should be ignored, or his ideas are dangerous and noxious, and should be exposed for what they are.He is irrelevant and should be ignored. To the people he claims to defend, he is an embarrassment. However, like all trolls, when not ignored he derails discussions. What we are essentially saying is that he should be ignored.

[Red Enemy]

Absurd . There was no "dictatorship of the proletariat" before material conditions forced a dictatorship of the party. Thats like saying you can have a slave society run in the interests of the slaves.No, it isn't. I'm not saying what came of the revolution was good, but I am acknowledging it was the result of material conditions, and not some inherent flaw of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.


The proles might have been more assertive in the shape of the Factory Committees and so on but even then, the economic system in which they were operated was one in which the interests of capital must of its very nature prevail over the interests of wage labour. Your point?



Apparently it needs to be said again and again and again because some people here still don't seem to get it - YOU CANNOT RUN A CAPITALIST ECONOMY IN THE INTERESTS OF WAGE LABOUR. So, you are opposed to the notion of "dictatorship of the proletariat? Or, do you suggest the DOTP is socialism?


This presuppose that a "world revolution" was in the offing in some sense which is sheer romantic nonsense. There was no mass mandate whatsoever for socialism ANYWHERE - including Russia Even if hypothetically (and we are talking very hypothetically), a revolution had got underway elsewhere it would STILL not have been possible for socialism to have been introduced under the conditions that Russia faced in 1917. First off, I agree that Russia wasn't ripe for socialism, I never said it was, nor did I suggest it was possible in one country.

What a world revolution would have done is prevent the isolation of the Soviet state, allowed industry to develop and socialism to then be achieved.



You must just as well argue the reverse - that the world revolution failed because Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution - for all this argument is worth!
What?

[Red Enemy]

LOL about the misquote from me but lets look at this attempt - or what passes as an attempt - of yours at a critique of the state capitalist thesis.Sure :rolleyes:


I shall wade through and largely ignore the woollyminded fluffy stuff about my "idiotic" "absurd" and "worn out" notion that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were state capitalists which, in any case, is is not quite what I said.Essentially it is, but I was arguing with Gladiator, iirc.


I said they - the Bolsheviks - were instrumental in bringing about a system of state capitalism in which a different form of capitalist class emerged - the state capitalists or nomenklatura - to largely replace the private capitalists of old.Material conditions had no effect on that at all. NONE!


We are talking here of the high level decision-makers - the state enterprise managers, the military bosses, the political top dogs and so on and so forth. It is they who collectively as a de facto capitalist class, and not as private individual capitalists, owned and controlled the means of production and, above all, the disposal of the economic surplus. lol


Most Bolsheviks or, should I say, members of the Communist party (so called) were emphatically NOT members of this ruling capitalist class but low level functionaries and the like, as things panned out after the civil war.There was no "state capitalist class" at that point, regardless.


Indeed, at the time of the Russian revolution there was a rapid influx of workers into the party in the first rush of naive enthusiam, many of whom later left in disillusionment.Many of whom were killed fighting in the civil war, actually.


The party machine at that time had little control over the membership but steadily and remorsely transformed the party over the next few years into the supreme tool of capitalist dictorship but, even then, as I said most party members were not members of the state capitalist class by any meansThere was no state cpaitalist class at that point. Again, you ignore the context of the material conditions, and you propose the Bolsheviks could have had a flourishing and amazingly perfect DOTP?


So, please - if you are going to criticise someone get your criticism straight and dont put words into people's mouths - OK?I believe I was debating with Gladiator, to begin with.


And, second point - try at least to be a little consistent. You admit that Lenin praised state capitalism but add lamely that this was in the context of the so called "workers state".Did you read anything else I posted? Clearly not. State capitalism as he discussed was not the state capitalism Dunayevskaya, Cliff, Bordiga or the revisionist SPGB discusses.


( He also admired the German state capitalist war economy, incidentally, and urged that Russia should imitate it - which kinda blows a hole in your argument anyway)Ok.


But hold on here. "State capitalism", however you dress it up, still denotes the existence of "capital" as a socio economic relationship does it not? As would exist in a DOTP, ubless the DOTP is socialism...


Thats why it is called state capitalism or did you not realise this?Obviously. So, you think the DOTP IS socialism?


In which case would you care to think again about your rash and foolish assertion that the claim that "Lenin and the Bolsheviks are the 'left wing of capital'" is just "bullshit". Its not actually. Its plain common sense!
It's baseless rhetoric, which stems from out of context reaction to Lenin quotes.


If you want to know what bullshit looks like or should I say, smells like, I suggest you turn to your own crappy little idea that the Bolsheviks instituted some kind of "workers state".I was unawares that from moment 1, when the soviets controlled things, there was top down one man management...which doesn't even describe much.


Really?Yes donkey, really!


A "workers state" in which a top down "one man" management model of industrial relations was imposed industrywide, in which independent working class resistance was brutally crushed and even trade unions were assimilated into, and became an arm of, the state machine to be used against the workers, in which even you acknowlege political dissent was mercilessly eliminated.Funny...I remember factions being banned under Lenin, but none of the Decists or workers opposition being killed off...

Again, I do oppose the banning of factions, but it was symptomatic of the degenerating revolution, and the over-centralized nature of the Bolshevik party.


Some "workers state"! It was a capitalist state in which millionaires prospered (see Reg Bishop's Soviet Millionaires) and the Red Fat Cats grew fatter while the ordinary Russian workers were ruthlessly explioted in what the Trots nicely but misleadingly called a system of "primitive socialist accumulation". Swap the word "socialist" for "state capitalist" and you got it spot onWowzers!


Ah, but you " understand" Lenin and therefore "forgive" him . How jolly sporting of you, old chap! Can't have the great unwashed getting all Bolshie, eh!. They need discipline and Lenin is or was our man to do the job. Check out that "Get down to business" lecture Lenin gave to the workers which I quoted earlier on this thread if you think Im just parodying him.:rolleyes:


Well, to tell the truth, I dont quite see it in your terms which seems to imply that it was all the fault of Lenin and, but for him, such things would not have happened. Lenin was just the mouthpeice of a movement (which is why the Lenin quotes serve quite a useful purpose - to shed light on that movement) which had only one option before it and that was the development of capitalism by the ruthless removal of all precapitalist obstacles to that development. To become, in short. the left wing of capitalSuch a moving and compelling argument...


And that, friend, is clearly something that you dont seem to "understand"Like you do not understand material conditions at all..

[Sea]

As what usually happens.What's your favorite breed of dog, TGU?

Compared to the farce that is DNZ, even Bob Avakian is a tragedy.What.

[Ostrinski]

Okay, the class line is thus, then: if you support capitalist states or their wars, or if you seek to manage capital, you are not a communist. So if I oppose national self-determination and don't believe in Socialism in One Country, and don't view nationalizations as an end in themselves, I am a communist?

Does this leave all Leninists in the left wing of capital category? Furthermore, since it has been said that left communism is not a strategical approach, does this mean that there are multiple strategical approaches within the ultra left, or that all who believe in strategical approaches are left wing of capital?

[Prometeo liberado]

We tend to mock what we don't understand.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Connected to this, there is a tendency to downplay the importance of working class individuals - as if the class wasn't composed primarily of individuals. This seems tied to a very bourgeois and idealist notion of history - as if history had goals of itself, to which the working class, and more so individual workers are mere tools (I find this unacceptable: if we are going to have a revolution to make for a better life for everybody, I'm in; if we are going to have a revolution to fulfill some teleological goal of the Automatic Subject, regardless if this results in more joy and love and peace, I'm out).

I like that positive spin on what they call "voluntarism"; not just any individual or "activist Left" individual should be factored in, but a working-class one, and groups of such.


This in practice results in a permanent, bitter and arrogant dismissal of any practical attempt at giving a political sense to struggle, combined with a complete absence of alternative (in this, it is different, and worse, than the behaviour of anarchists, Trotskysts, Maoists, Stalinists, etc: at least those when they tell you that you are wrong, reformist, or outright reactionary, do point to a course of action they deem the correct one). And this bitterness and arrogance starts, of course, crossing the line between political and aesthetical, between disagreement and annoyance.

Criticizing for the sake of criticism is indeed woefully inadequate.


I disagree with most of them, but this is it: political disagreement. The attempt to make someone sound or look as a loony because of their political views is something we should not indulge in. After all, if we are communists or anarchists and do engage in talking about politics with non-communists or simply non-political people, we should know that many if not most of our points are thought of as crackpottery by many people.

Tell us why and where he is wrong.

One of these days you really need to send me a laundry list of your disagreements, because I'm not sure you yourself have done the "tell us why and where" part much. :confused:


It rather seems that you haven't read what the left communists say about the actual struggles. We support demands directly about workers' living and working conditions, and suggest workers to take control of their own struggles from the unions via workers' assemblies and struggle committees. As a strategy, we generally say expanding the struggle is the way to go, as it more than often is. Just because we aren't trade-unionists, nationalists or for self-management doesn't mean we don't offer anything to the struggle - quite the contrary, we actually try to help the workers win.

Even with little numbers, I see little in the way of education in strategy, or in agitation, or in organizing.


Downplay the importance of working class individuals in what sense? In the struggle, we defend that every individual worker should be able to speak his or her mind freely, and should be respected even when criticized.

The left-com hypocrisy in this thread towards other workers shows no bounds!

[Ottoraptor]

Does this leave all Leninists in the left wing of capital category? Furthermore, since it has been said that left communism is not a strategical approach, does this mean that there are multiple strategical approaches within the ultra left, or that all who believe in strategical approaches are left wing of capital?

Bordigists and the members of Battaglia Communista consider themselves leninists and they aren't consider to be the left wing of capital. Same with Myasnikov. So no not every leninist is the left wing of capital. I don't think one can apply the term to sects. I think the leninists in the ruling Maoist party in Nepal can be considered the left wing of capital, same with the PCF during 1968, and the PCE and its popular front during the Spanish Civil War.

Also there are different strategical approaches between the very groups in the Ultra-left. Compare the tactics of Mouvement Communiste, ICC, and the theoreticians of some of the more deterministic varieties of communization theory. The Ultra-left and modern Communist Left aren't a very coherent group and will have differing tactics and positions even if they have enough characteristics to be considered historically or by outsiders to be one or two tendencies.

[Sea]

Okay, the class line is thus, then: if you support capitalist states or their wars, or if you seek to manage capital, you are not a communist. So if I oppose national self-determination and don't believe in Socialism in One Country, and don't view nationalizations as an end in themselves, I am a communist?

Does this leave all Leninists in the left wing of capital category? Furthermore, since it has been said that left communism is not a strategical approach, does this mean that there are multiple strategical approaches within the ultra left, or that all who believe in strategical approaches are left wing of capital?Leninists don't see nationalization as an end in itself, they see it as a strategic step towards the goal of communism. Actually, perhaps I should phrase that as Lenin didn't see nationalization as an end in itself. Nor did he support SioC. National self-determination is something he was very vocal about, but even there Lenin's conception of the topic is quite different from (for instance) Kim Il-Sung's.

There's quite a difference between contemporary M-Ls of the statist variety and what Lenin believed and did. You can't fault Lenin for the ideological oddities of Marxism-Leninism as it exists today simply because it includes his name, just as you can't fault Marx for the problems of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Personally, my political thought does take some influence from Lenin's work, but I hesitate to call myself an M-L for this reason. This same problem is ultimately why I'm not a big fan of tendencies as a concept.

[Ostrinski]

Leninists don't see nationalization as an end in itself, they see it as a strategic step towards the goal of communism. Actually, perhaps I should phrase that as Lenin didn't see nationalization as an end in itself. Nor did he support SioC. National self-determination is something he was very vocal about, but even there Lenin's conception of the topic is quite different from (for instance) Kim Il-Sung's.Perhaps I should have said "if I do not see nationalization as inherently a positive thing or inherently a step toward socialism."

I don't think there is any room for upholding Lenin's national self-determination anymore than the Marxist-Leninist's because I think the history of the 20th century experience of the communist movement shows us that national liberation doesn't do anything meaningful for the movement toward socialism.


There's quite a difference between contemporary M-Ls of the statist variety and what Lenin believed and did. You can't fault Lenin for the ideological oddities of Marxism-Leninism as it exists today simply because it includes his name, just as you can't fault Marx for the problems of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Personally, my political thought does take some influence from Lenin's work, but I hesitate to call myself an M-L for this reason. This same problem is ultimately why I'm not a big fan of tendencies as a concept.What I was referring to, though, was Leninism, which today is confined pretty much to Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism.

[Geiseric]

Right the black panther movement, and Malcolm X's political work didn't do anything for the wider socialist movement in the 60's, nor were the latino student strikes which sparked the entire student movement in L.A! Anybody who thinks that "national self determination struggles don't do much for class struggle as a whole," doesn't understand the social formation that allows capitalism to work, and lacks an education about both white working class chauvanism, and the special place oppression of nationalities has in keeping capitalism up and running.

[Ostrinski]

Bordigists and the members of Battaglia Communista consider themselves leninists and they aren't consider to be the left wing of capital. Same with Myasnikov. So no not every leninist is the left wing of capital. I don't think one can apply the term to sects. I think the leninists in the ruling Maoist party in Nepal can be considered the left wing of capital, same with the PCF during 1968, and the PCE and its popular front during the Spanish Civil War.

Also there are different strategical approaches between the very groups in the Ultra-left. Compare the tactics of Mouvement Communiste, ICC, and the theoreticians of some of the more deterministic varieties of communization theory. The Ultra-left and modern Communist Left aren't a very coherent group and will have differing tactics and positions even if they have enough characteristics to be considered historically or by outsiders to be one or two tendencies.Ah yes, the Bordigists. They consider themselves Leninists. It seems, though, to be merely because Amadeo Bordiga either identified as a Leninist or identified strongly with Lenin that the Bordigists are included in the non left wing of capital.

[Ostrinski]

Right the black panther movement, and Malcolm X's political work didn't do anything for the wider socialist movement in the 60's, nor were the latino student strikes which sparked the entire student movement in L.A! Anybody who thinks that "national self determination struggles don't do much for class struggle as a whole," doesn't understand the social formation that allows capitalism to work, and lacks an education about both white working class chauvanism, and the special place oppression of nationalities has in keeping capitalism up and running.The Black Panther Party didn't become relevant because they supported national liberation for African Americans, that is absurd. They became relevant because they opposed and even took part in combat with the state, and were able to build a popular basis for this. They certainly happened to uphold the struggle for national self determination, a result of the influence of Maoist ideology on their leadership as well as well as the national liberation movements taking part around the world at the time, but this is not the defining factor of what made them a relevant force.

With regard to the Latino student strikes in L.A., ethnic nationalism played a part among groups like the Brown Berets to be sure (although even in the Brown Berets ethnic nationalism, while a part of their program, took a backseat to political and social inclusion), but the struggle for things like civil rights and social equality were the calls of the day and played a much more definitive role than the marginal nationalistic sentiments.

To say that just because Latinos were struggling against social injustices that it must have been a nationalistic endeavor is racist chauvinism on your part.

You'll have to forgive me and the rest of us for "not understanding the social formation that allows capitalism to work" and "lacking an education about both white working class chauvanism, and the special place oppression of nationalities has in keeping capitalism up and running" for we are not as sophisticated or as well-informed as you are, but we however are in luck as we do happen to have you here so that you might forgive our profound ignorance and consecrate us with the fruits of your tireless analyses.

[Ottoraptor]

Ah yes, the Bordigists. They consider themselves Leninists. It seems, though, to be merely because Amadeo Bordiga either identified as a Leninist or identified strongly with Lenin that the Bordigists are included in the non left wing of capital.

Not just the Bordigists as Battaglia Communista doesn't see itself as Bordigist since their original leader lead an opposition to Bordiga's faction.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:

I am cracking down on this right the fuck now. I don't want to see any more personal attacks. I don't care if you've talked to Red Banana's cousin's fiance's uncle whose best friend's mother's friend's granddaughter knows DNZ. There's no excuse to flame other users.

Android, I'm infracting you, and if I see anybody else flaming, or as l'Enferme put it, "spamming serious forums with this crap", you're getting infracted too. If you don't like DNZ, that's ok, you don't have to like him, but you do have to be civil and reasonable to him. But bullying and personally attacking another user is never acceptable.

This attitude isn't cool. People are trying to have a serious discussion here. DON'T FUCKING INSULT OR PERSONALLY ATTACK OTHER PEOPLE!

This post is a general warning.

[Ostrinski]

Didn't Bordiga support national liberation movements? Does that make him left wing of capital?

[robbo203]

No, it isn't. I'm not saying what came of the revolution was good, but I am acknowledging it was the result of material conditions, and not some inherent flaw of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.



Nobody is suggesting that the outcome of the Bolshevik capitalist Revolution was down to "some inherent flaw of Lenin and the Bolsheviks". That there were serious flaws in their thinking is unquestionable. Nor can it be doubted that they did a serious disservice to the socialist cause by misrepresenting what was happening in Russia at the time, not to mention distorting the very concept of socialism to fit in with their own state capitalist agenda

However, it was basically, as you say, the material conditions that foredoomed the Bolshevik revolution to only one possible outcome - the further development of capitalism in one guise or another. This is relatively uncontroversial; what is more controversial are the inferences to be drawn from it

Thus we get people here thoughtlessly regurgitating the line that the Bolsheviks failed to achieve socialism "because of the failure of the world revolution to happen". The clear implication of this seems to be that Russia was somehow primed for a socialist revolution but was merely "let down" by external factors. This is plainly nonsensical. There was no mass mandate for socialism inside Russia anymore than there was outside and it is quite delusiuonal to think otherwise. You cannot have socialism without a significant majority wanting and understanding it. and nowhere in the world did such a majority exist. End of story.

A second false inference that is sometimes drawn is that what the Bolsheviks did was at least "understandable" from the point of view of enabling a transition from capitalism to communism even if it did not end up with the latter. I reject this argument completely. There is, and can be, no transition to communism via state capitalism at all. The lesson of history needs to be learnt: State capitalism is a DEAD END that leads nowhere. And insofar as it misidentifies itself with socialism (aka communism) it is a most formidable obstacle in the way of socialism



So, you are opposed to the notion of "dictatorship of the proletariat? Or, do you suggest the DOTP is socialism?


The DOTP has nothing to do with socialism at all - by definition. It presupposes the existence of a proletariat and therefore the class relations that characterise a capitalist system.

I am implacably opposed to the concept of the DOTP. Its is a delusion and a contradiction in terms. This is what I meant by my reference to the absurdity of suggesting a slave society could be run in the interests of the slaves. Capitalism cannot possibly be run in the interests of wage labour which it NEEDS TO EXPLOIT in order to function at all. The only possible outcome of the DOTP and its perpetuation of capitalism is substititionism and the emergence of a new capitalist ruling class to carry out the imperatives of capital. In short, some sort of Labour Party type government

The DOTP is nothing more than an excuse for the prolongation of capitalist relations of production on the feeble and illogical pretext that you "cannot just jump from capitalism into communism". Ive explained all this before but people constantly confuse the issue by thinking this means I am suggesting "material reality" can somehow be magically transformed in an instant.

It is not material reality as such that would be suddendly transformed in this fashion; it is, rather, the social rules that govern prpduction - that is , the social relations of production - that would thus be transformed within which we engage with and seek to modify, this material reality. In that respect there is nothing , and can be nothing , in between a classless society and a class based society and the idea that you can have a "transition" between these things is totally logically absurd - as absurd as saying one can be a "little bit pregnant"

[Alf]

Bricolage wrote:
hmmm yeah reading back that's not as bad as I remember, I mean I don't think it's the most exciting thing and I don't like sentences like 'looking to provoke us into premature clashes to give them a pretext for displays of force', also I always thought talking to scholol kids about general assemblies is a bit weird cos when I was at school all I associated assemblies with was every wednesday morning where the headteacher would give some speech and someone would talk about football results... but I remember thinking it was a lot worse at the time, was that the only thing you handed out?

There's this:
http://en.internationalism.org/files/en/icc_education_revolt_leaflet.pdf

I see your point about 'assemblies' but the word has become pretty much universal now, especially after the Occupy and Indignados movements. At the college where I work, I was in discussion during those events with a group that called itself the 'left wing student's assembly' (I criticised the 'left wing' label because it was too restrictive, but that's not the issue here).

[Ottoraptor]

Didn't Bordiga support national liberation movements? Does that make him left wing of capital?

I heard he did later in life, but I haven't read any works when he talks of it. If he did then he is mistaken, but at the time his group was so small that we wouldn't be able to apply the term to him. Also that one stance is not enough to earn the title.

[Geiseric]

The Black Panther Party didn't become relevant because they supported national liberation for African Americans, that is absurd. They became relevant because they opposed and even took part in combat with the state, and were able to build a popular basis for this. They certainly happened to uphold the struggle for national self determination, a result of the influence of Maoist ideology on their leadership as well as well as the national liberation movements taking part around the world at the time, but this is not the defining factor of what made them a relevant force.

With regard to the Latino student strikes in L.A., ethnic nationalism played a part among groups like the Brown Berets to be sure (although even in the Brown Berets ethnic nationalism, while a part of their program, took a backseat to political and social inclusion), but the struggle for things like civil rights and social equality were the calls of the day and played a much more definitive role than the marginal nationalistic sentiments.

To say that just because Latinos were struggling against social injustices that it must have been a nationalistic endeavor is racist chauvinism on your part.

You'll have to forgive me and the rest of us for "not understanding the social formation that allows capitalism to work" and "lacking an education about both white working class chauvanism, and the special place oppression of nationalities has in keeping capitalism up and running" for we are not as sophisticated or as well-informed as you are, but we however are in luck as we do happen to have you here so that you might forgive our profound ignorance and consecrate us with the fruits of your tireless analyses.

Well great, abandon supporting national liberation movements, and lose the support of about half of the working class, including its most revolutionary sections which exist only in oppressed nationalities, and see how it works out for you. A socialist movement fighting for problems only white people see existing, sounds great! Oh wait it's left communism, which thinks the national question takes a backseat to the "struggle against capital," that doesn't exist as of yet!

[Leo]

Well great, abandon supporting national liberation movements, and lose the support of about half of the working class, including its most revolutionary sections which exist only in oppressed nationalities, and see how it works out for you.

Perhaps the workers of oppressed nationalities might not be the blood-thirsty nationalists you arrogantly presume all of them to be?

[Red Enemy]

Nobody is suggesting that the outcome of the Bolshevik capitalist Revolution was down to "some inherent flaw of Lenin and the Bolsheviks".Actually, Gladiator was. Well, to be precise, he was saying the revolution was a total success, because the goal of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was NOT to create a workers state and achieve socialism. To the contrary, Gladiator proposes Lenin and the Bolsheviks want to institute state capitalist dictatorship, and that was it.


That there were serious flaws in their thinking is unquestionable.Yes, I'm not denying that.


Nor can it be doubted that they did a serious disservice to the socialist cause by misrepresenting what was happening in Russia at the time, not to mention distorting the very concept of socialism to fit in with their own state capitalist agendaThey never. This is absolutely false.


However, it was basically, as you say, the material conditions that foredoomed the Bolshevik revolution to only one possible outcome - the further development of capitalism in one guise or another.Yes.


This is relatively uncontroversial; what is more controversial are the inferences to be drawn from itSuch as Gladiator perceiving it as Lenin and the Bolsheviks being inherently State Capitalists who deceived the proletariat from day 1.


