A few disagreemnts with Marxist tradiition

[Unumundisto]

Though I agree with the platform proposals of the communist parties (other than the disagreements expressed in this post), and though I'd vote for the communist parties over all the other parties, I'm posting this topic to the Opposing Ideologes forum, because I'm here expressing some disagreements with Marx.

There have been excellent answers to Questionist's questions.

But I'd like to comment a little about one of the questions:

Questonist asked "How do you envision revolution?"

This isn't 1919, or even 1949. Marx lived in a different era. It's true that Marx made some remarkably-accurate predictions, but it's also true that no one can predict every change that will come about in the future.

Marx spoke in terms of socialism being established via a fighting revolution. In his day that was feasible, in Russia, and later in China, and elswhere too.

But technology has changed that. I suggest that a fighting revolution to establish socialism worldwide, or even successfully in one country, is no longer possible.

What's possible then? I always speak of electoral change. But I don't claim that it can really happen. I live in the U.S. Our election count-results are unverifiable. Without verifiable count results, how can anything be accomplished electorally.

Sure, we could, and should, all demand verifiable vote counting results. Surely that's something that everyone, regardless of their political persuasion should agree on.

But it that demand hasn't materialized yet, and maybe it never will.

And, even if the American public all demanded verifiable vote-count results, and, thereby, legitimate elections and legimate government, does anyone think that the Regime would grant that request for legitimate elections? Why should they?

And, any case, if someone is profiting from the way things now are, and has proven willing to commit all sorts of massacres and attrocities for gain, how likely is it that they'd reliquinsh power just because they lost an election?

So, I'm not claiming that voting can bring about the change to socialism. But I'm claiming a fighting revolution is no longer possible...is entirely impossible now, in this more high-tech age.

Though voting won't do it either, it's still a starting point, and as good a starting point as any. It makes use of an already-set-up public-choice procedure. If we, the public, insist on verifiable vote-counting results, and it isn't granted...legimate elections aren't granted, then everyone, in our country, and throughout the world, will see that we don't have democracy. The democracy-pretense will be over.

...Likewise, and more dramatically, if we voted the Republicans and Democrats out, and voted socialism, or even nonsocialist progressives, into office, and the election results were ignored by the government, and the powers-that-be refused to step down--That, too, would dramatize, domestically and worldwide, that we don't have democracy.

Maybe the traditional socialist &/or communist scenario is that, at that time, there would be a fighing revolution, and that it would be successful.

But, as I said above, a fighting revoution is entirely impossible, given today's high-tech military. Don't waste any time even considering the possibilitly of a fighting revolution.

So what could we do? Well, I suspect that, if it ever became blatantly obvious that we don't have democracy (as it could if the voters here ever actually demanded democracy, or tried to actually use it (That would be a first), then people would start leaving. There would be a mass exodus. Other countries would be called-upon to receive political refugees.

Yes, maybe refugee running-away sounds a cowardly compard to revolution, but I claim that there's nothing cowardly about not fighting, when fighting is impossible.

I suggest that, if the lack of democracy ever became that blatantly obvious, and if enough people left, as political refugees--voted with their feet--then _that_ is what might actually bring about the changes that Americans demand (in that hypothetical future in which Amercans demand something).

It won't happen by fighting.

It probably won't happen by voting (but we should try voting anyway. It's worth a try. It might even work, to make things better--but don't count on it.)

But maybe it will happen by voting-with-our-feet, in the (still only hypothetical) scenario in which the American people actually demand something better, and it is denied them.

Though, as I've often said, I'd rank communist parties over democratic socialist parties, and would rank them both over nonsocialist progressive parties, this post expresses an opinion (the optinion that a fighting-revolution is impossible) that is contrary to what Marx predicted and recommended. Therefore, I'm posting this message to the Opposing Idologies forum

...even though I like the communist parties, would vote for them, and agree with them on how things should be run. My agreement with the communist parties is complete, except that I argue that fighting revolution is impossible, and I also argue that religion and socialism/communism are fully compatible, and that communism doesn't imply or require Atheism or Matrialism. But I've discussed that issue in another posting to this Opposing Ideologies forum, and posting something twice is impermissible. So, for the matter of Materialism and Atheism, I refer you my posting on that topic--It was a reply, in the Religion sticky-subforum, in the thread entitled "Are communism and religion incompatible?", or something to that effect.

Unumundisto

[Blake's Baby]

What do you mean by 'a fighting revolution'?

If you want to know what a pre-revolutionary situation looks like, look at France in 1968, or Poland in 1980. They're pretty much the closest the working class has come to the mass strike in the last 50 years. I don't remember guerrillas hiding in forests or whatever. The working class has power because it is the class that actually does the work in society. It is the working class that keeps the lights on and the trains running and the food being delivered and cooked. We can - must - paralyse capitalism's ability to function, and then we must use the productive capacity that capitalism has created to produce for need not profit. Revolution is the act of taking over society from the capitalists - the 'fighting' will come from capitalism's resistance.