Thus we get people here thoughtlessly regurgitating the line that the Bolsheviks failed to achieve socialism "because of the failure of the world revolution to happen".The failure of the global revolution was the main factor, but not the only factor. World war, civil war, the backward nature of Russian capitalism, famine, the appeasement of peasants, uprisings, etc. also played MAJOR roles in what occurred in Russia.


The clear implication of this seems to be that Russia was somehow primed for a socialist revolution but was merely "let down" by external factors.Again, it was both external and internal. However, those internal factors would have been largely negated had that outside factor not been there.


This is plainly nonsensical. There was no mass mandate for socialism inside Russia anymore than there was outside and it is quite delusiuonal to think otherwise.Mass mandate? You believe the overwhelming majority of proletariat will support the socialist cause? You are sorely mistaken.


You cannot have socialism without a significant majority wanting and understanding it.I'm not claiming you can have socialism, but you can achieve a workers state. At which point, educating those remaining, and further perusing the awakening of class conscious is important.

Yes, you need a lot of proletariat, but to expect the vast majority to, in any situation, to support socialism is ridiculous a claim for anyone who calls themselves a Marxist.


and nowhere in the world did such a majority exist. End of story.
Oh? What are your sources?


A second false inference that is sometimes drawn is that what the Bolsheviks did was at least "understandable" from the point of view of enabling a transition from capitalism to communism even if it did not end up with the latter.It's understandable given the total material conditions; the underdeveloped nature of Russian capital, civil war, famine, a peasant class which was becoming no longer an ally, etc etc etc.


I reject this argument completely. There is, and can be, no transition to communism via state capitalism at all.You're missing the point again. The "state capitalism" was an advancement, but not the transition to communism. Nor is the "state capitalism" espoused by Lenin the same "state capitalism" espoused by Dunayevskaya, Cliff, Bordiga or the revisionist SPGB. Missing the context is a huge issue with you.


The lesson of history needs to be learnt: State capitalism is a DEAD END that leads nowhere.Okay. Missing the point again. Are you accusing me of suggesting that in an advanced capitalist situation, there would be a need for "state capitalism", which you still to this point wrongly equate what Lenin discusses (in the context of a DOTP) and what the SC theorists discuss (in the context of no DOTP)


And insofar as it misidentifies itself with socialism (aka communism) it is a most formidable obstacle in the way of socialismYes, it would be if we are discussing the state capitalism as theorized by the Marxist-Humanists, Bordigists, Cliffites, or revisionist SPGB.

However, State Capitalism (in the context of a DOTP) was a huge advancement in Russia, compared to what was present prior to the DOTP.


The DOTP has nothing to do with socialism at all - by definition. It presupposes the existence of a proletariat and therefore the class relations that characterise a capitalist system. I don't remember claiming that the DOTP was socialism. Perhaps you could remind me?

I fully acknowledge that the mode of production under the DOTP is capitalism.


I am implacably opposed to the concept of the DOTP. Its is a delusion and a contradiction in terms.So, you're an anarchist? In which case arguing DOTP with you is pointless.


This is what I meant by my reference to the absurdity of suggesting a slave society could be run in the interests of the slaves.Missing the point. The point isn't to run slave society in the interests of the slaves, but for the slaves to tear down slave society.

What the idea of DOTP suggests is that it cannot happen in a single day, with a single blow. "BEHOLD, CAPITALISM IS NOW OVER! I KNOW WE HAD IT YESTERDAY, WAL MART WAS OPEN, THOSE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES WERE BUILDING THINGS FOR PROFIT, BUT BEHOLD, SOCIALISM IS HERE!"

The purpose of the DOTP is to defend the gains of the revolution. Unless you believe that the bourgeoisie and it's military, police, and supporters will just relinquish everything.


Capitalism cannot possibly be run in the interests of wage labour which it NEEDS TO EXPLOIT in order to function at all.So, how do you propose we achieve socialism?


The only possible outcome of the DOTP and its perpetuation of capitalism is substititionism and the emergence of a new capitalist ruling class to carry out the imperatives of capital. In short, some sort of Labour Party type governmentJust... no.


The DOTP is nothing more than an excuse for the prolongation of capitalist relations of production on the feeble and illogical pretext that you "cannot just jump from capitalism into communism". That dastardly Marx!


Ive explained all this before but people constantly confuse the issue by thinking this means I am suggesting "material reality" can somehow be magically transformed in an instant. What?


It is not material reality as such that would be suddendly transformed in this fashion; it is, rather, the social rules that govern prpduction - that is , the social relations of production - that would thus be transformed The bourgeoisie just let it happen I suppose?


within which we engage with and seek to modify, this material reality.Transition?


In that respect there is nothing , and can be nothing , in between a classless society and a class based society and the idea that you can have a "transition" between these things is totally logically absurd - as absurd as saying one can be a "little bit pregnant"Nobody suggests you can have something "in-between". The DOTP is still a class based society. However, political power now rests in the hands of the oppressed class, whose goal is to now expropriate the means of production, and work toward socialism.


Just to be clear, you suggest that we abolish class and capitalism the same day.

That, one moment we have capitalism, but the next moment it is communism. Nothing is done to change it, it just happens?

[Geiseric]

Perhaps the workers of oppressed nationalities might not be the blood-thirsty nationalists you arrogantly presume all of them to be?

For consciousness to grow with oppressed nationalities, they need to first identify themselves as an oppressed nationality, and organize on that basis. Blood thirsty? Wtf does that even mean? As soon as the white working class, including people on this forum, stops being chauvanist, and actually stops supporting bourgeois politics that put nationalities on a lower level, i'll say that the struggle for mexicans in the south west, or blacks in the south, is superfluous. Ignoring the issues of nationalities is counter revolutionary though.

The fact of the matter is that you can't distinguish the socialist struggle for the entire working class with the struggle for oppressed nationalities to fight racism. I don't see how that is controversial. Poverty rates for blacks and latinos tower over those for whites, meaning the struggle for nationalities to bring that to light and educate white workers on racism is a necessity before those white workers can see how the entire system is against the working class.

[blake 3:17]

The entire abstention on national rights is so BS.

In recent weeks here in Canada a new movement of indigenous peoples, status and non-status Indians, people living on and off reserve, and their allies have started the biggest movement against racism, colonialism, and ecocidal industrial practices in Canadian history.

Does it have a pure class basis? No. Is it incredibly important? Yes. People can believe in some totally abstract class-in-itself which will become a class-for-itself-to-abolish-all-classes, but in the mean time deal with something real.

When I was in the New Socialist Group, I remember Dave McNally warning a gathering that the meetings shouldn't just be a place to return week after week to confirm one hadn't become a reformist.

[Leo]

For consciousness to grow with oppressed nationalities, they need to first identify themselves as an oppressed nationality, and organize on that basis.

Have a lot of experience with oppressed nationalities, do you?


Blood thirsty? Wtf does that even mean?

It could be interpreted to mean one is so nationalistic that, let alone uniting with workers from other nationalities, one is anxious to kill them.


As soon as the white working class, including people on this forum, stops being chauvanist, and actually stops supporting bourgeois politics that put nationalities on a lower level, i'll say that the struggle for mexicans in the south west, or blacks in the south, is superfluous.

First of al, opposing national oppression and chauvinism is not the same as supporting national liberation. Secondly, wars of national liberation never change the consciousness of the workers of the oppressing nationality for the better - and quite often give the bourgeoisie of the oppressing nation a pretext to strengthen chauvinism among the population.

Workers' consciousness change only in one area for the better and that is class struggle, where workers from different nationalities discover their mutual interests. This I am saying from experience as much as communist politics.

And one last thing - if you think there is a national liberation struggle of Mexicans in the American South West - or the Blacks in the American South, you're delusional. If you want to see national liberation movements proper, I suggest you try to focus outside the United States.


The fact of the matter is that you can't distinguish the socialist struggle for the entire working class with the struggle for oppressed nationalities to fight racism. I don't see how that is controversial.

What is controversial is that you're missing the distinction between opposing national oppression and supporting national liberation. Opposing national oppression indeed can't be distinguished from the struggle for proletarian revolution, raising solidarity with the workers of oppressed nationalities against racism, chauvinism, pogroms and other oppressive nationalist policies is of course in every interest of workers' unity.

National liberation, however, is a quite different phenomenon.


Poverty rates for blacks and latinos tower over those for whites, meaning the struggle for nationalities to bring that to light and educate white workers on racism is a necessity before those white workers can see how the entire system is against the working class.

This reminds me of a rather ridiculous argument that workers all have to be oppressed and exploited equally before a revolution takes place. It is, of course, not as absurd yet demonstrates, in my opinion, a similar tendency and also shows a lack of understanding of how class consciousness develops in the current epoch.

To start from the last point, workers don't develop class consciousness or any sort of consciousness really because of self-important leftists running around, educating them about racism. Workers develop consciousness when their material conditions create a tendency towards it, in other words when their material conditions make it necessary for them to struggle. Of course, communist proletarians can and should do their best to contribute to this development of consciousness, however this is not a process of a teacher educating ignorant students but a communist worker genuinely discussing with his or her fellow workers starting with their own living and working conditions, and their material relations among each other and between them and their bosses.

The other implication of your argument which is similar to the line of equality in oppression and exploitation is that what you are saying, basically, is it is necessary to basically make the white workers pity the workers of oppressed nationalities because of all they've been through and their horrible living standards and only if they pity the oppressed nationalities can they struggle on their own. Aside from being basically illogical, this sort of approach is the death to true proletarian solidarity. To pity is to look down. There has always been workers who were better off compared to the others, and there always will be. The response of the proletariat to this situation has always been solidarity in struggle.

[Android]

As soon as the white working class, including people on this forum, stops being chauvanist, and actually stops supporting bourgeois politics that put nationalities on a lower level, i'll say that the struggle for mexicans in the south west, or blacks in the south, is superfluous. Ignoring the issues of nationalities is counter revolutionary though.
I do not think some of the people on this forum arguing against you are 'white'. Not that, that changes anything anyway since I am fairly suspicious of this kind of baiting as a substitue for reasoned argument.

You do not see any contradiction in condemning others for supposed adherence to bourgeois politics when your espousal of national liberationist politics is based primarily on liberal rights doctrine and the establishment of a bourgeois state for whatever oppressed nationality group you are supporting.

The fact of the matter is that you can't distinguish the socialist struggle for the entire working class with the struggle for oppressed nationalities to fight racism.
Whilst I would not pose it in this way. Since I do not start from the premise of nation-vs-nation, but of classes in struggle expressed through various mediations such as nationality, gender, race etc.

But the core point that opposing racism is important and uncontroversial, yes.

[l'Enfermé]

Nobody is suggesting that the outcome of the Bolshevik capitalist Revolution was down to "some inherent flaw of Lenin and the Bolsheviks". That there were serious flaws in their thinking is unquestionable. Nor can it be doubted that they did a serious disservice to the socialist cause by misrepresenting what was happening in Russia at the time, not to mention distorting the very concept of socialism to fit in with their own state capitalist agenda
I see only very minor flows in their thinking. It is very clearly questionable, comrade.


However, it was basically, as you say, the material conditions that foredoomed the Bolshevik revolution to only one possible outcome - the further development of capitalism in one guise or another. This is relatively uncontroversial; what is more controversial are the inferences to be drawn from itIf the Bolshevik's fellow revolutionaries in Germany, Italy and the rest didn't fail, there would have been more than one possible outcome(the restoration of bourgeois society and private property).



Thus we get people here thoughtlessly regurgitating the line that the Bolsheviks failed to achieve socialism "because of the failure of the world revolution to happen". The clear implication of this seems to be that Russia was somehow primed for a socialist revolution but was merely "let down" by external factors. This is plainly nonsensical. There was no mass mandate for socialism inside Russia anymore than there was outside and it is quite delusiuonal to think otherwise. You cannot have socialism without a significant majority wanting and understanding it. and nowhere in the world did such a majority exist. End of story.That's just bullocks. The vast majority of the Russian population was for socialism. You only have to look at the results of the Worker's and Peasants' Soviets election results. Or let's look at the results of the November 1917 Constituent Assembly elections: 80 percent of the vote went to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The Cadets got 4.7 percent of the vote.



A second false inference that is sometimes drawn is that what the Bolsheviks did was at least "understandable" from the point of view of enabling a transition from capitalism to communism even if it did not end up with the latter. I reject this argument completely. There is, and can be, no transition to communism via state capitalism at all. The lesson of history needs to be learnt: State capitalism is a DEAD END that leads nowhere. And insofar as it misidentifies itself with socialism (aka communism) it is a most formidable obstacle in the way of socialism
There we more or less agree.



The DOTP has nothing to do with socialism at all - by definition. It presupposes the existence of a proletariat and therefore the class relations that characterise a capitalist system.

I am implacably opposed to the concept of the DOTP. Its is a delusion and a contradiction in terms. This is what I meant by my reference to the absurdity of suggesting a slave society could be run in the interests of the slaves. Capitalism cannot possibly be run in the interests of wage labour which it NEEDS TO EXPLOIT in order to function at all. The only possible outcome of the DOTP and its perpetuation of capitalism is substititionism and the emergence of a new capitalist ruling class to carry out the imperatives of capital. In short, some sort of Labour Party type governmentYour opposition to the DoTP is why you are not a Marxist and we are, comrade.


The DOTP is nothing more than an excuse for the prolongation of capitalist relations of production on the feeble and illogical pretext that you "cannot just jump from capitalism into communism". Ive explained all this before but people constantly confuse the issue by thinking this means I am suggesting "material reality" can somehow be magically transformed in an instant.
Stupid Marx, that state-capitalist. He wished to prolong capitalist relations, that bastard.


It is not material reality as such that would be suddendly transformed in this fashion; it is, rather, the social rules that govern prpduction - that is , the social relations of production - that would thus be transformed within which we engage with and seek to modify, this material reality. In that respect there is nothing , and can be nothing , in between a classless society and a class based society and the idea that you can have a "transition" between these things is totally logically absurd - as absurd as saying one can be a "little bit pregnant"Capitalist society being a "little bit" pregnant with a communist one is actually basically Marx's metaphor ;)

[Rafiq]

My problem with Left Communists is, despite the fact that they can be very insightful regarding previously, or sometimes even currently existing circumstances (not providing solutions mind you) and are undoubtedly preferable to the Leninist crowd, I have major qualms with the council-fetishism (I know this is not something of a tendency among Bordigists) and another thing: Maybe what was called once before 'revolutionary phrase mongering'? Let us recognize this fact: Left Communists (at least Bordigists, at the very least) understand the problem. They understand the problem in the sense that they can adequately explain the failure of things like the October revolution, they can understand and recognize the phenomena that was Stalinism, the slow and merciless degeneration and international fuck up of Communism world wide, and so on. But then comes their organizational strategy and formal "positions" regarding modern or previously existing circumstances: It reminds me of the insecure Atheist whose world revolves around opposing religion, who is quick to take hasty positions on matters because he recognizes religious delusion. In this sense, Left Communists recognize the disillusionment that was 20th century Communism, the ideological bastardizations (Leninism) of Marxism but fail to adequately address them, and in turn they become insecure when confronted these, adopting positions not in accordance with different developments in the productive forces but on the basis of desperately trying to not fall into the same trap that the Leninists (or bourgeois-socialists) did. I am referring to Bordiga's anti democratic rhetoric, etc... This is why I don't call Left Communists "ultra-left" (or anyone else for that matter), the overwhelming majority of users who try to be "more leftist than thou" are, let's just say "learning leftists".


Another problem I find is lack of correlation between analysis and strategic position: They say the Bolshevik revolution failed because the revolution did not spread, and rightfully so. Yet I find, on a consistent basis Left Communists who oppose a vanguard for reasons comparable to your typical liberalist pre supposion: "Power corrupts" (essentially this is all it amounts to, that these types of structure will inevitably lead to class contradiciton between higher party apparatus and workers).

[Rafiq]

I wouldn't consider the likes of Robbo to be a Marxist of any sort (or an anarchist). He's a bourgeois-liberal of the worst variant (the quasi-leftist kind, Chomsky, Zinn, etc.)

[blake 3:17]

I wouldn't consider the likes of Robbo to be a Marxist of any sort (or an anarchist). He's a bourgeois-liberal of the worst variant (the quasi-leftist kind, Chomsky, Zinn, etc.)

Chomsky and Zinn are the worst?

[Rafiq]

Chomsky and Zinn are the worst?

Worst type of Liberal, perhaps.

[Geiseric]

I do not think some of the people on this forum arguing against you are 'white'. Not that, that changes anything anyway since I am fairly suspicious of this kind of baiting as a substitue for reasoned argument.

You do not see any contradiction in condemning others for supposed adherence to bourgeois politics when your espousal of national liberationist politics is based primarily on liberal rights doctrine and the establishment of a bourgeois state for whatever oppressed nationality group you are supporting.

Whilst I would not pose it in this way. Since I do not start from the premise of nation-vs-nation, but of classes in struggle expressed through various mediations such as nationality, gender, race etc.

But the core point that opposing racism is important and uncontroversial, yes.

"fighting racism," but opposing national liberation is contradictory. And I don't support seperatism either, i'm saying black americans have the right to organize themselves, like they did in the 60's, apart from other white workers, as a result of their seperation from society, and unique problems that they face, such as the FBI smuggling crack into black neighborhoods, fueling the wars we see today, and poverty that is unique to black and latino neighborhoods.

There is a level of oppression that's directed at nationalities that is above the level of white working class people, which necessitates something like supporting black peoples right to form local committees to deal with problems that effect them in their immediate space, such as, I don't know,a soviet or something, that deals with things in black dominant areas. It's part of class consciousness, logically that needs to happen before oppressed nationalities can organize against capital en masse, seeing as the consciousness of the entire class will raise as a result of black and latino self determination, which will happen before the white working class is on that level.

[Android]

I may reply in more detail later.

t's part of class consciousness, logically that needs to happen before oppressed nationalities can organize against capital en masse, seeing as the consciousness of the entire class will raise as a result of black and latino self determination, which will happen before the white working class is on that level.
Maybe I am missing something, but as far as I can tell there is nothing resembling a movement at present for Black or Latino self-determination at all in the USA.

[Geiseric]

Well there isn't anything resembling a communist or workers party in the USA. What's your point?

[Ocean Seal]

Left-Communists are generally right on the "big issues" so to say, and they have no problem arguing them, because by and large they are the most veteran leftists, and they have a reputation to maintain. The are also generally wrong, or tend to ignore the small issues, because they have a pretension that working on them is somehow un-leftist. These include matters on race, gender, etc. Anything that they can't reduce to the class struggle paradigm without blurring the lines of it. I've seldom heard any left communists contribute to threads concerning affirmative action, immigration, poverty in minority neighborhoods, healing in communities, extreme inequality in wealth among races, foreign exploitation, or kids getting shot by the cops. The problem isn't that left communists don't care about these issues, it's the fact that they don't understand them. They often are so black and white about everything, and need to force everything into their great theories, or else jump ship. These smaller issues don't fit in so nicely, so in order to maintain their reputation they really don't comment on these issues beyond a simple circle-jerk, or a reaffirmation of their principles. Also they have the problem that they tend to repeat themselves. This is not unique to the communist left; it can be understood that on an internet forum people have this tendency because they are unsure that they are talking to the same people each time. I won't blame them for this, but hearing that the solution to every problem is internationalism is as annoying as hearing potheads talk about how legalizing pot will give the government enough money to end every social problem and everything will be alright.

[Manic Impressive]

Left-Communists are generally right on the "big issues" so to say, and they have no problem arguing them, because by and large they are the most veteran leftists, and they have a reputation to maintain. The are also generally wrong, or tend to ignore the small issues, because they have a pretension that working on them is somehow un-leftist. These include matters on race, gender, etc. Anything that they can't reduce to the class struggle paradigm without blurring the lines of it. I've seldom heard any left communists contribute to threads concerning affirmative action, immigration, poverty in minority neighborhoods, healing in communities, extreme inequality in wealth among races, foreign exploitation, or kids getting shot by the cops. The problem isn't that left communists don't care about these issues, it's the fact that they don't understand them. They often are so black and white about everything, and need to force everything into their great theories, or else jump ship. These smaller issues don't fit in so nicely, so in order to maintain their reputation they really don't comment on these issues beyond a simple circle-jerk, or a reaffirmation of their principles.
I think the point is that they are "leftist" issues and not revolutionary. While no one would be against progressive changes regarding these issues, the fact remains that they have nothing to do with a change in the means of production.

[Luís Henrique]

Right the black panther movement, and Malcolm X's political work didn't do anything for the wider socialist movement in the 60's, nor were the latino student strikes which sparked the entire student movement in L.A! Anybody who thinks that "national self determination struggles don't do much for class struggle as a whole," doesn't understand the social formation that allows capitalism to work, and lacks an education about both white working class chauvanism, and the special place oppression of nationalities has in keeping capitalism up and running.

If the Black Panthers viewed their struggle against racism and discrimination as an instance of national liberation, they were very delusional. If they did something for the wider socialist movement, it was in spite of such delusion, not because of it. If they supported national liberation in the form of the independence of African countries, for instance, that's another thing - and it would be interesting to ask what the position of the communist left is, or was, regarding the process of decolonisation.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Well great, abandon supporting national liberation movements, and lose the support of about half of the working class, including its most revolutionary sections which exist only in oppressed nationalities, and see how it works out for you. A socialist movement fighting for problems only white people see existing, sounds great! Oh wait it's left communism, which thinks the national question takes a backseat to the "struggle against capital," that doesn't exist as of yet!

What is an oppressed nationality? Are Somalis an oppressed nationality? Nigerians? The Igbo in Nigeria? Brazilians? The Yanomami in Brazil? The Basque in Spain? The Scots? The Venetian in Italy? Black people in the United States? Common prisoners in the United States, as I see sometimes claimed ("Captive Nations")? Hungarians in Romenia? Romenians in Hungary? Jews and Roma everywhere?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

As soon as the white working class, including people on this forum, stops being chauvanist, and actually stops supporting bourgeois politics that put nationalities on a lower level, i'll say that the struggle for mexicans in the south west, or blacks in the south, is superfluous. Ignoring the issues of nationalities is counter revolutionary though.

First, this is an American thing; such problems are by no means inherent to capitalism, as other social formations do not rely in structural discrimination against Blacks or "Latinos". Second, even then, I fail to see how Blacks or "mexicans" - as in "Mexican in the United States", or perhaps more accurately, "Latin American immigrants to the United States and their descendants", are "nationalities", oppressed or not. Do you really believe in the need for separate polities for Blacks and "Latinos", and that independent "homelands" for such people is a progressive goal that the left should support?

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the point is that they are "leftist" issues and not revolutionary. While no one would be against progressive changes regarding these issues, the fact remains that they have nothing to do with a change in the means of production.
Sometimes they directly do though - and they always indirectly do. The struggle of immigrants to get out of a condition of 2nd-class labor without rights doesn't have to do with the class struggle? Police brutality against young black men isn't connected to class rule?

Oppression in capitalism isn't just a side-issue for the ruling class, it's related to how they mantain and ensure the contntinuation of the system which places them at the top. In order to control and maintain their rule, they have to divide the population, directly repress portions of it, keep people living in povert without revolting, etc. Oppression of specific groups is how they do this. If they just oppressed us all equally, then it would be so much easier to unite on a class basis - so they opress, but not specifically oppress by class status alone.

People naturally have an urge to fight back against their oppression from time to time, and because oppression is not strictly broken up along class lines, often people will fight oppression in cross-class sorts of ways. Also because the petty- and even bourgois people in oppressed groups are often impacted (though not in the same way that workers or the poor of oppressed groups are) they will generally have the funds and time and resources to try and initiate some resistance. And there is a chance that since workers who are also oppressed for other reasons are impacted by the sexism or jim-crow laws too, they may also support these efforts... or conversly, a grassroots movement by workers against oppression might then be taken over by middle class people and the movement is led in a refom-friendly direction... like the immigrant walk-outs a few years back.

So from this I would conclude two things: 1) that because of the way oppression functions in society, workers who are oppressed will likely begin to rebell against that oppression before developing class consiousness. 2) this is problematic because although the desire to be free from and that fight against oppression has posible benifits for the class movement, there is a tendency for confusion within the anti-oppression movement, or a tendency for these movements to be coopted and turned towards middle-class strategies and politics.

But this turn towards reformist poltics is not the only or inevitable way for these struggles to go - this is due to the connection between class rule and oppression. Black Liberation or Women's Liberation can not actually be won without also overthrowing the capitalist system ultimately, so any major movement against oppression is also going to inherently have to begin to pull on some of the class-threads behind how this oppression works. For the middle-class professional black man in the 60s, maybe just acess to white universities and more elite jobs is enough... but it's not enough for black workers who are not simply restricted, but repressed and controlled: exploited by employers and landloards and so on. And so a real fight against anti-black racism would very definately tred on ground that's of major importance to working class liberation: taking on the power of the police and courts, attacking the errosion of rights on the job, fighting evictions, fighting corrupt (racist) union beurocrats who don't look out for female/black/immigrant workers as a symptom of being in bed with the bosses.

But because of class divisions within these kinds of movements, if they become popular movements, the middle-class politics will come into confrontation with the larger democratic and liberatory wishes of many of the regualr participants. If a more militant strategy informed by class dynamics and politics emerges, then the movement will probably continue to develop. If the middle class and reformists restrict these more popular ambitions, then the movement will come to an impasse and probably stagnate and then just become various little electoral or of pressure groups.

So because of this - assuming there was a worker's movement (which is the missing thing which makes these kinds of discussions somewhat abstract) then it would not be "polluting" the worker's movement to also try and relate to these non-economic struggles. Doing so would help show the power of workers, if for example, cops shot some poor kid and then dockworkers or bus or subway workers all stopped transportation as part of a broader movement against police brutality. So workers would learn how to not just fight on the job, but in wider society and how to network and so on, but it would also show the inherent democratic nature of worker's to challenge not just economic exploitation but all the shit of the system and this would give militant workers more respect in the eyes of larger layers of oppressed workers and the poor. But also inside the anti-oppression movements themselves, it would be important for radicals to make the class fight and attempt to win the movement - or parts of it towards class and revolutionary politics and tactics.

[Luís Henrique]

I think the point is that they are "leftist" issues and not revolutionary. While no one would be against progressive changes regarding these issues, the fact remains that they have nothing to do with a change in the means of production.

The mode of production won't change except if the working class becomes the ruling class. And a ruling class must rule, and to rule it must concern itself with all social issues, unrelated as they may seem to their immediate interests.

If it cannot rule in the interests of the oppressed, it doesn't deserve to rule.

Luís Henrique

[robbo203]

That's just bullocks. The vast majority of the Russian population was for socialism. You only have to look at the results of the Worker's and Peasants' Soviets election results. Or let's look at the results of the November 1917 Constituent Assembly elections: 80 percent of the vote went to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The Cadets got 4.7 percent of the vote


Come now - that means absolutely sod all as you must surely be aware. The Russian workers were not voting for the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and SRs et al in the expectation that they were going to do away with the wages system and institute common ownership of the means of production. You have got to be seriously delusional if you believe that! No, the basis on which organisations like the Bolsheviks attracted support was unquestionably their reformist programme coupled with their oppostion to the war. "Peace land and bread" and all that. That apart what did the Bolsheviks mean when they talked of "socialism"? Already by this time there was a fundamental shift away from the traditional Marxian usage in the way the term was being used with the identification of socialism with the state - state capitalism. Marx and Engels though they made some swerious theoretical blunders never at least confused state capitalism with socialism



Your opposition to the DoTP is why you are not a Marxist and we are, comrade.


Frankly I couldn't care less how you wish to characterise my political views. If my opposition to the daft concept of the DOTP makes me "not a Marxist" then so be it. No skin off my nose mate. The more important thing is that neither you nor anyone else on this forum has been able to answer the arguments I made against the whole concept and in the end that is what counts



Stupid Marx, that state-capitalist. He wished to prolong capitalist relations, that bastard.

No I dont think he was stupid. I just consider that the state capitalist reformist programme sketched out most notably in Chapter II ("Proletarians and Communists") of the Communist Manifesto was a huge mistake and set the movement on quite the wrong course of action: towards the dead end of state capitalism It is significant though that Marx and Engels did seem to revise their thoughts on this section of the Manifesto as for example in the 1872 Preface:

The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated.





Capitalist society being a "little bit" pregnant with a communist one is actually basically Marx's metaphor ;)

Well as we have seen Marx was as much prone to error as the next person. Perhaps instead of citing holy gospel you might actually care to address the question directly - how can there be something in between a class-based society and classless society

[robbo203]

I wouldn't consider the likes of Robbo to be a Marxist of any sort (or an anarchist). He's a bourgeois-liberal of the worst variant (the quasi-leftist kind, Chomsky, Zinn, etc.)

What a silly fellow you are. Im a bourgeois-liberal am I? Not just a bourgeois-liberal. but a bourgeois-liberal of the...ahem ... "worst variant". Fancy that! Im quite intrigued, you know - how did you figure that out? Please do entertain us all yet again with another example of your scintillatingly turgid way of looking at the world because I for one would love to know what makes you tick. I find the thought processes of Left dogmatists on this forum fascinating and how when they havent got a leg left to stand on they resort to that time worn old practice of rubbishing their opponent as a bourgeois liberal.

Ah well, anything to distract attention from a serious argument helps, I guess ;)

[Prof. Oblivion]

I'm not really part of "the left" anymore, in an organizational sense. I have been out of that scene for a few years now, just living as a "normal" person, and I can understand why the revolutionary/progressive left has so much trouble connecting up with people outside of its boundaries. I just got disillusioned with the whole culture and stopped going to events, so now I'm sort of looking at it from the outside, and it's quite obvious to me, at least.

I still hold the same beliefs, or rather, similar beliefs. I'm just much more pragmatic nowadays, much faster to self-criticize a belief and review my arguments, be open to opposing views, and so on, simply because I'm not in an environment where I have to constantly self-validate through defending against "the opposition". My beliefs are no longer absolutely right, or others' absolutely wrong. Everyone can offer up something of value, and even if it doesn't change your mind it can at least get you thinking in new ways. That's really lost on a lot of people active in the left.

I think that's another reason I stopped participating, actually. I used to be very dogmatic in my views, like most here, and liked the debate behind it. But then I just got sick of it, and while I still liked discussing political/theoretical issues, I no longer wanted it to be a battle to be won. I got sick of talking politics with ideologues.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the left is so dominated by young people, and when you're young you tend to have an overinflated sense of being right, and a much more absolutist way of looking at things. At least I used to, and that's what I've seen in others as we've grown older. Things are so much more nuanced than a lot of people want to believe.

The left is also sort of a bubble. It's a culture in its own right, with harder boundaries between itself and the outside world. The small amount of people that are in this bubble socialize together, talk politics together, hang out together, and so on. When you're in it you can't see what it looks like from the outside.

Back in the day I used to go to protests. Nowadays when the leftists in my town hold a 20-person rally to protest Israel invading Gaza, it's like what's the point of that? It doesn't change anything, it's completely pie-in-the-sky stuff. I've had plenty of discussions about this with friends who organize this stuff, and generally the answer is something equally as abstract and intangible, like "we have to show our support for the Palestinian people". But in reality, in action, that translates into 20 people standing on a street corner with a sign for a couple hours, then they leave and life goes on as normal. Nothing changes.

I don't know, maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't see the value in that kind of stuff anymore. Don't get me wrong, I still hold revolutionary political views; I just don't see the value in a lot of actions that the left takes. It all seems sort of self-serving and masturbatory to me.

And I was actively involved for quite a while ffs. I can't imagine how much weirder it looks to a "normal" person.

[Red Enemy]

@Robbo, my post awaits response comrade.

[Manic Impressive]

Sometimes they directly do though - and they always indirectly do. The struggle of immigrants to get out of a condition of 2nd-class labor without rights doesn't have to do with the class struggle? Police brutality against young black men isn't connected to class rule?

Oppression in capitalism isn't just a side-issue for the ruling class, it's related to how they mantain and ensure the contntinuation of the system which places them at the top. In order to control and maintain their rule, they have to divide the population, directly repress portions of it, keep people living in povert without revolting, etc. Oppression of specific groups is how they do this. If they just oppressed us all equally, then it would be so much easier to unite on a class basis - so they opress, but not specifically oppress by class status alone.

People naturally have an urge to fight back against their oppression from time to time, and because oppression is not strictly broken up along class lines, often people will fight oppression in cross-class sorts of ways. Also because the petty- and even bourgois people in oppressed groups are often impacted (though not in the same way that workers or the poor of oppressed groups are) they will generally have the funds and time and resources to try and initiate some resistance. And there is a chance that since workers who are also oppressed for other reasons are impacted by the sexism or jim-crow laws too, they may also support these efforts... or conversly, a grassroots movement by workers against oppression might then be taken over by middle class people and the movement is led in a refom-friendly direction... like the immigrant walk-outs a few years back.

So from this I would conclude two things: 1) that because of the way oppression functions in society, workers who are oppressed will likely begin to rebell against that oppression before developing class consiousness. 2) this is problematic because although the desire to be free from and that fight against oppression has posible benifits for the class movement, there is a tendency for confusion within the anti-oppression movement, or a tendency for these movements to be coopted and turned towards middle-class strategies and politics.

But this turn towards reformist poltics is not the only or inevitable way for these struggles to go - this is due to the connection between class rule and oppression. Black Liberation or Women's Liberation can not actually be won without also overthrowing the capitalist system ultimately, so any major movement against oppression is also going to inherently have to begin to pull on some of the class-threads behind how this oppression works. For the middle-class professional black man in the 60s, maybe just acess to white universities and more elite jobs is enough... but it's not enough for black workers who are not simply restricted, but repressed and controlled: exploited by employers and landloards and so on. And so a real fight against anti-black racism would very definately tred on ground that's of major importance to working class liberation: taking on the power of the police and courts, attacking the errosion of rights on the job, fighting evictions, fighting corrupt (racist) union beurocrats who don't look out for female/black/immigrant workers as a symptom of being in bed with the bosses.

But because of class divisions within these kinds of movements, if they become popular movements, the middle-class politics will come into confrontation with the larger democratic and liberatory wishes of many of the regualr participants. If a more militant strategy informed by class dynamics and politics emerges, then the movement will probably continue to develop. If the middle class and reformists restrict these more popular ambitions, then the movement will come to an impasse and probably stagnate and then just become various little electoral or of pressure groups.

So because of this - assuming there was a worker's movement (which is the missing thing which makes these kinds of discussions somewhat abstract) then it would not be "polluting" the worker's movement to also try and relate to these non-economic struggles. Doing so would help show the power of workers, if for example, cops shot some poor kid and then dockworkers or bus or subway workers all stopped transportation as part of a broader movement against police brutality. So workers would learn how to not just fight on the job, but in wider society and how to network and so on, but it would also show the inherent democratic nature of worker's to challenge not just economic exploitation but all the shit of the system and this would give militant workers more respect in the eyes of larger layers of oppressed workers and the poor. But also inside the anti-oppression movements themselves, it would be important for radicals to make the class fight and attempt to win the movement - or parts of it towards class and revolutionary politics and tactics.

First This whole thing is going to be way off topic as I'm obviously not a Left communist and they will probably disagree with me on several counts. Anyway, I think the fundamental difference in thinking here is a different conception of class struggle. Class struggle, to me is not always revolutionary. There is a difference between struggling against the effects of capitalism and struggling against the economic system with the view of ending it. See Marx on the failure of unions. So we could term this distinction as class struggle and class conscious struggle or as Lenin put it trade union consciousness and revolutionary consciousness. I have no problem saying that these struggles are directly related to class struggle. But not class conscious struggle. Race conscious struggle perhaps? You talk about the leading of movements by the petit bourgeois and I suppose from your statement that you think these movements should instead be led by communists. If this is a strawman I apologize but it seems the natural progression of your argument. If this is the case then we also have a fundamental difference of view on the role of communists which from my perspective should try to inspire the rest of the working class to lead themselves rather than being led. As if they need to be led they are not class conscious, if they are not class conscious then you are leading an unconscious majority incapable of revolution, at least not revolution in the Marxist sense. I know the Bordigists will certainly disagree with me there.

I would also like to see your evidence for the success of the strategy you outlined. You say there is no workers movement but workers have been tirelessly fighting against racism for the last 100 years, intensely for the last 60 or so. Yet this has NOT resulted in a workers movement but has instead coincided with the decline of the union struggle. Has the work of all these organizations like yours and many others actually shown an increase in class consciousness?

Another point you say that racism and women's lib cannot be won without the overthrow of capitalism. I disagree. Capitalism being an economic system which is highly adaptive. Capitalism will change itself to overcome any problems which effect the interests of capital and the capitalist class. So it is entirely possible that racism and women's lib can be overcome. However, this does not make it likely that they will be overcome. But given the right set of circumstances the bourgeoisie would drop both like a bad habit if it effected their profits. That does not mean that they wouldn't find other ways of dividing society. There are for example many different flavours of nationalism for example. If they wanted they could build an ideology around anything. Take for example a newly emerging one fat people vs skinny people. Fat people have become a detriment to capital given the extra healthcare in middle and old age that they will require. So the state has started demonizing these people. I am, of course, not comparing the current seriousness or relevance of these divisions but merely showing that the ruling class will enforce any division which most suits their interests and that capitalism as an economic system does not depend on any single idealistic division only the one that suits them best at that specific time. In fact the only division which capitalism does depend on and is not based on ideology is the only one that can be it's destruction.

[Manic Impressive]

What a silly fellow you are. Im a bourgeois-liberal am I? Not just a bourgeois-liberal. but a bourgeois-liberal of the...ahem ... "worst variant". Fancy that! Im quite intrigued, you know - how did you figure that out? Please do entertain us all yet again with another example of your scintillatingly turgid way of looking at the world because I for one would love to know what makes you tick. I find the thought processes of Left dogmatists on this forum fascinating and how when they havent got a leg left to stand on they resort to that time worn old practice of rubbishing their opponent as a bourgeois liberal.

Ah well, anything to distract attention from a serious argument helps, I guess ;)
I think his comment says more about him than it does about you.

[robbo203]

I think his comment says more about him than it does about you.

Yes, it does seem rather ironic that those of us who are actually communists here and who have been steadfastly putting forward a non-market anti-statist communist alternative to capitalism should be dismissed as bourgeois-liberals by individuals whose own preference for state run capitalism is painfully obvious

[Manic Impressive]

Yes it's quite sad really, I always assumed they used the epithet liberal in place of social democrat or similar. Certainly with the intention of indicating capitalist affiliation. As this cannot be a possibility in your case it only leaves the option that he is using liberal not in connection with the ideology of liberalism but to show his own fetishism for totalitarianism.

[robbo203]

...


I won't engage in the usual point by point rebuttal because I find this procedure gets a bit tedious after a while and breaks up the text to the extent that you do not know what is being referred to anymore. I will just summarise my response to your post thusly:

Lenin and the Bolsheviks coming out of the Social Democratic tradition certain did have some idea of socialism in the original Marxian sense we are talking about it and even Stalin wrote a good description of a socialist society in his pamphlet on Anarchism in 1906. However, just as the whole Second International went astray and foundered on the institutionalisation of a minimum reformist programme while paying lip service to the maximum revolutiuonary programme - which inevitably meant that maximum progammme being crowded out and abandoned altogether - so the very same thing happened in the case of the Bolsheviks. The difference perhaps was that their lip service to the maximum preogramme lingered on somewhat longer than in the case of European Social Democratic parties. To all intents and purposes, the Bolsheviks and their successors became a fully fledged capitalist political party just as the SPD had become, administering a system of state run capitalism

It was because of their minimum programme which Lenin himself spelt out very clearly and which was also all too evident if you read the reports of the Party congresses, that the Bolsehviks attracted support. It had nothing to do with the socialist goal of a non market society based on common ownership of the means of production. Only left wing fantasists with their heads in the clouds, or up their arses - take your pick - can seriously imagine otherwise. "Peace , Land and Bread" was the slogan on which the Bolsheviks were swept to power - not Marxian socialism. Lenin himself had no doubt the vast majority of the population were nowhere near socialist minded - even among the working class itself which constituted maybe 10% of the population.

Without mass support for and understanding of ,the socialist alternative, you cannot have socialism. Period. No such mass support existed anywhere. You ask for evidence. Well actually the burden of proof lies with those who claim the Bolshevik capitalist revolution was a socialist one. Where is the evidence that a majority sought a wageless classless moneyless alternative to capitalism? Lets not beat about the bush here. All the evidence suggest that what the militant Russian proletariat were concerned with things like food prices and job security. Im not decrying this = merely pointing that this is emphatically NOT tantamount to a revolutionary socialist consciousness.

Lenin was aware of this and adapted to the situation by essentially redefining the Bolsheviks state capitalist agenda in socialist terms: socialism came to be identified with state capitalism. The absurd lengths to which Lenin tried to square the circle was reflected in such idiotic observations of his that the big banks constituted nine tenth of the "socialist apparatus". To anyone coming from a Marxist background such an observation is simply laughable

Your other observations concern the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat". Like every other advocate of this walking contradiction-in=terms your reasoning demonstrates a certain conceptual incoherence to put it mildly. You say

The purpose of the DOTP is to defend the gains of the revolution. Unless you believe that the bourgeoisie and it's military, police, and supporters will just relinquish everything.

Has it never ever occured to you that if the proletariat continues to exist (as the very term DOTP suggests it must) then it can only continue as the exploited class of capitalism? So what, pray, has the bourgeois actually "relinquished" in that case? It continues to merrily exploit the working class under your DOTP and, if it did not, then there could not possibly be a DOTP becuase the proletariat could not possibly exist. The proletariat ONLY exists by virtue of the fact that it exploited by the bourgeoisie

Astonishingly, you even assert

"I fully acknowledge that the mode of production under the DOTP is capitalism"


In which case one has to ask - what is the "revolution" that is supposed to have occured and whose "gains" the DOTP is supposed to defend? By your own admission nothing fundamental has changed. Capitalism remains capitalism . There has been no revolution, in other words

And finally, let us not confuse the capture of political power with the DOTP.
You say :

"However, political power now rests in the hands of the oppressed class, whose goal is to now expropriate the means of production, and work toward socialism"

So lets be clear here. The DOTP continues with capitalism but somehow, in some mysterious unexplained fashion, is "working towards socialism." This sounds like Fabian gradualism to me. You agree there is nothing in between a class based society and a classless society and yet you assert that you can work your way over some unspecified time period - months , years , decades , centuries - towards socialism!

The basic incoherence in your whole argument is painfully apparent. Logically speaking, you cannot "work towards socialism" in that sense having captured political, power. All that will result from that is substitutionism. Since the DOTP will be an administration of capitalism by your own admission and since capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital and against wage labour, what will happpen is that the DOTP will turn out be just another left wing capitalist goverment. In time, as the history of the Britsh Labour party has shown , it will become utterly indistinguishable from any other capitalist party

No. I say once the the socialist majority have captured political power they AT ONCE eliminate capitalism and the class relations of capitalism. The very capture of political power will be - and must be - synonymous with the abolition of capitalism and must be seen to be this. Your claim that it "cannot happen in a single day" reveals that you do not really understrand what it is that is supposed to happen. What is supposed to happen is simply the coordinated social recognition that the rules of the game of society have changed. By its very nature , as Marx himself incidentally recognised, this can only happen INSTANTANEOUSLY

Here's a useful analogy to make this point clearer. Suppose you have a chessboard on which you play a game of chess. Now this same basic game board could also be used to play a game of draughts. But in order to do that both players have to be in agreement that a different game is now being played in which different set of rules is now being applied. By its very nature switching from one game to the other is simultaneous or instantaneous

Its the same with the change from capitalism to socialism. New social rules come to apply. People who defend the concept of the DOTP constantly misunderstand this point. They think in a naive sort of way "ah, but you cannot change material reality in one single stroke". But it is not material reality that is being transformed thus. Rather it is the social rules of the game we call society that is being changed - the social relations of production. It is these that mediate our relationship with material reality and through which we modify the latter

It is absolutely true that the process of arriving at that point is a long and hard struggle and there is nothing sudden about it. It involves as Marx pointed out the alteration of consciousness on a mass scale. It is THIS that happens incrementally over time - not the changeover from capitalism to socialism. If there is a transisition period , it is something that occurs BEFORE the capture of political power and not afterwards. The capture of political power merely signifies the end of this transition period and the point at which the big "rule switch" is implemented in a cordinated fashion which, in fact, is the only way logically that it can be implemented - instantaneously

[Red Enemy]

I won't engage in the usual point by point rebuttal because I find this procedure gets a bit tedious after a while and breaks up the text to the extent that you do not know what is being referred to anymore. I will just summarise my response to your post thusly:

Lenin and the Bolsheviks coming out of the Social Democratic tradition certain did have some idea of socialism in the original Marxian sense we are talking about it and even Stalin wrote a good description of a socialist society in his pamphlet on Anarchism in 1906. However, just as the whole Second International went astray and foundered on the institutionalisation of a minimum reformist programme while paying lip service to the maximum revolutiuonary programme - which inevitably meant that maximum progammme being crowded out and abandoned altogether - so the very same thing happened in the case of the Bolsheviks. The difference perhaps was that their lip service to the maximum preogramme lingered on somewhat longer than in the case of European Social Democratic parties. To all intents and purposes, the Bolsheviks and their successors became a fully fledged capitalist political party just as the SPD had become, administering a system of state run capitalism

It was because of their minimum programme which Lenin himself spelt out very clearly and which was also all too evident if you read the reports of the Party congresses, that the Bolsehviks attracted support. It had nothing to do with the socialist goal of a non market society based on common ownership of the means of production. Only left wing fantasists with their heads in the clouds, or up their arses - take your pick - can seriously imagine otherwise. "Peace , Land and Bread" was the slogan on which the Bolsheviks were swept to power - not Marxian socialism. Lenin himself had no doubt the vast majority of the population were nowhere near socialist minded - even among the working class itself which constituted maybe 10% of the population.

Without mass support for and understanding of ,the socialist alternative, you cannot have socialism. Period. No such mass support existed anywhere. You ask for evidence. Well actually the burden of proof lies with those who claim the Bolshevik capitalist revolution was a socialist one. Where is the evidence that a majority sought a wageless classless moneyless alternative to capitalism? Lets not beat about the bush here. All the evidence suggest that what the militant Russian proletariat were concerned with things like food prices and job security. Im not decrying this = merely pointing that this is emphatically NOT tantamount to a revolutionary socialist consciousness.

Lenin was aware of this and adapted to the situation by essentially redefining the Bolsheviks state capitalist agenda in socialist terms: socialism came to be identified with state capitalism. The absurd lengths to which Lenin tried to square the circle was reflected in such idiotic observations of his that the big banks constituted nine tenth of the "socialist apparatus". To anyone coming from a Marxist background such an observation is simply laughable

Your other observations concern the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat". Like every other advocate of this walking contradiction-in=terms your reasoning demonstrates a certain conceptual incoherence to put it mildly. You say

The purpose of the DOTP is to defend the gains of the revolution. Unless you believe that the bourgeoisie and it's military, police, and supporters will just relinquish everything.

Has it never ever occured to you that if the proletariat continues to exist (as the very term DOTP suggests it must) then it can only continue as the exploited class of capitalism? So what, pray, has the bourgeois actually "relinquished" in that case? It continues to merrily exploit the working class under your DOTP and, if it did not, then there could not possibly be a DOTP becuase the proletariat could not possibly exist. The proletariat ONLY exists by virtue of the fact that it exploited by the bourgeoisie

Astonishingly, you even assert

"I fully acknowledge that the mode of production under the DOTP is capitalism"


In which case one has to ask - what is the "revolution" that is supposed to have occured and whose "gains" the DOTP is supposed to defend? By your own admission nothing fundamental has changed. Capitalism remains capitalism . There has been no revolution, in other words

And finally, let us not confuse the capture of political power with the DOTP.
You say :

"However, political power now rests in the hands of the oppressed class, whose goal is to now expropriate the means of production, and work toward socialism"

So lets be clear here. The DOTP continues with capitalism but somehow, in some mysterious unexplained fashion, is "working towards socialism." This sounds like Fabian gradualism to me. You agree there is nothing in between a class based society and a classless society and yet you assert that you can work your way over some unspecified time period - months , years , decades , centuries - towards socialism!

The basic incoherence in your whole argument is painfully apparent. Logically speaking, you cannot "work towards socialism" in that sense having captured political, power. All that will result from that is substitutionism. Since the DOTP will be an administration of capitalism by your own admission and since capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital and against wage labour, what will happpen is that the DOTP will turn out be just another left wing capitalist goverment. In time, as the history of the Britsh Labour party has shown , it will become utterly indistinguishable from any other capitalist party

No. I say once the the socialist majority have captured political power they AT ONCE eliminate capitalism and the class relations of capitalism. The very capture of political power will be - and must be - synonymous with the abolition of capitalism and must be seen to be this. Your claim that it "cannot happen in a single day" reveals that you do not really understrand what it is that is supposed to happen. What is supposed to happen is simply the coordinated social recognition that the rules of the game of society have changed. By its very nature , as Marx himself incidentally recognised, this can only happen INSTANTANEOUSLY

Here's a useful analogy to make this point clearer. Suppose you have a chessboard on which you play a game of chess. Now this same basic game board could also be used to play a game of draughts. But in order to do that both players have to be in agreement that a different game is now being played in which different set of rules is now being applied. By its very nature switching from one game to the other is simultaneous or instantaneous

Its the same with the change from capitalism to socialism. New social rules come to apply. People who defend the concept of the DOTP constantly misunderstand this point. They think in a naive sort of way "ah, but you cannot change material reality in one single stroke". But it is not material reality that is being transformed thus. Rather it is the social rules of the game we call society that is being changed - the social relations of production. It is these that mediate our relationship with material reality and through which we modify the latter

It is absolutely true that the process of arriving at that point is a long and hard struggle and there is nothing sudden about it. It involves as Marx pointed out the alteration of consciousness on a mass scale. It is THIS that happens incrementally over time - not the changeover from capitalism to socialism. If there is a transisition period , it is something that occurs BEFORE the capture of political power and not afterwards. The capture of political power merely signifies the end of this transition period and the point at which the big "rule switch" is implemented in a cordinated fashion which, in fact, is the only way logically that it can be implemented - instantaneously
The claims you make stem from hopelessly utopian views regarding the dictatorship of the proletariat, and how socialism will be achieved. They have no basis in the material world, and you fail to explain your utopian dream of instant/spontaneous global abolition of capital.

Most Marxists, including myself, understand socialist revolution to encompasses the lead up to the seizure of power (the class struggle), the DOTP, and finally the achievement of socialism. Abolishing capitalism is a process, not a single sweeping and spontaneous act. The class struggle intensifies, the organs of proletarian class rule are created (in my opinion councils) and the seizure of power occurs. The bourgeois state apparatus is smashed, and replaced with a proletarian variant. At this point, we have the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the social institutions of capitalism are torn down, the bourgeoisie expropriated, the economy and society organized, and the gains thus far and the gains to be made are defended from counter-revolution. From the moment the proletarian state is established, it is simultaneously dying. It is “withering away”, as Friedrich Engels put it in Anti-Duhring:

“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."

To continue, Marx states, in his critique of the Gotha Programme, that “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Where you fail to make any sense on this point, is in your notion of the supposed “contradictory” nature of the DOTP. To begin, you falsely characterize the DOTP as a party of bureaucrats who control the bourgeois state to administer capitalism. What’s in question is not the party bureaucracy, but the working class as a whole, organized into workers’ councils. Secondly, we are discussing the fact that the bourgeois state apparatus is not in existence any more. Lastly, what is occurring is the abolition of capitalism – expropriation, organization of society and the economy, etc.

With this, you continue to further the senseless nature of your argument by suggesting there need not be a DOTP, because capitalism can, and will, be abolished in an instant. We need not fear the bourgeoisie counter-revolution; we need not fear it, for the bourgeoisie will magically cease to exist! Or, for some strange reason, post-revolution the bourgeoisie will cease to fight in its interests. Going beyond that, we need not worry about organizing production, about coordinating with those who are behind us, who have yet to overthrow the capitalist state apparatus, or those who are underdeveloped.
No, the world will simultaneously abolish capitalism, from Zimbabwe to Turkey, Malaysia, England, Russia, Peru, and Saudi Arabia and beyond! It will just happen, in an instant, everywhere…unless you are a proponent of socialism in one country, of course.

How in the sweet fuck is it even possible for every nation, across the globe, to abolish capitalism at the same time!?

Now, to dig at a point you made earlier, that capitalism will be abolished, simultaneously with the seizure of state power. Stating this, first of all, is oxymoronic. Perhaps it was accidental, perhaps not. I say this because of the notion that the proletariat would have to seize the state at all, if it simultaneously eliminates the purpose of the state – class antagonisms and so on. Regardless, this is minor compared to the rest of your nonsensical and utopian views.

Your notion of the spontaneous abolition of capitalism has no basis in Marxian analysis, and is utopian to the very core. You suggest, perhaps unconsciously, that capitalism is already a system which can provide abundance, and that communism is just the new society waiting to be formalized, an “on/off switch” if you will. Perhaps you would like to explain the instantaneous/simultaneous global abolition of capitalism to us. Maybe we just don’t get it?

Next, you propose that within the context of bourgeois dictatorship, in the context of capitalism, the “vast majority” will become in depth and knowledgeable of what socialism is. How, again, does this happen? We can, even from outside of a Marxian framework, see this as an absurd and utopian notion. You have no explanation for how!

I could suggest that this is part in partial of the DOTP. The prevailing ideas are that of the ruling class, Marx says this. In a DOTP the prevailing ideas would become socialism, that of the proletariat. That the DOTP is that juncture where that “vast majority” you seek can, and will, come about. Perhaps you could explain how a vast majority will become socialist minded within the capitalist framework?

I will allow you the chance to justify you're utopian views, explain to us how these things occur!

[robbo203]

The claims you make stem from hopelessly utopian views regarding the dictatorship of the proletariat, and how socialism will be achieved. They have no basis in the material world, and you fail to explain your utopian dream of instant/spontaneous global abolition of capital.

Most Marxists, including myself, understand socialist revolution to encompasses the lead up to the seizure of power (the class struggle), the DOTP, and finally the achievement of socialism. Abolishing capitalism is a process, not a single sweeping and spontaneous act. The class struggle intensifies, the organs of proletarian class rule are created (in my opinion councils) and the seizure of power occurs. The bourgeois state apparatus is smashed, and replaced with a proletarian variant. At this point, we have the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the social institutions of capitalism are torn down, the bourgeoisie expropriated, the economy and society organized, and the gains thus far and the gains to be made are defended from counter-revolution. From the moment the proletarian state is established, it is simultaneously dying. It is “withering away”, as Friedrich Engels put it in Anti-Duhring:

“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."

To continue, Marx states, in his critique of the Gotha Programme, that “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Where you fail to make any sense on this point, is in your notion of the supposed “contradictory” nature of the DOTP. To begin, you falsely characterize the DOTP as a party of bureaucrats who control the bourgeois state to administer capitalism. What’s in question is not the party bureaucracy, but the working class as a whole, organized into workers’ councils. Secondly, we are discussing the fact that the bourgeois state apparatus is not in existence any more. Lastly, what is occurring is the abolition of capitalism – expropriation, organization of society and the economy, etc.

With this, you continue to further the senseless nature of your argument by suggesting there need not be a DOTP, because capitalism can, and will, be abolished in an instant. We need not fear the bourgeoisie counter-revolution; we need not fear it, for the bourgeoisie will magically cease to exist! Or, for some strange reason, post-revolution the bourgeoisie will cease to fight in its interests. Going beyond that, we need not worry about organizing production, about coordinating with those who are behind us, who have yet to overthrow the capitalist state apparatus, or those who are underdeveloped.
No, the world will simultaneously abolish capitalism, from Zimbabwe to Turkey, Malaysia, England, Russia, Peru, and Saudi Arabia and beyond! It will just happen, in an instant, everywhere…unless you are a proponent of socialism in one country, of course.

How in the sweet fuck is it even possible for every nation, across the globe, to abolish capitalism at the same time!?

Now, to dig at a point you made earlier, that capitalism will be abolished, simultaneously with the seizure of state power. Stating this, first of all, is oxymoronic. Perhaps it was accidental, perhaps not. I say this because of the notion that the proletariat would have to seize the state at all, if it simultaneously eliminates the purpose of the state – class antagonisms and so on. Regardless, this is minor compared to the rest of your nonsensical and utopian views.

Your notion of the spontaneous abolition of capitalism has no basis in Marxian analysis, and is utopian to the very core. You suggest, perhaps unconsciously, that capitalism is already a system which can provide abundance, and that communism is just the new society waiting to be formalized, an “on/off switch” if you will. Perhaps you would like to explain the instantaneous/simultaneous global abolition of capitalism to us. Maybe we just don’t get it?

Next, you propose that within the context of bourgeois dictatorship, in the context of capitalism, the “vast majority” will become in depth and knowledgeable of what socialism is. How, again, does this happen? We can, even from outside of a Marxian framework, see this as an absurd and utopian notion. You have no explanation for how!

I could suggest that this is part in partial of the DOTP. The prevailing ideas are that of the ruling class, Marx says this. In a DOTP the prevailing ideas would become socialism, that of the proletariat. That the DOTP is that juncture where that “vast majority” you seek can, and will, come about. Perhaps you could explain how a vast majority will become socialist minded within the capitalist framework?

I will allow you the chance to justify you're utopian views, explain to us how these things occur!

One thing that struck me straightaway about the above is your complete avoidance of the core argument I advanced against the DOTP. All you are doing here is telling me what the DOTP is - as if I didnt know what it means, as if I hadnt read all of the holy texts you piously quote at me, countless times! If you are going to engage in a serious exchange of ideas then I suggest you need to attend to the basic argument that has been put forward at the very least Ill come back to that later....


Secondly you misrepresent my position - though no doubt unintentionally and out of ignorance of the facts . You say:

No, the world will simultaneously abolish capitalism, from Zimbabwe to Turkey, Malaysia, England, Russia, Peru, and Saudi Arabia and beyond! It will just happen, in an instant, everywhere…unless you are a proponent of socialism in one country, of course.


Actually I adopt neither of these positions. The idea of instantaneous worldwide socialist revolution is a position taken up by the left communist, Blakes Baby, who Ive crossed swords with before and who argues that in the meanwhile and before this happens, that wherever workers are able to seize power they should install a DOTP and administer a system of state capitalism - in effect, waiting for the entire world to be covered by a dense network of proletarian dictatorships (so called) before cordinating the instant changeover to world socialism among themselves. I oppose this ludicrous position completely and if you want to argue about it I suggest you take it up with Blakes Baby. Good luck. I could make much headway with him


I equally oppose the Stalinist idea of "socialism in one country" - firstly because what the Stalinists call "socialism" is not socialism but state capitalism and secondly because there is no country - aka nation state - in socialism

Socialism begins , must begin, somewhere - not instantaneously everywhere - and when it does so, the state and capitalist relations of production cease immediately to exist. However, this scenario is only sustainable on the assumption - which I think is a very reasonable assumption - that the worldwide movement for socialism will be felt everywhere and have a significant presence everywhere . If in one part of the world the working class is in position to capture political power and institute socialism this would quite reasonably imply that elsewhere in the world, socialists are likewise virtually in sight of achieving majority support for socialism.

It is this overwhelming fact - the total and incremental transformation of the entire social outlook in step with the spread of socialist ideas - that is the ultimate guarantee that any residual capitalist states would be in no position to summon up the necessary political support for any kind of offensive action against those incipient socialist regions. These latter would expand outwards to incrementally engulf the world in domino fashion. When the writing is on the wall there is nothing much you can do about it. The Berlin wall - talking of walls - is a classic case in point when state capitalist regimes across Eastern Europe quietly imploded in the face of the inevitable with negligible loss of life

That is my position but now we come to yours. I find it ludicrous that you accuse me of utopianism when you cannot see just how hopeless unrealistic is your own approach. In fact your position is even worse than I first imagined. You seemingly take up a classic vanguardist postion when you say

That the DOTP is that juncture where that “vast majority” you seek can, and will, come about.

So lets be clear what you are saying here. You are effectively saying that when this DOTP is installed it will not be done so by a socialist majoruty. Rather the enlightened minority will use their power and influence to convert the majority to socialism. Socialism, it seems, for you depends on the will and benevolence of this enlightened minority .

Your position seem to be akin to arrongantly patronising one taken by a certain Leon Trotsky

The masses are held down with “compulsory general education”, kept “on the verge of complete ignorance”, exist in “spiritual slavery” and are terrorised to such a degree that the minority must seize power on their behalf. Then, and only then, can the “most ignorant, most terrorised sections of the nation” be slowly educated in the “meaning of socialist production” (L Trotsky Terrorism and communism,London 1975, pp58-59).


I come back to the heart of the argument which is this: Socialism requires a majority to understand and want it. It is simply not possible to impose it on a non socialist population. It is only when you have that majority and not before, are the conditions ripe to seize political power and establish socialism. If you seize power before that point you will be FORCED to administer capitalism and therefore to set yourself AGAINST the working class rather than advance its interests. Having a socialist majority in advance of seizing power, on the other hand, means you do not need to do this. Capitalism can be dispensed with immediately since there is absolutely no point or reason to prolong it for one second longer. Why would you need to prolong it?

The seizure of power must therefore coincide with the abolition of capitalism and must be openly recognised as such . I notice you have not reallly understood my earlier poiint about the need for a coordinated "switch over" in the social rules that regulate the mode of production and how there can be nothing in between a class based society and a classeless society. I would suggest to you that this is actually a pretty crucial point in the discussion about how to realise a socialist society but you have rather ignored this. Instead you invoke the argument that I am somehow unconsciously suggesting that capitalism is already a system which can provide abundance

If you mean by that has capitalism created the technological potential to produce enough, well, the answer is emphatically - yes. Can capitalism realise that potential and deliver enough for all? No it cant. Part of the case for socialism depends on a growing awareness of the discrepancy between this technological potential we possess today and the failure to realise it in a way that adequately satisfies human needs. You dont need to be drowning in abundance to become a socialist


But here we see just how absurd you position. In fact if anyone is the hopeless utopian it is you., You have candidly admitted that the DOTP will be based on a capitalist mode of prpduction . And yet here you are criticising me for suggesting " that capitalism is already a system which can provide abundance". Your crude mechanistic line of argument seems to be that we somwehow need to experience abundance and to feel free of insecurities of poverty in order to acquire socialist consciousness in the first place and so establish socialism. What a ridiculous idea and where pray does that leave your argument? . If the DOTP is based on a capitalist mode of production, as you say, then how are we going to realise this abundance without which, according to you, we cannot become socialists? Youve kinda painted yourself into a corner havent you?

You whole argument seems to constantly consist in tying yourself up in knots of this nature. And you still you havent address my central point. If the DOTP is based on a capitalist mode of production as you admit how can it possibly be operated in the interests of the working class since capitalism can ONLY be run in the interests of capital. How? How? How? You have got near to answering that point - you and all the others supporters of this mantra of the so called proletarian dictatorship . And while you are at it, please explain how in that case can it possibly be a dictatorship of the proletariat when the proletariat as the expolited class in capitalism is operating a system that by its very nature cannot be run in its interests? In what sense it is "dictating" anything at all?


You have absoutely no answers to these searching questions and unless and until you begin to present a serious counteragument, what you say completely lacks credibility. Invoking holy scritpure in the form of selected quotes from Marx and Engels cuts no ice with me becuase as I said before - and I will say it again - I OPPOSE Marx and Engels on this matter of the DOTP. I think the whole idea was a serious error of judgement on their part and they did not think through the implications of what they were saying.

It was perhaps understandable in the mid 19th century when the material conditions were obviously not yet ripe for communism that they thought in terms of some kind of transitional period between capitalism and communism however illogical such an idea is. But there is absolutely no excuse for modern day communists to go down this dead end road of advocating a DOTP

That can ONLY end in substitutionism , the prolongation and indeed recuperation of capitalism and the emergence of yet another parasitic capitalist ruling class. But "oh no!" you say I am misrepreseting the DOTP as a "party of bureaucrats who control the bourgeois state to administer capitalism":

"What’s in question is not the party bureaucracy, but the working class as a whole, organized into workers’ councils. Secondly, we are discussing the fact that the bourgeois state apparatus is not in existence any more"

I have to break this to you gently but it it really does not matter a toss whether you think the bourgeoisie state "no longer exists" . You talk of my position as involving just ex cathedra type declarations that that capitalism has been abolished. But actually it is you who is doing this by pronoucing that the "bougeoisie state" no longer exists even though bourgeois society - and the proletariat as an inextricable part of that society - continues to exist and prosper under your alleged proletarian dictatorship.

Whatr sort of Marxist is that declares that you have capitalism and that somehow you do not have the capitalist state that goes with capitalism?
What has become of your materialist grasp of history that posits the state as a reflection of the prevailing mode of production? You have substititued for materialism, idealist wishful thinking of the most naive kind.


While you have capitalism and you have admitted you would have capitalism under your DOTP you will have a capitalist state in essence - whatever the obfuscatory rhetoric it choses to clothers itself with. Your much vaunted worker councils will simply be sidelined as irrelevant and powerless bodies in the ongoing business of continuing to administer capitalism

[robbo203]

Next, you propose that within the context of bourgeois dictatorship, in the context of capitalism, the “vast majority” will become in depth and knowledgeable of what socialism is. How, again, does this happen? We can, even from outside of a Marxian framework, see this as an absurd and utopian notion. You have no explanation for how!


I overlooked this comment of yours which perhaps merit sa separate response. Since you admit the DOTP will be based on a capitalist mode of production how then in terms of your own argument can the vast majority, "become in depth and knowledgeable of what socialism is" under a DOTP since capitalism according to you, if I read you correctly, rules this out

Actually as I understand it, the marxist position is that the material conditions of capitalism itself lead workers to become class conscious and socialist minded which is precisely what I would contend . That answers your baseless claim that I have no explanation for how socialist consciousness might arise. I have but have you?

If according to you capitalism rules out such ideas then how are such ideas to take root and spread? Merely through the propaganda of the socialist minority?

[Blake's Baby]

... The idea of instantaneous worldwide socialist revolution is a position taken up by the left communist, Blakes Baby, who Ive crossed swords with before and who argues that in the meanwhile and before this happens, that wherever workers are able to seize power they should install a DOTP and administer a system of state capitalism - in effect, waiting for the entire world to be covered by a dense network of proletarian dictatorships (so called) before cordinating the instant changeover to world socialism among themselves. I oppose this ludicrous position completely and if you want to argue about it I suggest you take it up with Blakes Baby. Good luck. I could make much headway with him...

Almost right, if I understand you correctly, which I'm never sure I do, because we use the same words to mean different things.

If by 'worldwide socialist revolution' you mean the seizure of power by the proletariat, no I don't believe that will be instantaneous.

If by 'worldwide socialist revolution' you mean the economic reorganisation of society, after the seizure of power everywhere, then, yes, that will be instantaneous. The working class cannot abolish capitalism (states, property, classes including itself) until it has control of them. It must take control first (ie, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat) and use its control to re-organise the economy. Where I disagree with you Robbo, is your insistence that this transformation can take place in one country, which I regard as a version of 'socialism in one country' - though I'm well aware you reject the comparison.

I think this is relatively uncontroversial for Marxists - see for instance the Critique of the Gotha Programme that L'ouvrier Communiste has already quoted (but it's worth quoting again; from part IV):

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

The proletariat seizes the state - not just in one place, but worldwide, because socialism can only be worldwide - and institutes the dictatorship of the proletariat to 'transform', in a 'revolutioanry' way, capitalist society into communist society.

I dunno, it seems pretty clear to me.

[Red Enemy]

I overlooked this comment of yours which perhaps merit sa separate response. Since you admit the DOTP will be based on a capitalist mode of production how then in terms of your own argument can the vast majority, "become in depth and knowledgeable of what socialism is" under a DOTP since capitalism according to you, if I read you correctly, rules this out.It rules out a vast majority becoming socialist minded and class conscious, which are not the same thing.


Actually as I understand it, the marxist position is that the material conditions of capitalism itself lead workers to become class conscious and socialist minded which is precisely what I would contend . That answers your baseless claim that I have no explanation for how socialist consciousness might arise. I have but have you?No, it doesn't answer the question. Class consciousness does arise from the class struggle, but socialist mindedness, does not.


If according to you capitalism rules out such ideas then how are such ideas to take root and spread? Merely through the propaganda of the socialist minority?Yes, actually. Propaganda is a part of it. How else do you propose the class conscious workers achieve socialist mindedness? Holding Das Kapital and absorbing the knowledge through osmosis?


One thing that struck me straightaway about the above is your complete avoidance of the core argument I advanced against the DOTP. All you are doing here is telling me what the DOTP is - as if I didnt know what it means, as if I hadnt read all of the holy texts you piously quote at me, countless times! If you are going to engage in a serious exchange of ideas then I suggest you need to attend to the basic argument that has been put forward at the very least Ill come back to that later....I was merely clarifying my position, and the position of most Marxists.


Secondly you misrepresent my position - though no doubt unintentionally and out of ignorance of the facts . You say:

No, the world will simultaneously abolish capitalism, from Zimbabwe to Turkey, Malaysia, England, Russia, Peru, and Saudi Arabia and beyond! It will just happen, in an instant, everywhere…unless you are a proponent of socialism in one country, of course.
Actually I adopt neither of these positions. The idea of instantaneous worldwide socialist revolution is a position taken up by the left communist, Blakes Baby, who Ive crossed swords with before and who argues that in the meanwhile and before this happens, that wherever workers are able to seize power they should install a DOTP and administer a system of state capitalism - in effect, waiting for the entire world to be covered by a dense network of proletarian dictatorships (so called) before cordinating the instant changeover to world socialism among themselves. I oppose this ludicrous position completely and if you want to argue about it I suggest you take it up with Blakes Baby. Good luck. I could make much headway with him.

I equally oppose the Stalinist idea of "socialism in one country" - firstly because what the Stalinists call "socialism" is not socialism but state capitalism and secondly because there is no country - aka nation state - in socialism.You are making no sense, once again. Your opposition to both instant socialism anywhere and socialism in one country becomes contradictory. Within your utopian framework of how socialism is achieved, you say the revolution will establish socialism immediately, yet there will be no simultaneous world revolution. This would suggest, and can only suggest, that you can have socialism in one country. Your argument begins to fall apart here, but I'll move on.


Socialism begins , must begin, somewhere - not instantaneously everywhere - and when it does so, the state and capitalist relations of production cease immediately to exist. However, this scenario is only sustainable on the assumption - which I think is a very reasonable assumption - that the worldwide movement for socialism will be felt everywhere and have a significant presence everywhere . If in one part of the world the working class is in position to capture political power and institute socialism this would quite reasonably imply that elsewhere in the world, socialists are likewise virtually in sight of achieving majority support for socialism.So, you can have a stateless, moneyless and classless Canada, but a capitalist USA?

Not only do you suggest that a vast majority will achieve socialist class consciousness, they will do this worldwide, at approximately the same time?

What's your explanation for lower class consciousness in places like the USA and Canada, but higher class consciousness in Greece and Spain?


It is this overwhelming fact - the total and incremental transformation of the entire social outlook in step with the spread of socialist ideas - that is the ultimate guarantee that any residual capitalist states would be in no position to summon up the necessary political support for any kind of offensive action against those incipient socialist regions. These latter would expand outwards to incrementally engulf the world in domino fashion. When the writing is on the wall there is nothing much you can do about it. The Berlin wall - talking of walls - is a classic case in point when state capitalist regimes across Eastern Europe quietly imploded in the face of the inevitable with negligible loss of life.The capitalist state isn't going to "summon up the necesary political support", they will summon up armed military and police support to suppress any action against it. Not just against the external "socialist" nations, but against those rising up in it's own.

You fail to explain how the bourgeoisie ceases to exist within these nations which achieve socialism. HOW socialism comes about in these places. You solve the problem of bourgeois counter revolution by suggesting class is immediately abolished, without expropriation, without resistance, without anything because the abolition of capitalism - that means class as well - is instant in the particular nation.


That is my position but now we come to yours. I find it ludicrous that you accuse me of utopianism when you cannot see just how hopeless unrealistic is your own approach. In fact your position is even worse than I first imagined. You seemingly take up a classic vanguardist postion when you say

That the DOTP is that juncture where that “vast majority” you seek can, and will, come about.

So lets be clear what you are saying here. You are effectively saying that when this DOTP is installed it will not be done so by a socialist majoruty. Rather the enlightened minority will use their power and influence to convert the majority to socialism. Socialism, it seems, for you depends on the will and benevolence of this enlightened minority .It will be established by the working class itself. It will not, however, be a "vast majority". It could be a huge minority of 40%, or maybe majority of 55% of the proletariat population who initially do the overthrowing, but you ignore the fact that 100% of the working class can and will take part in the DOTP by controlling the MoP themselves, and deciding themselves how to proceed.

A minority does not mean the CC of the party. It does not mean just the party, either, by the way.

Anywho, the DOTP then, will have ceased all possibility for the propaganda of the bourgeoisie in said nation, and the proletariat ideas will become the prevailing ideas through propaganda, education, action.


Your position seem to be akin to arrongantly patronising one taken by a certain Leon TrotskyOk.


The masses are held down with “compulsory general education”, kept “on the verge of complete ignorance”, exist in “spiritual slavery” and are terrorised to such a degree that the minority must seize power on their behalf. Then, and only then, can the “most ignorant, most terrorised sections of the nation” be slowly educated in the “meaning of socialist production” (L Trotsky Terrorism and communism,London 1975, pp58-59).I'm unsure wher the vast majority will get time outside of family life and work to start reading capital and hold study groups prior to a DOTP.

I mean, maybe you know what it's like to have a child and work 160+ hours a month for shit all. Maybe you don't. It sounds like you don't.


I come back to the heart of the argument which is this: Socialism requires a majority to understand and want it. It is simply not possible to impose it on a non socialist population. It is only when you have that majority and not before, are the conditions ripe to seize political power and establish socialism.I totally agree!


If you seize power before that point you will be FORCED to administer capitalism and therefore to set yourself AGAINST the working class rather than advance its interests. So, the working class will begin to exploit itself, considering the working class controls political power and the means of production. It won't eliminate the capitalist mode of production and organize society and defend against bourgeois counter revolution, it will just "administer capital". What's the explanation you have? Do you know what the capitalist mode of production is? Do you think the capitalist mode of production defines capitalism in totality?


Having a socialist majority in advance of seizing power, on the other hand, means you do not need to do this.Why? What's your magic solution to abolishing capitalism?


Capitalism can be dispensed with immediately since there is absolutely no point or reason to prolong it for one second longer. Why would you need to prolong it? It isn't capitalism in totality, as you suggest. It is the mode of production, which you seem not to understand.

a) A Vast majority cannot achieve socialist mindedness prior to the seizure of state power.

b) Classes still exist. You can't just wave your wand and classes disappear.

c) Organizing both the economy and society requires more than an instant.


The seizure of power must therefore coincide with the abolition of capitalism and must be openly recognised as such . I notice you have not reallly understood my earlier poiint about the need for a coordinated "switch over" in the social rules that regulate the mode of production and how there can be nothing in between a class based society and a classeless society.I never said there was something in between a classless and class based society. The DOTP is STILL A CLASS BASED SOCIETY.

How is the seizure of power necessary, if you don't need political power to achieve socialism, and the state becomes redundant in a classless society (socialism)


I would suggest to you that this is actually a pretty crucial point in the discussion about how to realise a socialist society but you have rather ignored this. Instead you invoke the argument that I am somehow unconsciously suggesting that capitalism is already a system which can provide abundance.Well, it must be, if you need not organize anything, you can just kick over the capitalist state and proclaim socialism in one country, then two, maybe a couple years later three!


If you mean by that has capitalism created the technological potential to produce enough, well, the answer is emphatically - yes. Can capitalism realise that potential and deliver enough for all? No it cant. Part of the case for socialism depends on a growing awareness of the discrepancy between this technological potential we possess today and the failure to realise it in a way that adequately satisfies human needs. You dont need to be drowning in abundance to become a socialist.The first phase of communist society, referred to as "socialism" by Leninists, is not yet a society of abundance -- though this is likely to be a much different issue today than that of Marx's day. It is ruled by the notion of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work".

I am inferring that you believe the system as is, is organized and coordinated in such a fashion that it need not change to provide abundance.


But here we see just how absurd you position. In fact if anyone is the hopeless utopian it is you., You have candidly admitted that the DOTP will be based on a capitalist mode of prpduction And yet here you are criticising me for suggesting " that capitalism is already a system which can provide abundance". Your crude mechanistic line of argument seems to be that we somwehow need to experience abundance and to feel free of insecurities of poverty in order to acquire socialist consciousness in the first place and so establish socialism. What a ridiculous idea and where pray does that leave your argument? . If the DOTP is based on a capitalist mode of production, as you say, then how are we going to realise this abundance without which, according to you, we cannot become socialists? Youve kinda painted yourself into a corner havent you?Strawman arguments are fun, I know.


You whole argument seems to constantly consist in tying yourself up in knots of this nature. And you still you havent address my central point. If the DOTP is based on a capitalist mode of production as you admit how can it possibly be operated in the interests of the working class since capitalism can ONLY be run in the interests of capital. How? How? How? You have got near to answering that point - you and all the others supporters of this mantra of the so called proletarian dictatorship . And while you are at it, please explain how in that case can it possibly be a dictatorship of the proletariat when the proletariat as the expolited class in capitalism is operating a system that by its very nature cannot be run in its interests? In what sense it is "dictating" anything at all?What is the capitalist mode of production, robbo?


You have absoutely no answers to these searching questions and unless and until you begin to present a serious counteragument, what you say completely lacks credibility. Invoking holy scritpure in the form of selected quotes from Marx and Engels cuts no ice with me becuase as I said before - and I will say it again - I OPPOSE Marx and Engels on this matter of the DOTP. I think the whole idea was a serious error of judgement on their part and they did not think through the implications of what they were saying. If it were only me avoiding answering questions....if it only were.


That can ONLY end in substitutionism , the prolongation and indeed recuperation of capitalism and the emergence of yet another parasitic capitalist ruling class. But "oh no!" you say I am misrepreseting the DOTP as a "party of bureaucrats who control the bourgeois state to administer capitalism":

"What’s in question is not the party bureaucracy, but the working class as a whole, organized into workers’ councils. Secondly, we are discussing the fact that the bourgeois state apparatus is not in existence any more"

I have to break this to you gently but it it really does not matter a toss whether you think the bourgeoisie state "no longer exists" . You talk of my position as involving just ex cathedra type declarations that that capitalism has been abolished. But actually it is you who is doing this by pronoucing that the "bougeoisie state" no longer exists even though bourgeois society - and the proletariat as an inextricable part of that society - continues to exist and prosper under your alleged proletarian dictatorship.
the bourgeois far from "prosper" under the DOTP.

Again, read up on what the capitalist MODE of production is, and tell me wheter or not it defines capitalist society in totality.


Whatr sort of Marxist is that declares that you have capitalism and that somehow you do not have the capitalist state that goes with capitalism? What has become of your materialist grasp of history that posits the state as a reflection of the prevailing mode of production? You have substititued for materialism, idealist wishful thinking of the most naive kind.
It's not capitalism, it does, however, retain the capitalist MODE OF PRODUCTION.


While you have capitalism and you have admitted you would have capitalism under your DOTP you will have a capitalist state in essence - whatever the obfuscatory rhetoric it choses to clothers itself with. Your much vaunted worker councils will simply be sidelined as irrelevant and powerless bodies in the ongoing business of continuing to administer capitalismYou would have the capitalist MODE OF PRODUCTION.

Again, unless for you the CMOP defines capitalism in totality, you need to rethink your line of argument on this point.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It rules out a vast majority becoming socialist minded and class conscious, which are not the same thing.

No, it doesn't answer the question. Class consciousness does arise from the class struggle, but socialist mindedness, does not.

To further clarify, class consciousness arises from class-based political struggle, but "socialist mindedness" does not.

[quote]It will be established by the working class itself. It will not, however, be a "vast majority". It could be a huge minority of 40%, or maybe majority of 55% of the proletariat population who initially do the overthrowing, but you ignore the fact that 100% of the working class can and will take part in the DOTP by controlling the MoP themselves, and deciding themselves how to proceed.[/qupte]

The "huge majority of 40%" had better have enough passive support from the rest of the working class to represent an overall majority. I don't have a problem with the 55% figure.

[Rafiq]

What a silly fellow you are. Im a bourgeois-liberal am I? Not just a bourgeois-liberal. but a bourgeois-liberal of the...ahem ... "worst variant". Fancy that! Im quite intrigued, you know - how did you figure that out? Please do entertain us all yet again with another example of your scintillatingly turgid way of looking at the world because I for one would love to know what makes you tick. I find the thought processes of Left dogmatists on this forum fascinating and how when they havent got a leg left to stand on they resort to that time worn old practice of rubbishing their opponent as a bourgeois liberal.

Ah well, anything to distract attention from a serious argument helps, I guess ;)

I don't mean it as a slur, I don't even mean it as an insult. You are objectively a bourgeois liberal and ideologically you are constrained by Liberalism, it's moral framework (which you pre suppose) and so on. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone who can recognize Liberalism and it's various, albeit sometimes bizarre manifestations. Communism is not "liberty", it is the emancipation of the proletariat, it is the ruthless suppression of the enemies of the proletariat, it is the march in which every step is a beat of terror in the hearts of the bourgeoisie.

[robbo203]

I don't mean it as a slur, I don't even mean it as an insult. You are objectively a bourgeois liberal and ideologically you are constrained by Liberalism, it's moral framework (which you pre suppose) and so on. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone who can recognize Liberalism and it's various, albeit sometimes bizarre manifestations. Communism is not "liberty", it is the emancipation of the proletariat, it is the ruthless suppression of the enemies of the proletariat, it is the march in which every step is a beat of terror in the hearts of the bourgeoisie.

Are you serious or is this some joke? Ive made my position clear repeatedly. I seek the abolition of the " enemies of the proletariat " and along with the proletariat as such: classless communism . The only sense in which the proletariat can be "emanicipated" is through its abolition as a wage slave class.

Frankly your reasoning is idiotically - nay, insanely - crass and it makes me wonder if you even have the foiggiest notion what you are talking about. "Liberal", my arse!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Are you serious or is this some joke? Ive made my position clear repeatedly. I seek the abolition of the " enemies of the proletariat " and along with the proletariat as such: classless communism . The only sense in which the proletariat can be "emanicipated" is through its abolition as a wage slave class.

Frankly your reasoning is idiotically - nay, insanely - crass and it makes me wonder if you even have the foiggiest notion what you are talking about. "Liberal", my arse!But for the most part socialists who've been pulled towards petty-bourgeois politics say they want socialism - just once the conditions are right... which turns out to be never. You may not be a liberal, but the level of abstract conditions you place on what is always going to be a messy and chaotic development, worker's revolution, suggests to me that if we were in a revolutionary situation, you'd be standing with the democratic-socialists saying, "not yet". I have never read from you, how your notions would play out in a situation like the Spanish Revolution or any real-life upsurge in working class activity and militancy and so I find your formulations unclear and unconvincing at best.

There will never be a "perfect revolution" without some questions and unresolved issues and unforseen circumstances and the conditions of capitalism will also occasionally cause mass uphevals. A revolutionary understanding should at least help us prepare for these kinds of situations in order to attempt to help argue for the things that will help workers develop their own movement and own organization. That way, with organized workers fighting from below, when unforseen things come up, there will be a better chance of a savy core of revolutionaries and enough organic organization within the class to ensure that an unexpected event or opposition doesn't derail the movement, split the working class forces or lead it to tail bourgoise or other sets of political ideas. Otherewise if facists attack or there are terrorists against worker's cooperatives and sources of power, then some "leadership" is needed - if worker's don't have their own networks and experience in making decisions and working together, than that leadership could be a retreat, an alliance with "good capitalists" or any number of things leading away from socialism. It's not a guarentee - as there are none when it comes to dynamic world-changing events - but class-consiousness alone is not enough to actually change the material structure and relations of the world, it will take people re-organizing society around a specific vision of how we should provide what we need for ourselves and eachother: a "worker's state" to dismantle capitalist relations and profit-focused infrastructure and the need for any state at all.

[Jimmie Higgins]

First This whole thing is going to be way off topic as I'm obviously not a Left communist and they will probably disagree with me on several counts. Anyway, I think the fundamental difference in thinking here is a different conception of class struggle. Class struggle, to me is not always revolutionary. There is a difference between struggling against the effects of capitalism and struggling against the economic system with the view of ending it. See Marx on the failure of unions. So we could term this distinction as class struggle and class conscious struggle or as Lenin put it trade union consciousness and revolutionary consciousness. I have no problem saying that these struggles are directly related to class struggle. But not class conscious struggle. Race conscious struggle perhaps?I think this is a mechanical way to look at these struggles. Both social and economic struggles will tend to start only on the level of refomism - this is true for trade union struggle as well as struggles against oppression or for more control over the general (not economic) conditions of life in this society (health-care struggles, greater freedom from repression, free-speech strggles etc). This is just partially a function of how class hegemony works probably irregardless of the system: let's not overthrow the King, let's have a consitutional monarchy; we just have to work, but maybe we can fight to make conditions better. It is also a function of petty-bourgoise ideas in modern society; union beurocrats, political leaders, have an interest in resisting some aspects of the system, but also rely on the system so it's also in their interests to preserve it. This group usually has more reach, more resources ($ and time), and organizational skills and ability to wage a movement (moreso than workers themselves) and so they generally begin as the de-facto leadership of mass movements. This isn't desireable at all or a condition or inevitable "stage" of struggle (as many struggles have lept forward quite quickly and radically) but just is a tendency that is very common in the history of struggles.

But the contradicion between the desires of the now active workers in social or economic movements go well beyond that of any middle class leader. Because of this, there is the possibility in these kinds of struggles for a class-struggle within the movement over what kinds of ideas and tactics will be the dominant ones - this creates an opportunitiy, not an inevitable one, for workers to develop and assert their political will and win over reformists - this is the "radicalization" of movements.


You talk about the leading of movements by the petit bourgeois and I suppose from your statement that you think these movements should instead be led by communists.Well it depends on the type of struggle you are talking about: if it's a mainstream union struggle, I think it should be led by organized rank and file militants who are able to both wage a fight in the workplace and against the union beurocrats. Rank and file organization inherently has more power through worker's actions whereas the beurocrats have power of "negotiation" and their professional skills - so one leads to a level of militancy and consiousness whereas the other almost always tends to rely on passive rank and file and accomodationist (and cooperative) strategies in relation to the bosses.

In a social movement it's a bit trickier, but it's essentially the same: grassroots organizations focused on organizing community power and solidarity as opposed to NGOs or whatnot (who might be useful in some of the legal services that they can provide to a movement) who probably persue a similar passive strategy of trying to appeal to "friendly" politicians and negotiate or lobby or hire lawyers to fight. Again, a poor community who is dealing with police abuse has "people power" potential and so mobilizing these forcres helps people in the community learn how to fight and work together and potentially creates confidence as well as consiousness. The NGO strategy relies on "legal power" and again just makes workers into passive recipients of change. Revolutionaries have a role to play, but at best we can make these arguments about why militant and self-organizing strategies are ultimately more effective in the short-term fight and will help build up long-term class ability to fight for itself.


If this is a strawman I apologize but it seems the natural progression of your argument. If this is the case then we also have a fundamental difference of view on the role of communists which from my perspective should try to inspire the rest of the working class to lead themselves rather than being led.Yes this is how I see it. But someone who becomes a revolutionary in one struggle can help try and provide information and tactics to workers in a similar struggle - I fail to see how that is automatically "illegitimate" when the person doing this is a specific marxist or anarchist worker, rather than just an independant guy working there who has the same ideas. But yes, my views are all geared towards working class-self emancipation. "Leadership" that I speak of can be from pre-organized radicals (who would necissarily have to have the trust of the workers in a struggle, otherwise why would they listen) or regualr workers who are radicalized by the process of that struggle - it is not counterposed to some abstract "natural self-leadership" but to the leadership of reformist and liberal ideas. These ideas are also competing to convince workers that "the best thing to do is try and get better politicians elected so they can pass more pro-union legislation" or "it's pointless to struggle" etc. Workers aren't passive, but radical ideas are not the only ones (or often any of the ideas) that are trying to present themselves as the best way forward for workers. So this is part of the role of pre-organized revolutionaries - to at least try and argue a way forward. But these ideas are only as valuable as they are useful in helping workers to self-organize for their own power.


I would also like to see your evidence for the success of the strategy you outlined. You say there is no workers movement but workers have been tirelessly fighting against racism for the last 100 years, intensely for the last 60 or so. Yet this has NOT resulted in a workers movement but has instead coincided with the decline of the union struggle. Has the work of all these organizations like yours and many others actually shown an increase in class consciousness? Yes, but there is equal attempt by the ruling class to push that back and eliminate it. So bosses couldn't beat the union in the 1930s, so they tried a different approach of offering some concessions to the unions in exchange for things that ultimately pulled the (real worker's) power out from under the unions by eliminating shop-floor resisrtance tactics, creating longer-contracts, helping union beurocrats expell militants in exchange for guarenteeing the beurocrats more professional power and "acess". The beurocrats went along with it because it was in their interests as well - they could get rid of threats to their power from the rank and file and they were able to more solidly institutionalize their positions. But to do this it took the CP disarming workers and then McCarthyism to break the legacy of rank and file militancy that developed in the 1930s. So I think there are very definate results from struggle, both economic and social, such as more class consiousness, more space and ability to organize, etc - BUT capitalist society is not a vaccume and if there is not that organization and push from below by workers, then there is nothing to stop pushes from above by our ruling class. This happened after WWII with the unions and it happened after the civil rights movement: the middle class elements in the movement were co-opted while the milirants and radicals that could not be persuaded to take "realistic" approaches were smashed.

As far as how these movements develop class consiosuness: I think the civil rights movement/black power shows that this dynamic does happen. The "black question" in the south could be partially resolved by democratic reforms to an anarchronistic caste system that was marginal to US power after WWII - but the "black question" in the North, where black people were overwhelmingly workers, couldn't just change laws, it had to take on the landloards and bosses, liberal city governments, and urban police forces. The radicalization around race lead to a rising black consiousness on US imperialism and long before MLK spoke out, black enlisted soldiers were identifying the military superiors as their number one enemy and drawing the parallels to how the US fights to control people overseas like it already controlls black people in the US. Then civil rights vets in Detroit were founding members of the Black radical autoworkers movement (DRUM) and further the people participating in the labor upsurges of the 1970s often used the tactics and rehtoric of the revolutionary black and student movements in their class struggles.

I think Rosa Luxembourg talked about how the social struggle leads to economic struggles and economic strggles lead to social struggles in periods of "radicalization" - and I think there was a little of that dynamic as the 60s became the 70s - there was definately a dynamic where people were generalizing one social struggle over to the next and seeing that the same people waging war in Vietnam are the same people restricting rights at home, allowing ghettos to fester, and so on.


Another point you say that racism and women's lib cannot be won without the overthrow of capitalism. I disagree. Capitalism being an economic system which is highly adaptive. Sure - and my point was directly in responce to an argument that oppression was seperate from class rule. An oppression, can change and can fade if it is no longer held in place by the needs of the system. So, for example, anti-Irish sentiment might still exist in a casual way occasionally, but there is no systemic anti-Irish racism like in the 1800s. Because of the myths used by the US in WWII as well as justification for arming Israel after the 1960s, anti-semitism is no longer tolerated by any part of the mainstream. Under different social conditions and with different needs of the system, maybe these ideas would be rehabilitated, but for now it would be surprizing if an antisemetic mayor or anti-Irish sherriff were elcted somewhere.

But the oppression, it's source and role, have not fundamentally changed even if the specific oppression has fallen out of practice on a significant level. So I would not be shocked if a mayor was elected somewhere on a platform of stopping "Islamic Law" from being implemented in his city; or if a Sherriff was elected to "put immigrants in their place". So the oppression has not really gone away, the social conditions and (ruling) class needs have changed.


Capitalism will change itself to overcome any problems which effect the interests of capital and the capitalist class. So it is entirely possible that racism and women's lib can be overcome. I think specific forms (such as jim-crow or female disenfrancizement) can be more or less permanently eliminated with enough force - but at a certain level, the capitalists can't fully do without some kind of social divisions for very long. And so I think this is what we see with the re-emergence of post-jim-crow racism in the US: it's different, serves different functions, but it is vital for the running of the state in this way. What would eliminating racism really look like for the Capitalists: destruction of the prison system and modern methods of policing; a massive redistribution of funds and resources towards rebuilding infrastructure, creating urban jobs and rasing the standard of living in cities, changes in hireing practices, re-funding of education with massive increase in schools and teachers, rebuilding whole parts of the poorest neighborhoods to provide liveable housing etc.

So capitalists would give this up if absolutely necissary, but it would take a near-revolution for them to even feel pressured enough to (in their view) screw-over or buy-off thousands of real estae owners, all the people who have an interest in the police and prison system, urban developers who wouldn't be able to gentrify because massive funding of city living would no longer make flipping houses in the ghetto a bargin, all the companies who rely on racism to put blacks in the worse jobs which can then be used to drive down all worker wages, etc.

What would it look like for our rulers if systemic sexism is defeated: well first an across the board pay increase for nearly 50% of the working population; workplace-provided childcare and maternity and paternity leave; universal healthcare; etc.

So while it may be possible, it a movement getting rid of these very ingraned and entangled oppression is going to take really militant tactics and the kind of power that workers can bring through strikes and so on. So I think it would basically take a movement that has revolutionary potential. And if workers can fight and win greater control and power for themselves by ending the prison system and ending wage inequlity for women, why the hell would they stop there? In fact I doubt that a movement would develop that far without also becoming more of a revolutionary class movement.


However, this does not make it likely that they will be overcome. But given the right set of circumstances the bourgeoisie would drop both like a bad habit if it effected their profits. That does not mean that they wouldn't find other ways of dividing society.Ok, well I think we are in agreement - I'm arguing that they can not due without some forms of oppression and social control, but I agree there is nothing inherent in thier choosing this group or another group - it's historical circumstances that lead to one target being more "favored" than another which then develops and is built apon and can become bigger than maybe the initial desire. I think for the US sexism and anti-black racism are essential form of oppression and so while they oppress others, I think these two are much harder to get rid of for structural and historical reasons.

[Hit The North]

Just some thoughts on the DOTP and the continuing existence of capitalist relations after the seizure of power by the proletariat:

I think Robbo's objection to the concept of the DOTP really just boils down to pedantry, as if what the proletariat calls itself after taking power is a key question. Even if, after recognising its class interest and identity before it makes the revolution, it continues to retain that identity, so what? This does not at all demand the preservation of capitalist relations. We cold equally call it the Dictatorship of the Direct Producers. Let's face it, the actual name of the concept, 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', is a neat way of summing up the opinion of Marx that all states are class dictatorships and that the new society must begin as the dictatorship of the proletariat that has developed under capitalism. Again, there is no reason to suppose that Marx was of the view that a form of capitalism would exist after the revolution. But neither was he of the view that a socialist society would arise spontaneously. One disadvantage the proletariat has is that, unlike the bourgeoisie, which can develop its powers under feudalism, socialism cannot develop within capitalism but requires its abolition in order to exist.

The DOTP - that is, the working class organised as the rulers of society - is necessary for two major reasons: firstly, to protect its rule against reaction and this will, therefore, be determined by the extent of the decay of the bourgeoisie and global capitalism which, after all, is likely to be extensive, given that is will be this disintegration that will usher in the revolutionary situation. The second reason for its necessity is to usher in, plan, and regulate socialist relations, because complex societies do not arise spontaneously. Again, the necessity of these functions will be determined by the extent to which and how the proletariat began to organised itself as a social force before the final overturning of the Dictatorship of Capital. I would assume that, as with October 1917, the working class would already have begun expropriating the power of capital and begun developing new relations of production and distribution.

To the question of whether the concept of the DOTP is contradictory or not, the short answer is that, yes, of course it is. It is contradictory to same extent that capitalism is: it contains the seeds of its own dissolution. And that is the point! The proletariat, as a creature of capitalism, has a contradictory existence detectable on a number of levels, one of which is the fact that although it requires recognition of its own singular class interest in order to overthrow capitalism, it finally represents the interests of the whole of humanity. Even the hitherto wealthy bourgeois would be better off under socialism because, as a human being, she will thrive in a more human society. The DOTP is contradictory because by pursuing its class interest it undermines its reason for existence.

[Blake's Baby]

No I thinking you're turning a genuine problem into a semantic one.

For some of us, the DotP is correctly the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a class, because it takes place before the creation of a socialist society. Thus, it can only be a capitalist society. Classes still exist in the DotP, so property must exist (because classes are merely different relationships to the means of production). The fact that property is collectivised doesn't stop it being property.

[Hit The North]

No I thinking you're turning a genuine problem into a semantic one.

For some of us, the DotP is correctly the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a class, because it takes place before the creation of a socialist society. Thus, it can only be a capitalist society. Classes still exist in the DotP, so property must exist (because classes are merely different relationships to the means of production). The fact that property is collectivised doesn't stop it being property.

Well, I indicate that I don't think socialism springs spontaneously from the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie but, at the same time, the revolution must be the overturning of bourgeois property relations or it is merely a political putsch. The revolution must be the act of the workers themselves which is at the point of production. If capitalism continues to exist, that is, that the direct producers continue to be dominated by the agents of capital accumulation, even if those agents call themselves a workers state, then the revolution has not taken place, merely a stage toward it.

If you are advocating a stage of state capitalism, between capitalism and socialism, I think this is a serious mistake as it will most likely act as a break on the development of socialism, as we have seen in the uncompleted revolutions of the 20th Century.

Having dismissed the spontaneous origin of socialist society, I concede that there will be a period of transition, but would expect it to be quite rapid and, to an uncertain extent, prefigured in the manner in which the proletariat organised itself to take power in the first place.

[Blake's Baby]

Sure the proletariat locally has to take power, and in every other locality too - but there is no 'local socialism'. Socialist society is predicated on the universal suppression of capitalism.

And a 'stage of state capitalism between capitalism and socialism' doesn't make sense. How can capitalism be between itself and something else?

I'm claiming that there must be a period when the proletariat is in the process of seizing the state and economy worldwide, while the process is going on but not complete - this is the DotP.

[Hit The North]

I'm claiming that there must be a period when the proletariat is in the process of seizing the state and economy worldwide, while the process is going on but not complete - this is the DotP.

Yeah, I don't disagree with you. I disagree with Robbo if he believes that socialism will fall out of the sky like a bed of pure white snow. It will require planning and reorganisation of society according to a rational plan that arises out of the interests of the proletariat. I'd even suggest that the DOTP might retain functional necessity after the process of abolishing capitalism in order to supervise the reconstruction of society towards the abolition of all classes.

So really, I think Robbo's objections are merely pedantic. Firstly, by pressing the pedantic point that the DOTP does not make logical sense because the very definition of the 'proletariat' is their subject status under capitalism. He's playing with definitions, in other words.

Secondly, I think he employs a narrow interpretation of what is meant by the dictatorship of a class. The dictatorship of a class does not necessarily mean that it acts as a centralised power. The feudal aristocracy imposed its class rule mainly in local and regional apparatus and only secondarily, using the centralised state (which, anyway, was the preserve of the Monarch). The centralisation of the state during feudalism in fact represented the decay of feudal power. Since the bourgeois revolutions, the state has centralised enormously and is a key characteristic of capitalist rule. It does not follow that the DOTP will be as centralised – although part of its development should be a progressive movement to the devolving of power, running oppositely to the development of the state under capitalism, starting out quite centralised and becoming less so until finally it is nothing.

[robbo203]

But for the most part socialists who've been pulled towards petty-bourgeois politics say they want socialism - just once the conditions are right... which turns out to be never. You may not be a liberal, but the level of abstract conditions you place on what is always going to be a messy and chaotic development, worker's revolution, suggests to me that if we were in a revolutionary situation, you'd be standing with the democratic-socialists saying, "not yet". I have never read from you, how your notions would play out in a situation like the Spanish Revolution or any real-life upsurge in working class activity and militancy and so I find your formulations unclear and unconvincing at best.

I could say the same of you but that is besides the point in this case. Rafiq has described my position as "liberalism" which I rather resent frankly. The ridiculous grounds on which he made this daft claim where spelt oin his last post

"Communism is not "liberty", it is the emancipation of the proletariat, it is the ruthless suppression of the enemies of the proletariat"


To which I would respond I am probably one of only a handful on this forum who is actually talking about (and advocating) what is meant by the "emancipation of the proletariat" which is nothing other than the ABOLITION of the proletariat - classless communism - something which many here dont seem to grasp. A slave class can only be emancipated by shedding its status as a slave class. Thats applies to the proletariat too - the wage slave class

As for your other point about "revolutions being messy" and my alleged reluctance to state where I stand in the event of a "real life upsurge of working class activity and militancy" well again this is a bit of misrpresentation, isnt it?. I ve stated my opinion often enough. Of course, I would support - and have supported - any instance of genuine working class militancy but unlike some on the left who have a completely unrealistic woolly-headed approach to such matters I am loath to read into such events something that is simply not there. That is just asking to have your head banged against a brick wall and the inevitable outcome of that will be disillusionment


Revolutionaries need to have their feet firmly fixed on the ground , take their heads out of the clouds and see things as they really are. Working class militancy - necessary though it is - does not automatically translate into a revolutiuonary perspective. And a genuine socialist revolution has to be guided by a clear conception of what we want to put in the place of capitalism. Call that an overly abstract approach to revolutiuon all you like but the plain fact remains that without a clearly articulated alternative to capitalism you won't have a socialist revolution. Period.

If we are not in revolutiionary situation - that is when a majority have that understanding of, and desire for, a socialist alternative - then of course I will say so. It will be damned stupid to pretend otherwise only to find you have ended up with yet another version of capitalism!

[robbo203]

Just some thoughts on the DOTP and the continuing existence of capitalist relations after the seizure of power by the proletariat:

I think Robbo's objection to the concept of the DOTP really just boils down to pedantry, as if what the proletariat calls itself after taking power is a key question. Even if, after recognising its class interest and identity before it makes the revolution, it continues to retain that identity, so what? This does not at all demand the preservation of capitalist relations. We cold equally call it the Dictatorship of the Direct Producers. .

No, sorry but youve got it quite wrong here. The DOTP is NOT referring to workers as in "people who work" - the direct producers. Marx does use workers in that sense in, for example, the Critique of the Gotha programme where he talks about everyone being a worker. He is using the word "worker" in a non class sense in this instance

The DOTP, on the other hand, is most definitely using the term worker or proletariat in a class sense and by implication is most definitely demanding the "preservation of capitalist relations". That is why this dotty concept of the DOTP is so ridiculous . It implies that you can operate capitalism in the interest of the very class that capital exploits, and must exploit, in order for there to be capitalism at all!

[Grenzer]

Although the accusation of liberalism is quite common here, I think it may perhaps be warranted in this case.

Robbo, you have claimed that the dictatorship of the proletariat seeks to preserve capitalist relations, which is false. The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the abolition of capitalist relations. Capitalism cannot be spontaneously destroyed; revolution is a process by which capitalism is destroyed, but until the point where this process is completed, the economy remains capitalist(if one follows the state capitalist interpretation, as I do). It is a process because there is no possible way that capitalism can be spontaneously destroyed; before the process of the transformation of the capitalist economy into a planned economy without commodity production or wages, the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie must be destroyed. Your rejection of this directly implies that capitalism, of its own accord and under the direction of the bourgeoisie, will directly move into communism. This creates a great irony because, despite all your huffing and puffing about reformism and people advocating state capitalism, you propose bourgeois dictatorship as a road to communism. In effect, your politics is a form of inverted Bernsteinism.

It seems that a large reason for this is because you have a muddled and confused conception of what communism is. Your issue is that you view communism as an idealized abstraction from the class interests of the proletariat, which is the movement to abolish the present state of things. The proletariat doesn't need to have a clear conception of what your idealization of communism is because communism is precisely the result of the the workers pursuing their class interests organically. Remember, Marx said that communism is not a state of affairs to be established; this is what he meant. Another absurd position of yours is that you assume the existence of capitalist relations implies that the bourgeoisie is the ruling class. This is totally false and a straw man. For most of capitalism's existence, it has been presided over by the political dictatorship of the aristocracy, not the bourgeoisie.

In practice, you are resolutely opposed to any attempt by the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and begin the total transformation of social relations, which as I have already stated is a dynamic process. You say that everyone who advocates a dictatorship of the proletariat is advocating state capitalism, yet your own alternative is actually worse: plain old capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. Your politics, though cloaked in pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric, are anti-communist in the most literal sense: opposition to communism as the movement which seeks to abolish the present state of things.

Even most anarchists recognize the reality that revolution is a process, and therefore implicitly support the dictatorship of the proletariat. Rafiq's accusation of liberalism is harsh, but in this case, entirely warranted. Your conception of communism is not rooted in the proletariat or the pursuit of its interests, but dreamy, utopian ideals. All you have proposed here is a novel reinterpretation of Eduard Bernstein's evolutionary socialism.

[Red Enemy]

So, robbo, the questions I want answered are:

- How do you justify saying you oppose both socialism in one country, and simultaneous abolition of capitalism? This is antithetical if you believe capitalism is abolished immediately.

- What is the capitalist mode of production, and do you consider it the be all, end all, definition of capitalism?

- How do the vast majority of proletariat worldwide, considering the unevenness of development of capitalism and class conscious, achieve both class conscious and socialist mindedness? (examples being Somalia vs USA on capitalist development....and say, USA and Greece on class conscious)

- How is capitalism abolished in your idea of socialist revolution? How do you expropriate the bourgeoisie, how do you eliminate class?

If you could kindly answer these questions, It'd be great!

[robbo203]

Although the accusation of liberalism is quite common here, I think it may perhaps be warranted in this case.

Robbo, you have claimed that the dictatorship of the proletariat seeks to preserve capitalist relations, which is false. The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the abolition of capitalist relations. Capitalism cannot be spontaneously destroyed; revolution is a process by which capitalism is destroyed, but until the point where this process is completed, the economy remains capitalist


Exactly - until the the point where the process is complete the economy REMAINS CAPITALIST So opting for a DOTP IS seeking to preserve and prolong capitalist relations instead of opting immediately getting rid of them. Thats just logical, isnt it? You can hardly dispute that

But - oh no! - the advocates of the DOTP will say, the aim of the DOTP is "ultimately" and "in the long run" to get rid of capitalist relations. As J M Kenynes quipped in the long run we are all dead.

My point is simple: The so called DOTP will never ever reach the point at which capitalist relations of production will be got rid of. Never. Long before such a hypothetical point is reached - in fact, pretty soon after a DOTP is established, if it is ever established, it will pretty rapidly transmute into something quite else : yet another (state ) capitalist regime opposed to the interests of the working class and doing its utmnost to obstruct those interests. The aim of getting rid of capitalism will be replaced by the aim of reforming and thus reinforcing capitalism. You mark my words

Look, its so obvious. You can only run capitalism in the interests of capital and not wage labour. - right? So any state that seeks to take on the administration of capitalism must by its very nature fit in with the needs of capitalism. Above all the need to exploit wage labour and thereby generate the flow of surplus value upon which the accumulation of capital depends. It is inevitable that even the most pro worker regime will succumb to this self same imperative. Look at the British Labour Party. Formed in 1906 to supposedly represent the interests of workers. Look at what it has become now. To say it is a joke is to put it mildly.

I can cite dozens of similar cases where the self same process of co-option and substitutionism has occured every time a blatantly leftist political organisation has set out to represent the workers cause and ended up in bed with Capital. What evidence have you got your hypothetical DOTP will remain unimpeachable, unmoved by the pressing imperatives of capital to exploit wage labour. None as far as I can discern. It is idealism to suppose that the DOTP can somehow extricate itself form the material realities of running capitalism by the mere assertion of political will

I say forget this crackpot idea once and for alll. It worse than useless. It is a snare and a trap. If you want to get rid of capitalist relations of production then get rid of them . Dont pussyfoot around playing at being a working class government of capitalism

[robbo203]

In practice, you are resolutely opposed to any attempt by the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and begin the total transformation of social relations, which as I have already stated is a dynamic process. You say that everyone who advocates a dictatorship of the proletariat is advocating state capitalism, yet your own alternative is actually worse: plain old capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship. Your politics, though cloaked in pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric, are anti-communist in the most literal sense: opposition to communism as the movement which seeks to abolish the present state of things.

Even most anarchists recognize the reality that revolution is a process, and therefore implicitly support the dictatorship of the proletariat. Rafiq's accusation of liberalism is harsh, but in this case, entirely warranted. Your conception of communism is not rooted in the proletariat or the pursuit of its interests, but dreamy, utopian ideals. All you have proposed here is a novel reinterpretation of Eduard Bernstein's evolutionary socialism.


In my haste to deal with the first point of your post. I overlooked all this. Jesus Christ! For a peice of unsubstantiated unadulterated gibberish this takes the biscuit. I see you identify yourself as "left communist" now. Well , that probably explains a lot.

Of course revolution is a process. But a revolution culminates in a new kind of society, you know. Thats what a revolution means. The fact that I reject out of hand the absurd notion of the DOTP does not in any way mean that I reject the notion of "revolution as a process". Still less does it mean as you idiotically claim in your Rafiq-like comment that I stand for " plain old capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship". This is dishonest and dishonourable on your part. I dunno whats got into you lately, frankly. You've warped into something weirdly different from the Grenzer I thought I once knew. Oh well people change I guess....

I'm saying that revolution is a process and that there is an appropriate point in this process at which the working class seizes power and abolishes capitalism. This point is at the end of that process when minds and hearts have been changed and a majority want and understand socialism. Without that majority wanting and understanding socialism there can be no socialism and no revolution

[Red Enemy]

In my haste to deal with the first point of your post. I overlooked all this. Jesus Christ! For a peice of unsubstantiated unadulterated gibberish this takes the biscuit. I see you identify yourself as "left communist" now. Well , that probably explains a lot.

Of course revolution is a process. But a revolution cuminates in a new kind of society, dont you know. Thats what a revolution means. The fact that I reject out of hand the absurd notion of DOTP does not in any way mean that I reject the notion of revolution as a process. Still less does it mean as you idiotically claim in your Rafiq-like comment that I stand for " plain old capitalism and bourgeois dictatorship". This is dishonest and dishonourable on your part. I dunno whats got into you lately, frankly. You've warped into something weirdly different from the Grenzer I thought I once knew. Oh well people change I guess....

In saying that revolution is a process I am saying that there is an appropriate point in this process at which the working class seizes power and abolishes capitalism. This point is at the end of that process when minds and hearts have been changed and a majority want and understand socialism. Without that majority wanting and understanding socialism there can be no socialism and no revolution
I hate having to "bump" my questions, but, you seem to have gone past them. It would help clear up a lot if you could answer them. Just look back a few posts and you'll see my questions.

[Blake's Baby]

Exactly - until the the point where the process is complete the economy REMAINS CAPITALIST...



Yes! This is the total point that we've been trying to tell you all along!

Until the point where the process is complete, the economy remains capitalist.

The point about the DotP is, that it's the means by which the working class fulfills that process.



... So opting for a DOTP IS seeking to preserve and prolong capitalist relations instead of opting immediately getting rid of them. Thats just logical, isnt it? You can hardly dispute that...

Of course we can dispute it, because you can't abolish capitalism in one country or establish socialism in one country. Capitalism is a world system, it needs to be abolished as a world system. It's got nothing to do with 'seeking to preserve' capitalist relations, it's about not being able to abolish capitalism locally.


...But - oh no! - the advocates of the DOTP will say, the aim of the DOTP is "ultimately" and "in the long run" to get rid of capitalist relations. As J M Kenynes quipped in the long run we are all dead.

My point is simple: The so called DOTP will never ever reach the point at which capitalist relations of production will be got rid of. Never. Long before such a hypothetical point is reached - in fact, pretty soon after a DOTP is established, if it is ever established, it will pretty rapidly transmute into something quite else : yet another (state ) capitalist regime opposed to the interests of the working class and doing its utmnost to obstruct those interests. The aim of getting rid of capitalism will be replaced by the aim of reforming and thus reinforcing capitalism. You mark my words...

Fuck 'mark my words', are you a fucking fortune teller? Fuck off.



...
Look, its so obvious. You can only run capitalism in the interests of capital and not wage labour. - right? So any state that seeks to take on the administration of capitalism must by its very nature fit in with the needs of capitalism. Above all the need to exploit wage labour and thereby generate the flow of surplus value upon which the accumulation of capital depends. It is inevitable that even the most pro worker regime will succumb to this self same imperative. Look at the British Labour Party. Formed in 1906 to supposedly represent the interests of workers. Look at what it has become now. To say it is a joke is to put it mildly...

It's not 'inevitable', are we just supposed to 'mark your words' on that? If the revolution is limited to one or a small number of countries it will degenerate, becaause you can't have socialism in one country, but as long as the revolution is progressing, then it's still possible to reach a stage where a socialist society is possible.


...I can cite dozens of similar cases where the self same process of co-option and substitutionism has occured every time a blatantly leftist political organisation has set out to represent the workers cause and ended up in bed with Capital. What evidence have you got your hypothetical DOTP will remain unimpeachable, unmoved by the pressing imperatives of capital to exploit wage labour. None as far as I can discern. It is idealism to suppose that the DOTP can somehow extricate itself form the material realities of running capitalism by the mere assertion of political will ...

But there's no choice. The working class needs to take political power in order to effect economic transformation. We can cite dozens of examples where the construction of socialism in one country has proved to be impossible, and yet that's what you're advocating, so why do you do that?



...
I say forget this crackpot idea once and for alll. It worse than useless. It is a snare and a trap. If you want to get rid of capitalist relations of production then get rid of them . Dont pussyfoot around playing at being a working class government of capitalism

Capitalism can only be abolished worldwide, because it exists worldwide, or you could just declare socialism in your bedroom.

[hetz]

Capitalism can only be abolished worldwide, because it exists worldwide, or you could just declare socialism in your bedroom.
But what does it really mean? Did Marx ever talk of abolishing capitalism outside the world's center of capitalism ( Europe/the US ) and it's periphery ( Russia, and then India and China ) ?
Is today's Third World actually "capitalist" in the sense of having a domestic industry and a proletariat comparable to say 1880 Germany?
Thanks.

[robbo203]

I hate having to "bump" my questions, but, you seem to have gone past them. It would help clear up a lot if you could answer them. Just look back a few posts and you'll see my questions.

Yeah yeah Ill come back to your questions later no worries. Im just knackered for the moment from a hard day doing building work. It kinds takes it out of ya.
Actually I think most of the questions have already been answered if not in this thread then maybe in that epic set to with Blakes Baby . There is no contradiction in rejecting socialism in one country and rejecting the idea of instantaneous worldwide socialist revolution , as you will discover. But I deal with that one later when Ive had some decent kip

[Blake's Baby]

But what does it really mean? Did Marx ever talk of abolishing capitalism outside the world's center of capitalism ( Europe/the US ) and it's periphery ( Russia, and then India and China ) ?
Is today's Third World actually "capitalist" in the sense of having a domestic industry and a proletariat comparable to say 1880 Germany?
Thanks.

It means for capitalism to be abolished, the proletariat will need to take political power, and have economic control, worldwide. In Marx's time half the world was made up of colonies of the European powers. Now those ex-colonies are independent states that at least have some control of their own economies. Of course there are domestic industries and proletarians in the former colonies. Comparable to 1880s Germany? Maybe not. But in the 1880s Germany was the 3rd biggest economy in the world. How many countries are the third biggest in the world? Only one. Germany, then; Japan now. But are the former colonies capitalist? Certainly.


.... There is no contradiction in rejecting socialism in one country and rejecting the idea of instantaneous worldwide socialist revolution , as you will discover...

Robbo... we all reject the idea of 'instantaneous worldwide socialist revolution'. But you don't reject socialism in one country, you think that capitalism can be abolished, and socialism established, locally.

We insist that the process of revolution (political revolution that is, the working class coming to power) will take time and happen first in some places and later in others; but I (at least) insist that the abolition of capitalism (economic transformation, which you may call 'revolution' but is another of those instances where we may after all be using the same word for different things) can only take place once capitalism as a totality has been taken over by the working class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I could say the same of you but that is besides the point in this case. Rafiq has described my position as "liberalism" which I rather resent frankly. As you should - I think Rafiq likes to make polarizing statements.


To which I would respond I am probably one of only a handful on this forum who is actually talking about (and advocating) what is meant by the "emancipation of the proletariat" which is nothing other than the ABOLITION of the proletariat - classless communism - something which many here dont seem to grasp. A slave class can only be emancipated by shedding its status as a slave class. Thats applies to the proletariat too - the wage slave classNo, you misunderstand the debate - at least when it come from the "revolution from below" anarchists and Marxists. Abolition of the condition of "proletariat" and those relations is a given - what we are talking about, those who advocate worker's rule, is how this abolition of classes can be achieved.

A slave class can only shed it's status as a slave class by removing the power of the slave-masters and replacing it with a non-slave order!


Of course, I would support - and have supported - any instance of genuine working class militancy but unlike some on the left who have a completely unrealistic woolly-headed approach to such matters I am loath to read into such events something that is simply not there. That is just asking to have your head banged against a brick wall and the inevitable outcome of that will be disillusionment.

Revolutionaries need to have their feet firmly fixed on the ground , take their heads out of the clouds and see things as they really are. Working class militancy - necessary though it is - does not automatically translate into a revolutiuonary perspective. And a genuine socialist revolution has to be guided by a clear conception of what we want to put in the place of capitalism. Call that an overly abstract approach to revolution all you like but the plain fact remains that without a clearly articulated alternative to capitalism you won't have a socialist revolution. Period.

First, struggle always has a chance for defeat and disillusionment - but the absence of struggle guarantees it!

2nd, you are absolutely right that workers striking is not a socialist revolution. But if workers are fighting for their collective control over society, revolutionary consciousness has been achieved even if they haven't planned it all out perfectly - that's what revolutionary democracy (which implies a "state") is for - so that workers can collectively make decisions. Workers in Spain and Russia achieved this, but failed to maintain workers power in Russia, and failed to establish it as an independent force in Spain. So consciousness moves really quickly in crisis situations whereas relations and material organization and structures move a bit more slowly - this is why I think in a revolution, those mass conscious forces need to establish a "worker's state" to then translate that new consciousness into the actual functioning of society.

But conversly IMO, treating worker's struggle as secondary to mere abstract education will end up with people "banging their head against a wall". People are only receptive to revolutionary ideas in the context of struggle. People won't be won to socialist consciousness on the basis of its rationality - otherwise we'd be living in a liberated world right now. People will develop socialist consiousness with a combination of ideas and experience, socialist ideas are only important to workers in so far as they help workers to organize and win struggles while providing a larger sense of how things can be different.

Slowly convincing people of socialism will never happen because, as marx said, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. Struggle helps expose the falseness of capitalist assumptions though because it makes class lines clearer and helps workers to develop their own "muscles" and capacity to self-organize etc. Slowly gaining support for socialist ideas may potentially help achieve the "desire" for socialism, but it would not create the ability for workers to do this, the solidarity, confidence, self-organization, alliances of genuine revolutionary groups with trust among people, the local or workplace decision-making capacity, the understanding of how to actually run things, dosn't come from workers gaining consciousness or being "educated" it comes from organic learning and experience which can be aided through the efforts of radicals, but can't be created from nothing.

[robbo203]

Yes! This is the total point that we've been trying to tell you all along!

Until the point where the process is complete, the economy remains capitalist.

The point about the DotP is, that it's the means by which the working class fulfills that process.


The "economy remains capitalist" and that is precisely why the DOTP is doomed to become a just another revamped version of the dictatorship of capital. You are asking us to go down a road that leads nowhere except back to where we are now and you just can't seem to see it!

By the way , L'ouvrier Communiste here, in my reponse to BB, are the answers to the various question you previously asked me...



Of course we can dispute it, because you can't abolish capitalism in one country or establish socialism in one country. Capitalism is a world system, it needs to be abolished as a world system. It's got nothing to do with 'seeking to preserve' capitalist relations, it's about [I]not being able to abolish capitalism locally.


To which I say - Bollocks! You are unquestionably seeking to preserve and prolong capitalism by establishing a state capitalist regime under the rubric of a so called dictatorship of the proletariat. Sheesh. How the hell can you possibly deny it? You yourself have been quite insistent on the need for state capitalism. You may say that that is unavoidable but, even if it were, that would in no way invalidate the claim that you are preserving and prolonging capitalism, to be pedantic about it. It would only mean such preservation and prolongation was unavoidable, in your view, a claim which I emphatically dispute. Capitalism is indeed a world system but it does not follow at all that it has to be instantaneously abolished throughout the world in one go. Thats just ludicrous

And for the last time, for chrissakes I am NOT advocating "socialism in one country". Are you familiar with this concept at all? Im beginning to have my doubts....

Firstly what the advocates of "socialism in one country" mean by "socialism" is NOT socialism but state capitalism - you know, the thing that you advocate

Secondly "socialism in one country" implies the retention of a state - a nation state. Thats not what Im calling for at all as you well know

And thirdly, the idea of "socialism in one country" suggests that a socialist movement in one country can exist independently of the socialist movement elsewhere, Thats not what I am saying either. So on all 3 counts you could not possibly be more wrong

Im saying capitalism, despite being a world system, can, and inevitably will. be eliminated in one part of the world after another in domino fashion. This is the only realistic scenariio on offer, frankly. What makes it realistic is the simple fact that when socialists are in majority in one part of the world and are accordingly able to democratically capture power and abolish capitalism forthwith this implies a very significant socialist presence in other parts of the world as well and hence a radically transformed socio-poltical environment everywhere. YThis is actually a crucial part of my argument which you constantly and wilfully ignore and it is one the things that separates me from the "socialism in one country" briagade: I take a world socialist prespectve. The scenario I outline happens within, and can only happen within, this perspective

The only reasonable objection that could be raised against this scenario is the fact of the globalised and essentially interlocking nature of much of modern prpduction. I accept this point and for which reason I argue that while an incipient socialist region (not country!!!) could organise itself internally on a non market, moneyless basis, it would still have to conduct external economic relations with residual capitalist states for the time being. I surmise that these relationships would logicaly take the form of barter relations since money transactions would be impossible given that one party to the transaction would be a moneyless socialist economy


Your response to this suggestion was pretty dismal and, if I might say so, only demonstrated how little you seem to understand of Marxian economics. If you engage in barter trade that means, according to you, your economy or mode of production is a "capitalist" one. Absolute rubbish! It is a reasonably well established fact that primitive hunter-gatherer bands thousands of years ago engaged in the long distance barter trade of obsidian and ochre. Would that make your primitive hunter gatherer some sort of capitalist entrepeneur? Of course not. But by your perverse logic it would!! By Jove, it would. Marx himself pulverised the sort of flimsy ridiculous arguments you come up with in Capital and I suggest you familiarise yourself with his arguments on the subject before venturing any further crass opinions on the subject


In any case, your scenario of DOTPs springing up in differnent parts of the world and then coordinating to somehow overthrow capitalism in one big orgiastic manifestation of universal global good will is hopelessly unrealistic. It does stand even the slightest chance of ever happening . Basically while you are waiting for it to happen what wiill happen in the meanwhile is that your DOTP will transmute pretty rapidly into yet another state capitalist regime. determined to uphold state capitalism before eventually succumbiing to the lures of corporate capitalism - like the Soviets did - and you can kiss goodbye to any thought of socialist revolution





Fuck 'mark my words', are you a fucking fortune teller? Fuck off.
.

Touchy touchy. Evidently the truth hurts but, dont worry - you'll get used to it Im telling it to you for your own good so you dont have to fritter way years of your life on a hopeless cause




It's not 'inevitable', are we just supposed to 'mark your words' on that? If the revolution is limited to one or a small number of countries it will degenerate, becaause you can't have socialism in one country, but as long as the revolution is progressing, then it's still possible to reach a stage where a socialist society is possible.



Yeah yeah Yeah while you are repeating your "you can't have socialism in one country" mantra like friggin parrot and completely ignoring the point that this is not what I am advocating, you dont seem to understand that its just not possible to go down the road of state capitalism to reach socialism. You airily proclaim "as long as the revolution is progressing, then it's still possible to reach a stage where a socialist society is possible". Oh yeah? Sorrry but no it is not possible. Firstly because you have not effected a revolutiuon at all since by your own admission you still have capitalism and what is a revoluition if not a fundamental change in the socio-economic basios of society which, in your case, has simply not happened . And secondly since you aburdly expect the whole world to fall under the sway of DOTPs before you can enact a socialist revolution, that very fact implies a drawn out period of time which makes it even more likely that your scenario will end in utter failure. While everyone is waiting for the proletarians in Upper Volta to seize political power, your DOTP in the UK will have long ago transmuted into yet another friggin Labour Government telliing the workers that we need to "tighten our belts" in the interests of the capita...oops...proletarian economy. No thanks! Ill pass on that one



But there's no choice. The working class needs to take political power in order to effect economic transformation. We can cite dozens of examples where the construction of socialism in one country has proved to be impossible, and yet that's what you're advocating, so why do you do that?



Are you deaf blind or just plain dumb? I tire of having to explain that what you call socialism in one country is NOTHING at all to do with what I m talking about. Not only that Ive said umpteen times that you cannot have a socialist society unless and until a majority want it and understand it. So, pray, do enlighten us - give us a single example anywhere where a majority gave their mandate for a moneyless wageless classless stateless commonwealth and this failed. Come on - lets hear this "evidence" of yours!

Of course I agree that the "working class needs to take political power in order to effect an economic transformation". That has never been an issue with me. But a DOTP is emphatically NOT effecting an economic transformation and even you must see this since you have repeatedly acknowleged that under A DOTP there is still capitalism.

What you are trying to say in your cackhanded manner, I guess, is that a DOTP will vaguely intend to effect an economic transformation at some point eventually - like the state capitalist Soviet Unionn "intended to introduce communism eventually" - possibly years if not decades down the road. But I can tell you straight away that that intention will evaporate pretty quickly once the DOTP starts getting its hand dirty adminstering a capitalist economy in the way only way it can be administered - AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE WORKING CLASS

[Ottoraptor]

Exactly - until the the point where the process is complete the economy REMAINS CAPITALIST So opting for a DOTP IS seeking to preserve and prolong capitalist relations instead of opting immediately getting rid of them. Thats just logical, isnt it? You can hardly dispute that


You complete lack any understanding of the DotP I take it? Let me make this clearer for you. The point when the DotP is established is the point in the revolution where the working class having broken the rule of the capitalists and broke up (and hopefully smashed) the bourgeois state machinery and the working class is expropriating the MoP and are destroying bourgeois property relationship. The DotP are the tools that the working class creates to carry out this task and to finish the revolution. Until the revolution is complete and bourgeois property relations are destroyed we still have capitalism, even if it is weak and on its way out. The DotP is not prolonging capitalism, but killing it and burying it. It takes some really trick logic to take this and say "oh! capitalism has been immediately abolished on the second day of the revolution! This is just prolonging capitalism guys!"

[robbo203]

You complete lack any understanding of the DotP I take it? Let me make this clearer for you. The point when the DotP is established is the point in the revolution where the working class having broken the rule of the capitalists and broke up (and hopefully smashed) the bourgeois state machinery and the working class is expropriating the MoP and are destroying bourgeois property relationship. The DotP are the tools that the working class creates to carry out this task and to finish the revolution. Until the revolution is complete and bourgeois property relations are destroyed we still have capitalism, even if it is weak and on its way out. The DotP is not prolonging capitalism, but killing it and burying it. It takes some really trick logic to take this and say "oh! capitalism has been immediately abolished on the second day of the revolution! This is just prolonging capitalism guys!"


While you are thoughtlessly accusing me of a lack of a understanding of the DOTP you might want to reflect on what it means yourself. You are confusing the expropriation of the capitalist class with the DOTP. Two different things entirely!! Im all for the former but emphatically oppose the latter

By definition, the DOTP has NOT expropriated the capitalist class. By definition, the capitalist class continues to exist by virtue of the very fact that the proletariat - that very class which it exploits - continues to exist. In short , the DOTP permits the continued exploitation by the capitalist class of the working class. Anyone who denies has no understandingf whatoseover of either capitalism or the DOTP itself

This can ONLY mean that if you install a DOTP, upon capturing political power,. in preference to expropriating thre capitalist class in a socialist revolution, you ARE indeed effectively prolonging and preserving capitalism, justifiably or not. There is absolutely no way round this point - wriggle as you might.

You can claim that the intention is to "eventually" expropriate the capitalist class but, as I suggest, in my response to Blakes Baby, that intention is not worth the paper it is written on. As soon as the DOTP starts adminstering capitalism - as it must by definition - it will turn against the working class , stab our clas in the back and at the ealiest possible opportunity, jump into bed with Capital to consumate the marriage that was always arranged for it form the very word go

There is no excuse for this ludicrous dotty concept of the DOTP whatsoever and absolutely no reason at all to have it. Vanguardists who constantly come out with the lame excuse that you "cant get rid of capitalism in one go" are seeking in a backhanded manner to justify their own claim to power in advance of the working class becoming socialist-minded.

Its simple really when you think about it. If a majority of the working class were socialist in outlook there would be no reason one could possibly advance for having some prolonged transition between capitalism and communism. Not that the idea itself is even logically coherent since what can possibly exist between a class based society and classless society - Nothing! In other words the DOTP is really nothing more than the means by which the vanguard can forestall socialism and assert its own pretensions to become a new ruling class on the pretext that the workers are not ready for socialism .

[Blake's Baby]

...

To which I say - Bollocks! You are unquestionably seeking to preserve and prolong capitalism by establishing a state capitalist regime under the rubric of a so called dictatorship of the proletariat. Sheesh. How the hell can you possibly deny it? You yourself have been quite insistent on the need for state capitalism. You may say that that is unavoidable but, even if it were, that would in no way invalidate the claim that you are preserving and prolonging capitalism, to be pedantic about it. It would only mean such preservation and prolongation was unavoidable, in your view, a claim which I emphatically dispute. Capitalism is indeed a world system but it does not follow at all that it has to be instantaneously abolished throughout the world in one go. Thats just ludicrous...

Seeking to do something is not the same as having to do something, and you shouldn't pretend it is.

And, no, it's not ludicrous at all that a world-system can't be abolished bit by bit, any more than blood poisoning in a patient can be cured one toe at a a time. It's ludicrous to claim that it can be abolished bit by bit.


...And for the last time, for chrissakes I am NOT advocating "socialism in one country". Are you familiar with this concept at all? Im beginning to have my doubts....

Firstly what the advocates of "socialism in one country" mean by "socialism" is NOT socialism but state capitalism - you know, the thing that you advocate

Secondly "socialism in one country" implies the retention of a state - a nation state. Thats not what Im calling for at all as you well know

And thirdly, the idea of "socialism in one country" suggests that a socialist movement in one country can exist independently of the socialist movement elsewhere, Thats not what I am saying either. So on all 3 counts you could not possibly be more wrong...

You believe that socialism can be established in one country. That means you believe that socialism can be established in one country. What's wrong with my belief that that's exactly what you're proposing?


...Im saying capitalism, despite being a world system, can, and inevitably will. be eliminated in one part of the world after another in domino fashion. This is the only realistic scenariio on offer, frankly. What makes it realistic is the simple fact that when socialists are in majority in one part of the world and are accordingly able to democratically capture power and abolish capitalism forthwith this implies a very significant socialist presence in other parts of the world as well and hence a radically transformed socio-poltical environment everywhere. YThis is actually a crucial part of my argument which you constantly and wilfully ignore and it is one the things that separates me from the "socialism in one country" briagade: I take a world socialist prespectve. The scenario I outline happens within, and can only happen within, this perspective

The only reasonable objection that could be raised against this scenario is the fact of the globalised and essentially interlocking nature of much of modern prpduction. I accept this point and for which reason I argue that while an incipient socialist region (not country!!!) could organise itself internally on a non market, moneyless basis, it would still have to conduct external economic relations with residual capitalist states for the time being. I surmise that these relationships would logicaly take the form of barter relations since money transactions would be impossible given that one party to the transaction would be a moneyless socialist economy


Your response to this suggestion was pretty dismal and, if I might say so, only demonstrated how little you seem to understand of Marxian economics. If you engage in barter trade that means, according to you, your economy or mode of production is a "capitalist" one...

No, if you're engaging in commodity production for trade with capitalist states, that capitalism.


... Absolute rubbish! It is a reasonably well established fact that primitive hunter-gatherer bands thousands of years ago engaged in the long distance barter trade of obsidian and ochre...

No it isn't. There was distribution of obsidian and ochre (and other minerals, shells etc) but there's no convincing evidence of trade. There are something like 17 different mechanisms identified by anthropologists for distribution. I thought you were supposed to be a free access communist, you really should know that 'distribution' is not the same as 'exchange'.


... Would that make your primitive hunter gatherer some sort of capitalist entrepeneur? Of course not...

Unless you're right, in which case, yeah, they could be, but that doesn't mean that they lived in a capitalist system, because behaviour (such as the wage labour and commodity production under antique slavery or feudalism) doesn't mean that the whole system functions in that fashion.


... But by your perverse logic it would!! By Jove, it would. Marx himself pulverised the sort of flimsy ridiculous arguments you come up with in Capital and I suggest you familiarise yourself with his arguments on the subject before venturing any further crass opinions on the subject


In any case, your scenario of DOTPs springing up in differnent parts of the world and then coordinating to somehow overthrow capitalism in one big orgiastic manifestation of universal global good will is hopelessly unrealistic. It does stand even the slightest chance of ever happening . Basically while you are waiting for it to happen what wiill happen in the meanwhile is that your DOTP will transmute pretty rapidly into yet another state capitalist regime...

Well, yeah, possibly, there are no guarantees that the revolution will come out on top, but your alternative makes no sense at all.


... determined to uphold state capitalism before eventually succumbiing to the lures of corporate capitalism - like the Soviets did - and you can kiss goodbye to any thought of socialist revolution





Touchy touchy. Evidently the truth hurts but, dont worry - you'll get used to it Im telling it to you for your own good so you dont have to fritter way years of your life on a hopeless cause...

Oh, if you like, the truth that you're a psychic medium burns me up. I'm scared of your prophetic nature, Mother Robbo, gaze into your crystal ball but don't tell me anything too frightening.




...

Yeah yeah Yeah while you are repeating your "you can't have socialism in one country" mantra like friggin parrot and completely ignoring the point that this is not what I am advocating, you dont seem to understand that its just not possible to go down the road of state capitalism to reach socialism. You airily proclaim "as long as the revolution is progressing, then it's still possible to reach a stage where a socialist society is possible". Oh yeah? Sorrry but no it is not possible. Firstly because you have not effected a revolutiuon at all since by your own admission you still have capitalism and what is a revoluition if not a fundamental change in the socio-economic basios of society which, in your case, has simply not happened ...

You don't actually read what other people have written do you?

The political revolution is the replacement of one ruling class in society with another ruling class. The replacement of the bourgeoisie as the ruling class by the the proletariat is a revolution, as the replacement of the feudal aristocracy by the capitalist bourgeoisie is a revolution. so, yes, it's a revolution that puts the proletariat in charge. Got that? Good.



... And secondly since you aburdly expect the whole world to fall under the sway of DOTPs before you can enact a socialist revolution, that very fact implies a drawn out period of time which makes it even more likely that your scenario will end in utter failure. While everyone is waiting for the proletarians in Upper Volta to seize political power, your DOTP in the UK will have long ago transmuted into yet another friggin Labour Government telliing the workers that we need to "tighten our belts" in the interests of the capita...oops...proletarian economy. No thanks! Ill pass on that one...

That's your choice, but if you're giving up on the revolution because you don't trust either the workers of the Upper Volta (it's been called Burkina Faso since 1984) or of the UK, then you can hardly get upset when people like Rafiq call you a liberal.




...
Are you deaf blind or just plain dumb? I tire of having to explain that what you call socialism in one country is NOTHING at all to do with what I m talking about. Not only that Ive said umpteen times that you cannot have a socialist society unless and until a majority want it and understand it. So, pray, do enlighten us - give us a single example anywhere where a majority gave their mandate for a moneyless wageless classless stateless commonwealth and this failed. Come on - lets hear this "evidence" of yours!

Of course I agree that the "working class needs to take political power in order to effect an economic transformation". That has never been an issue with me. But a DOTP is emphatically NOT effecting an economic transformation and even you must see this since you have repeatedly acknowleged that under A DOTP there is still capitalism...

Yes, the DotP is the political seizure of power (doesn't matter if it's an insurrection or voting the socialists into power really); once the political seizure of power is complete, once the working class has the state and the economy in its hands, it can transform them. The economic transformation is the 'revolution' that you keep talking about. unless the working class has seized the state and the economy, it can't transform anything. As soon as capitalism is completely in the hands of the proletariat, it can be abolished, and then there is no more capitalism, no more proleariat, and no more DotP.


...What you are trying to say in your cackhanded manner, I guess, is that a DOTP will vaguely intend to effect an economic transformation at some point eventually - like the state capitalist Soviet Unionn "intended to introduce communism eventually" - possibly years if not decades down the road...

I'm really hoping that the whole process is going to take no more than 18 months; why are you 'seeking' to spin it out?


... But I can tell you straight away that that intention will evaporate pretty quickly once the DOTP starts getting its hand dirty adminstering a capitalist economy in the way only way it can be administered - AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE WORKING CLASS

Why do you think the working class will organise against the working clss? And why should the rest of us take your word it, oh wise Guru Robbo?




Look in the end, you think the proletariat can take power and abolish capitalism. If you don't believe that the working class can abolish capitalism before taking power, then the one must preceed the other. It may be by 9 months or it may be 9 days or by 9 seconds - but however long that period is, that is the period when the proletariat has political control of the state before the abolition of capitalism. And that is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Ottoraptor]

While you are thoughtlessly accusing me of a lack of a understanding of the DOTP you might want to reflect on what it means yourself. You are confusing the expropriation of the capitalist class with the DOTP. Two different things entirely!! Im all for the former but emphatically oppose the latter
Cool, so you are redefining the DotP to meet your needs. The DotP includes the expropriation of the capitalists, since you can't successful expropriate the capitalists with out the tools to do so. The DotP includes these tools.

By definition, the DOTP has NOT expropriated the capitalist class. By definition, the capitalist class continues to exist by virtue of the very fact that the proletariat - that very class which it exploits - continues to exist. In short , the DOTP permits the continued exploitation by the capitalist class of the working class. Anyone who denies has no understandingf whatoseover of either capitalism or the DOTP itself
The DotP doesn't permit them to continue to exploit, because its entire purpose is to suppress and expropriate the capitalists. Even when the capitalists have been expropriated it is crazy to think they wouldn't fight to restore their property. To prevent them from doing so, is another task of the DotP. Also if anyone is proving they have no understanding of the DotP or the nature of capitalists and capitalism it is you.

This can ONLY mean that if you install a DOTP, upon capturing political power,. in preference to expropriating thre capitalist class in a socialist revolution, you ARE indeed effectively prolonging and preserving capitalism, justifiably or not. There is absolutely no way round this point - wriggle as you might.
I find it hilarious that you support capturing political power but oppose the DotP. Capturing political power in absence of the DotP you will have to administer capitalism. Also this statement here show you have absolutely no understanding period of the DotP if you think the working class capturing political power is any different from the DotP, unless you seek to preserve bourgeois government structures, in which case I can hardly consider you anything more than a social democrat masquerading as a communist.

You can claim that the intention is to &quot;eventually&quot; expropriate the capitalist class but, as I suggest, in my response to Blakes Baby, that intention is not worth the paper it is written on. As soon as the DOTP starts adminstering capitalism - as it must by definition - it will turn against the working class , stab our clas in the back and at the ealiest possible opportunity, jump into bed with Capital to consumate the marriage that was always arranged for it form the very word go
I don't claim it will eventually expropriate the capitalists, those are your words not mine. The DotP is a part of the process of expropriating the bourgeoisie. So there is no eventually. The DotP and expropriation and suppression of the bourgeoisie go hand in hand. With out the latter there is no DotP.

There is no excuse for this ludicrous dotty concept of the DOTP whatsoever and absolutely no reason at all to have it. Vanguardists who constantly come out with the lame excuse that you &quot;cant get rid of capitalism in one go&quot; are seeking in a backhanded manner to justify their own claim to power in advance of the working class becoming socialist-minded.
Hey asshat, guess what I'm not a leninist and the DotP was created by Marx who was pre-leninist. Also you're entire argument is so riddle with the false dilemma logical fallacy that it is hilarious.

Its simple really when you think about it. If a majority of the working class were socialist in outlook there would be no reason one could possibly advance for having some prolonged transition between capitalism and communism. Not that the idea itself is even logically coherent since what can possibly exist between a class based society and classless society - Nothing! In other words the DOTP is really nothing more than the means by which the vanguard can forestall socialism and assert its own pretensions to become a new ruling class on the pretext that the workers are not ready for socialism .

You ignore the fact that the bourgeoisie have access to tons of weapons, access to the bourgeois state machinery, and if there majority of the working class is socialist minded then there could still be a large portion of the working class who are not socialist minded and could be incredibly reactionary and support the bourgeoisie to suppress the revolution. Also you seem to be assume that revolution happens because of spreading of ideas. But from the historical experiences of various attempts at a working class revolution we see that that is incorrect. And furthermore it is an incredibly idealist concept.

[Red Enemy]

...You have not answered my questions, actually. You conveniently fail to answer them, and you do so in such a way you can't possible decipher one "answer" from another.

Socialism in one country:

You claim socialism - classlessness, statelessness, etc. can exist in one country (you do, whether its for a day or forever doesn't matter), but you oppose the Stalinist theory of SioC. That is not the issue, for either way, you are false. Capitalism is a global system, even more so toay than in the days of Engels when he said in his Principles of Communism:

"Can the revolution take place in one country alone?

By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range. "

I'm not sure if Engels could be any more clear.

You try to save yourself, however, by claiming that everywhere else on earth will be so highly class conscious AND socialist minded, that socialism everywhere else will follow soon after. This completely ignores the global nature of capitalism.

Continuing, you argue that "It will be a domino effect. One country becomes socialist, then another and more and more until the world is socialist!"

Whatever way you look at the "domino effect" one country will be socialist, in a sea of capitalism. Whether it be for a day, a fortnight, or 20 years.

The argument has never been "you can't have socialism in one country for long!"

It's "YOU CAN'T HAVE SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY, PERIOD!".

Unevenness of development of capitalism and class consciousness:

Though you repeat yourself over and over, like a broken record, you fail to explain how the workers of the world, the vast majority will become both class conscious and socialist minded at an even pace.

"The socialist nation(s) need not worry about outside capitalist armies, for the workers of those capitalist nations will be so highly class conscious and socialist minded that they will be too occupied to care!"

You never explain how this happens. Yes, we understand that the vast majority will achieve class consciousness, but how do they become "socialist minded"? Why will they strive for socialism, instead of striving for syndicalism. Or striving for a welfare state? Or striving for a "libertarian socialist" society as Chomsky would like to see?

Where does the "socialist mindedness" come from?

How do you believe class conscious can become so high everywhere, when you look at the USA (complacency) compared to Greece (rioting) in that aspect today?

What is capitalism?:

I asked you this with the intention of tackling your views on the DOTP. So, until you of answer this, I won't tackle the question of DOTP.

You mention the global nature of capitalism, but fail to directly explain what the capitalist mode of production is, and whether or not it defines capitalism in totality.

Would you be so kind as to actually answer that?

The abolition of classes:

You fail to explain how your revolution abolishes class, how it creates the inability of the bourgeoisie to hold counter-revolution.

Just saying "class is abolished, socialism established, that is all" means nothing.

How, we need to know HOW this happens.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat:

I will tackle this when you answer the previous, fully and directly. Remember the question I am asking is not "what?" but "how?".

[robbo203]

Cool, so you are redefining the DotP to meet your needs. The DotP includes the expropriation of the capitalists, since you can't successful expropriate the capitalists with out the tools to do so. The DotP includes these tools.
The DotP doesn't permit them to continue to exploit, because its entire purpose is to suppress and expropriate the capitalists.
.

No it is not and, if it was, then it wouldnt be a DOTP!! Can you not see this? The DOTP is a transition PERIOD supposedly between capitalism and communism. It may or may not culminate in the expropriation of capitalists - and I would say emphatically it will not - but that is besides the point

This is the whole point that you , Blakes Baby and others miss about the DOTP - the time factor. It refers to a period of time after the capture of power and supposedly leading up to the expropriation of the capitalists. It is not - repeat NOT - the expropriation of the capitalist per se. Blakes Baby in his dreamworld fantasy has even spelt out what would be entailed by this time factor. All over the world workers, he says, have to set up their own DOTPs in one country after another . This could take years even decades.

In the meanwhile a DOTP operating capitalism , which is what it will be doing, will have to operate capitalism in the only way it can be operated - against the workers. Wriggle as you might, you cant get out of this one and you know it. You might say until you are blue in the face that the entire purpose of of the DOTP is to "suppress and expropriate the capitalists" but until the capitalists are actually expropriated they will contiunue to exploit the proletariat and this will be carried out under the auspices of the so called DOTP , will it not?

Unless you advocate the immediate expropriation of the capitalists on seizing power - in which case there is no DOTP! - you have to logically accept that DOTP will allow for the capitalist to continue exploiting the workers. It may not like doing that, it may intend eventualy to do away with this state of affairs but while this state of affairs continues it is a simple incontrovertiuble fact that capitalism will be continuing and the workers continue to be exploited under the DOTP.

Becuase the DOTP will have to oversee the exploitation of the working class in the from of state capitalism , as Blake Baby has suggested, it will inevitably change from a supposed proletarian dictatorship to a dictatorship run in the interests of capital. Its as a simple as that and it is idealist folly to imagine that a state capitalist regime operating capitalism in the interest of capital would not find itself ideologically transformed into a supporter of capitalism rather than an opponent

[Ottoraptor]

Since it is obvious that you don't read anything we write in response to you I will say this. I don't care how you define the DotP, what we have been arguing is how the DotP was defined by the guy who made the concept and has been the concept that socialist movement has upheld. There is debate about whether the Russian revolution had the DotP and whatever, but that is a different discussion. Your constant redefining of the DotP and the use of the false dilemma logical fallacy is intellectually dishonest and quite frankly makes discussion with you tiring and pointless. Everyone else have fun.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Unless you advocate the immediate expropriation of the capitalists on seizing power - in which case there is no DOTP! - you have to logically accept that DOTP will allow for the capitalist to continue exploiting the workers. ...

Of course we advocate the immediate expropriation of the capitalists on seizing state power. It's like you don't bother to read what anyone else posts.

But 'the immediate expropriation of the capitalists (in this place)' is not the same as 'the abolition of capitalism (everywhere)'; and it must logically follow the seizure of state power; and for both of these reasons there must be a lag between the first seizure of state power (whether by election or insurrection) and the first local expropriation of the capitalists, and the last seizure of state power and final expropriation of the last capitalists, and it the intervening period that is called the DotP - at least, in those areas under proletarian control.

[robbo203]

Of course we advocate the immediate expropriation of the capitalists on seizing state power. It's like you don't bother to read what anyone else posts.

Nope. I go through each and every one of them with fine toothcomb. ;) The reverse is the case. It is you - and others like you - who do not understand the criticims that is being levelled at this argument of yours because you dont want to take on board what those criticism are. You prefer to bury your heads in the sand.

I know very well you claim the expropriation of the capitalists will be immediate but this will not, and logically cannot, be the case as long as you have a proletariat. Why? Because the proletariat is defined by the fact that it is economically oibliged to sell its labour power in return for a wage. To sell its labour power obviously implies the existence of a buyer of labour i.e a capitalist class.

You may "claim" you have expropriated the capitalist class but you will have nothing of the sort. The expropriation of individual capitalists does NOTmean the capitalist class has ceased to exist. Indeed if it did then it would absolutely nonsensical to talk about a proletariat existing since you cannot have a proletariat without a capitalist class and vice versa. This is elementary Marxism. Or are you disputing this? And if there is no proletariat there can be no such thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat - obviously . The very notion is internally incoherent

What in fact will be happening in your scenario is that the function of the capitalist class will simply be transferred to those who now control the state and administer capitalism as a de facto state capitalist class. This is what I am saying - that your state capitalist proposal does NOT do away with the capitalist class at all but merely transforms the form in which the capitalist class manifests itself.

There can be no such thing as capitalism without a capitalist class and you have freely admitted that under your dictatorship of the proletariat there would be capitalism

[Geiseric]

Oh my god this thread makes me want to smash my head into a concrete wall. Robbo, you're arguing semantics, the proletariat will physically exist after a revolution, as they are still doing work in factories or mines, or whatever they do, the owner though is the workers state, which has socialism as its goal. The working people in said territory will have spreading socialism as their priority, by means of supporting revolutions outside of the first country or region the revolution strikes first.

The expropiation of capitalists DOES MEAN that the capitalist class seizes to exist, seeing as they have no property. Those ex capitalists are now on the same level as the working class.

You're talking about nonsense. This quote in specific:


There can be no such thing as capitalism without a capitalist class and you have freely admitted that under your dictatorship of the proletariat there would be capitalism

Of course there cannot be capitalism without a capitalist class, nobody was arguing that, but you're saying that anything in between socialism and capitalism is capitalism, which is simplistic, and would of been used as an excuse by opportunists (like Kautsky) who wanted to distance themselves from the fSU in the 20's. That's the only practical application of that theory, somehow left communists dug that up and are more or less using it for the same purpose. The DotP is immediately after a revolution succeeds in expropiating the capitalists property, meaning their goals would logically be to do the opposite with the productive property they took back, meaning their goal would inevitably be socialism, OR ELSE THEY WOULDNT OF TAKEN THE PROPERTY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[robbo203]

The expropiation of capitalists DOES MEAN that the capitalist class seizes to exist, seeing as they have no property. Those ex capitalists are now on the same level as the working class.


Please explain - how can there be a working class if there is no capitalist class. The one thing implies the other. Or as Marx said "Capital therefore presupposes wage-labour; wage-labour presupposes capital. They condition each other; each brings the other into existence" (Wage Labour and Capital)

What you are talking about is merely "people who work". But this NOT a class. A class is a group of individuals who have a specific relaton to the means of prpduction in contradistinction to that of some other group of indivudals who have a different or opposed relationship. More concretely, a class based society is one in which one class appropriates an economuc surplus from another via various methods of surplus extraction




Of course there cannot be capitalism without a capitalist class, nobody was arguing that,

Not true. Blakes Baby and others are. BB has said the capitalists will be immeidately expropriated when the working class seizes power but that capitalism will continue undeer the auspices of the DOTP. That implies he is saying there can be capitalism without capitalists which of course is nonsense




an but you're saying that anything in between socialism and capitalism is capitalism, which is simplistic, and would of been used as an excuse by opportunists (like Kautsky) who wanted to distance themselves from the fSU in the 20's.


Thats not what I am saying., Im saying there is nothing in between capitalism and socialism. How can there be anything between a class based society and a classless society? Its either one or the other

[Geiseric]

Well the N.E.P. happened which was basically allowing capitalism while the state still owns most property, so the capitalism exists only to advance several industries which are lacking due to lack of education, such as oil refineries, or military production, or advancing agricultural methods with modern technology only possessed by capitalists. That was necessary during the N.E.P. and that was genuinely state capitalism.

However as soon as collectivization started, more and more property was owned publicly, and labor demands were more or less completely fulfilled. There was a standard of living rivaling most imperialist countries, no unemployment, a free and complete education, and the economy was progressed in terms of what would the society as a whole need in order to function well. It was worthless by capitalist measurements, seeing as the average working day was 8 hours, pay was higher than all imperialized countries, and the production was geared towards what was needed, rather than what could be sold. So if none of the objective goals of capitalism are being met, i.e. a surplus value of labor which was stolen by a capitalist, owning class, in whatever proportion was possible (which was only possible after the dissolution) it was not capitlaism in the fSU.

[Blake's Baby]

...
I know very well you claim the expropriation of the capitalists will be immediate but this will not, and logically cannot, be the case as long as you have a proletariat...

Who expropriates the capitalists, Robbo?

Is it the proletariat?

By your logic the proletariat cannot expropriate the capitalists, because then it wouldn't be a proletariat. So logically, revolution is impossible.

I'm rather reminded of the Greek philosopher, who, while expounding on the Paradoxes of Zeno and the illusion of motion, dislocated his arm. A physician in the audience examined the arm, and declared, that either the arm was already where it appeared to be, and therefore wasn't dislocated, or it hadn't moved, and therefore could not have become dislocated. The philosopher quickly abandoned his partiality for the School of Parmenides, after that.

So; in the time it takes the proletariat to establish control over the economy, after the political seizure of power, before the complete seizure and reorganisation of the entire economy - you must see that that can't all be done instantaneously, can't you? - that is the dictatorship of the proletariat, whether that takes 9 months, 9 days or 9 seconds. There must be a working class that takes the decision to abolish capitalism, yes? That decision process (debating, deciding, acting on) is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Blake's Baby]

...
I know very well you claim the expropriation of the capitalists will be immediate but this will not, and logically cannot, be the case as long as you have a proletariat...

Who expropriates the capitalists, Robbo?

Is it the proletariat?

By your logic the proletariat cannot expropriate the capitalists, because then it wouldn't be a proletariat.

I'm rather reminded of the Greek philosopher, who, while expounding on the Paradoxes of Zeno and the illusion of motion, dislocated his arm. A physician in the audience examined the arm, and declared, that either the arm was already where it appeared to be, and therefore wasn't dislocated, or it hadn't moved, and therefore could not have become dislocated. The philosopher quickly abandoned his partiality for the School of Parmenides, after that.

So; in the time it takes the proletariat to establish control over the economy, after the political seizure of power, before the complete seizure and reorganisation of the entire economy - you must see that that can't all be done instantaneously, can't you? - that is the dictatorship of the proletariat, whether that takes 9 months, 9 days or 9 seconds. There must be a working class that takes the decision to abolish capitalism, yes? That decision process (debating, deciding, acting on) is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[robbo203]

Who expropriates the capitalists, Robbo?

Is it the proletariat?

By your logic the proletariat cannot expropriate the capitalists, because then it wouldn't be a proletariat. So logically, revolution is impossible.

How on earth do you deduce this from what Ive said? Once again, it demonstrates what I earlier said - that you dont actually listen to criticism . You prefer instead to put words into people's mouths in order to come back with convenient but completely crackpot deductions such as this. Be aware - chop logic, such as you employ above, in an attempt to sound oh-so-clever is a high risk strategy that can backfire badly!

Of course it is the proletariat that that expropriates the capitalists but in expropriating the capitalists it abolishes itself as the exploited class. This is my point. There is no other sensible meaning for the word "expropriation". Expropriation means getting rid of the capitalists monoply on the means of production - and therefore their ability to exploit the proletaraiat - and making these means of production the common property of everyone. When property is common there are no classes. There is no proletariat and therefore there cannot be such a thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat. Period. And this happens, I argue, in the very instance that capitalists are expropriated. Tne expropriation of the capitalist class means the end of capitalism . And of course, it goes with out saying, the proletariat

You, on the other hand, say the capitalists are immediately expropriated but mysteriously the proletariat as the exploited class of capitalism somehow continues to exist under the auspices of the DOTP. If the proletariat as an exploited class continues to exists how can that possibly be without the continued existence of another class that does the exploiting? You talk of "logic", Perhaps you might care to "logically" explain that little consumdrum, eh?




So; in the time it takes the proletariat to establish control over the economy, after the political seizure of power, before the complete seizure and reorganisation of the entire economy - you must see that that can't all be done instantaneously, can't you? - that is the dictatorship of the proletariat, whether that takes 9 months, 9 days or 9 seconds. There must be a working class that takes the decision to abolish capitalism, yes? That decision process (debating, deciding, acting on) is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

No the polittical seizure of power in the name of socialism is ipso facto and at the same time "establishing control over the economy". These are NOT two separate events as you claim and this yet another point on which you err because you do not understand what the revolutiuonary process is really about or what it depends upon . The revolution depends on the prior growth of socialist consciousness to the point where a majority are socialists and this comes with the expectation - shared not only by socialists but universally - that with conquest of political power by this socialist majority capitalism ceases to exists. This is the "rule switch" idea I refered to a few posts ago. I suggest you re-read what I wrote if you want to get a hang of what I am arguing for here - rather than me repeating myself


Of course the working class "takes the decision to abolish capitalism" . It takes that decision or arrives at it before taking power and takes power precisely in ordere to implement that decision. It doesnt decide to abolish capitalism after it has taken power as you suggests . Thats ludicrous frankly. Think about it, You are saying that the "decision process" to abolish capitalism is the " is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" which in turn is supposedly something that happens after the proletariat seizes power., is it not?

According to this what you are saying is that the working class seizes power and then thinks to itself - "hey, wouldnt it be a great idea to get rid of capitalism now that weve got power"!!! You cant be serious surely? What are you trying to say? That the working class having immediately expropriated the capitalists only then gets round tho thinking as some kind of afterthought that it should now get rid of capitalism?

Presumably you didnt really mean to say that and this just sloppy wording on your part but I did warn that I go through my opponents posts with a fine toothcomb! Be careful next time ;)

[Art Vandelay]

words

So are you a supporter of socialism in one country? If not, what replaces capitalism, in a individual country which has successfully expropriated the capitalist class?

[robbo203]

So are you a supporter of socialism in one country? If not, what replaces capitalism, in a individual country which has successfully expropriated the capitalist class?

No I am not a supporter of the Stalinist idea of socialism in one country. See my earlier response to Blakes Baby who still insists on misrepresenting me as such

[Art Vandelay]

No I am not a supporter of the Stalinist idea of socialism in one country. See my earlier response to Blakes Baby who still insists on misrepresenting me as such

So a manifestation of socialism in one country fundamentally different from the stalinist idea of sioc (which we can all agree was not socialism). Would that perhaps be a good way of phrasing it?

[robbo203]

So a manifestation of socialism in one country fundamentally different from the stalinist idea of sioc (which we can all agree was not socialism). Would that perhaps be a good way of phrasing it?

No, because the existence of countries - states - is incompatible with socialism and that fundamentalkly is where Blakes baby goes wrong in his critique of my scenario. A state implies the existence of classes and therefore the absence of socialism

[Art Vandelay]

No, because the existence of countries - states - is incompatible with socialism and that fundamentalkly is where Blakes baby goes wrong in his critique of my scenario. A state implies the existence of classes and therefore the absence of socialism

So what is it that exists within the confines of a state when the capitalist class has been expropriated? Since you've already made it clear that it can't be capitalism, it also (from your last post) can't be socialism, so what is it?

[robbo203]

So what is it that exists within the confines of a state when the capitalist class has been expropriated? Since you've already made it clear that it can't be capitalism, it also (from your last post) can't be socialism, so what is it?


No you misunderstand me. There is no state after the capitalists have been expropriated and socialism has been established. This is why the expression socialism in one country is entirely inapt. It implies the existence of a state and therefore of classess and therefore or the absence of classless socialism

[Prof. Oblivion]

This thread is a great example of why the communist left is annoying. :)

[Art Vandelay]

No you misunderstand me. There is no state after the capitalists have been expropriated and socialism has been established. This is why the expression socialism in one country is entirely inapt. It implies the existence of a state and therefore of classess and therefore or the absence of classless socialism

So you believe that the workers of all country will rise simultaneously in all countries? If not, then there is a glaring hole in your convictions.

[Alf]

This thread is a great example of why the communist left is annoying.

But is this thread still about the communist left? It seems to have become a discussion about the period of transition. Obviously the communist left has had rather a lot to say about this particular subject, and still has, but it wasn't what the thread was originally about.

[Luís Henrique]

Stalinists often caricaturise the internationalist position as meaning that we would have to have a simultaneous revolution in all the globe, or it wouldn't lead to socialism.

I think some of us are internalising such caricature.

When we say "socialism in one country is impossible", we don't mean that it must be implanted simultaneously in all countries. Nor do we think that the seizure of political power by the workers is the same as socialism; and not even that the mere seizure of property by the workers - or even less by a State that represents them - is the same as socialism.

What we mean is that capitalism is an international system, that must be destroyed internationally - and, so, that capitalism in one country is as impossible as socialism in one country. If most countries undergo revolutions, the few capitalist regimes that remain will be very unstable, and increasingly so - because the loss of markets and productive capacity is going to be fatal to them. Not necessarily in fifteen minutes or two days; but they cannot last many years without workers within their boundaries joining the revolutionary movement. If on the other hand only a few countries undergo revolutions, and capitalism is able to remain an international system, albeit somewhat mangled by the defection of some countries, it is those few revolutionary countries that will be isolated, and sooner or later forced back into the capitalist flock.

How many countries? And how much time until the international system (be it socialist or capitalist) sways the minority back into the fold? I don't know, and I don't know. Obviously countries are not equal, having bigger or smaller populations, stronger or weaker armies, and weathier or poorer economies. I would say that what is today the capitalist centre - US, UE, and Japan - is key, though. Remaining capitalist States won't be able to rebuild capitalism as an international system if those countries go through revolutions. And revolutionary States around the world won't be able to force socialism into the capitalist centre if it remains unrevolutionised.

Another source of confusion seems to be whether an economy is still capitalist if workers, or the State, seizes all private property. Unlike some have stated, capitalism without capitalists is possible. It cannot be stable, and consequently it cannot last for a too long time (how much time? empyrical evidence is, about seven decades), but it can kick and scream a lot until its internal contradictions destroy it. Of course, the problem of a capitalism without capitalists is that capital can only exist through competition (so theories, or better saying, fantasies, about "State capitalism" as an only-one-capitalist-owning-everything are necessarily bogus - and, to keep with the supposed topic of this thread, annoying).

But we know that State monopoly of the means of production, coupled with very obvious capitalist relations of production, such as a wage system, can exist for a limited amount of time, until a "normal" capitalist situation is reinstated. Are such abnormalities capitalist (as suggested by the preservation of wage slavery) or socialist (as suggested by the absence of competition of private capitals)? Only a detailed and circumstantiated analysis can tell, but the botton line is that one of those things (the wage system vs the State monopoly of means of production) must necessarily be mere appearance, hiding its contrary. In the case of the Soviet Union and the other "working class paradises" everywhere, it was the State monopoly that was mere appearance, hiding, and unsuccesfully trying to strangle, competition between particular capitals.

Anyway, we shouldn't be discussing the issue of transition in abstract. For in this way we will necessarily conclude that the transition is impossible, and consequently either capitalism is eternal or socialism will have to be achieved through an act of God. In the concrete, real world, the transition is going to be messy and will imply theoretically impossible "mixed" and unstable situations.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

This thread is a great example of why the communist left is annoying. :)

This thread is a great example of why the communist left is annoying.

Fixed for you.

Luís Henrique