[Unumundisto]

What do you mean by 'a fighting revolution'?


I mean a revolution in which there's shooting. Combat. When it comes to inflicting harm, no one can even come close to the killing-capacity of capitalism's high-tech military.

Maybe there's a supposed scenario in which soldiers of non-elite background will rebel (not likely if they've voluntrily-enlisted). But a few highly-paid, and maybe privilege-born, missle or drone technicians, artillermen, and ground-attack pilots, assisted by military satellites, and all the other advanced military technology, could easily wipe out a lot of soldiers.

No, a fighting-revolution is entirely impossible, in this era of high-tech military.



The working class has power because it is the class that actually does the work in society. It is the working class that keeps the lights on and the trains running and the food being delivered and cooked. We can - must - paralyse capitalism's ability to function


A general strike. See my answer to that, in my last paragraphs of this post.



, and then we must use the productive capacity that capitalism has created to produce for need not profit.


Of course, but it's a question of how to get from here to there. See below:




Revolution is the act of taking over society from the capitalists - the 'fighting' will come from capitalism's resistance.
[/quote]

Yes, and who would win that fight? A general strike sounds powerful, but its vulnerable. How would the stikers survive? Where would they get food? Energy? Supplies? The rulers could easily deny them the use of agricultural land.

Outside strike-support? Two problems with that:

1. It would also be easy for the rulers to deny access to that outside support. Remember who has the military.

2. The other fairly prosperous countries of the world haven't shown any inclination to stand up and oppose--they've so far only demonstrated willingness to go along.

On the other hand, the rulers could easily get work done by a combination of the domestic citizens who don't participate in the strike, and by foreign workers, whether working in their own countries, or imported. They could get things built or repaired in other countries too, during the short time that it would take to win the general strike conflict.

No, the high-tech military equipped rulers would have the upper hand.

So, the general strike would be terribly vulnerable, and wouldn't have a chance. And that's even before we consider the damage that the military could do to the strikers by direct attack, as opposed to only the denial of food, energy and supplies. The general
strike woudln't have a chance.

That's why I emphasized, in my intial thread-starting post, that leaving would be the only oiption available, if the time comes when the denial of democracy becomes so blatant that everyone notices it.

"Voting-with-our-feet." It would amount to a sort of boycott. The rulers would end up wilthout any rule-ees.

I suggest that _that_ is the only kind of resistance that could ever be feasible. It would depend on the international community accepting a lot of refugees, and I don't know how feasible that would be.

If you define "revolution" very broadly, so that it includes anything other than "working through the system", then I suggest that, if the denial of democracy ever becomes so blatant that everyone notices it and wants to resist it, then boycott by running-away would be the only form of revolution available. But of course even that broadened meaning of "revolution" couldn't apply unless the running-away could result in change and improvement in the home country that the refugees have left.

There's nothing wrong with running away instead of fighting, when fighting is impossible.

Unumundisto

[Blake's Baby]

So everyone runs away.

Where to? We only have one planet.

[RedHal]

not sure if serious:confused:

[Unumundisto]

So everyone runs away.

Where to? We only have one planet.

Sure, it's true that refugees wouldn't really be able to get away from oppression, because the oppression is worldwide.

But they could at least put some distance between themselves an its epicenter, and, be out of danger from retaliation for the withdawal of their work, and maybe not be much worse off than the people of the countries that they go to.

Besides, maybe this boycott-by-leaving could have an effect something like that of a successful general strike, with the loss of the owners' ability to hold onto power, and the establishment of a people's government.

I'm just saying that, if there's any scenario that could result in improvement, it seems to me that it would go something like that.

But we all agree on what the desired state of affairs is: a people's government, where the land and property are democratically-managed for the benefit of us all, and where working people control their working-conditions and are the owners and beneficiaries of what they produce and do.

I think that organizations like PSL, WWP, FRSO and SEP say it best, and have the best assessment of how things are, in human affairs, and have the best proposals for that new government.

Communists tend to overemphasize their differences, but we really differ only on details.

Unumundisto

[Blake's Baby]

Look, I get that you think that people should withdraw their labour by going somewhere else.

WHERE?

All the people from America share themselves out between Asia Europe and Africa. OK. Where do the people from Europe go? Well, they go to Asia, Africa and America. The people from Asia go to Africa, Europe and America, the people from Africa go to Europe America and Asia.

Net result: everywhere has the same number of people as before, only everyone's gone through a lot of stress and hassle.

So, I'll repeat my question.

Where do they go?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I mean a revolution in which there's shooting. Combat. When it comes to inflicting harm, no one can even come close to the killing-capacity of capitalism's high-tech military.

Maybe there's a supposed scenario in which soldiers of non-elite background will rebel (not likely if they've voluntrily-enlisted). But a few highly-paid, and maybe privilege-born, missle or drone technicians, artillermen, and ground-attack pilots, assisted by military satellites, and all the other advanced military technology, could easily wipe out a lot of soldiers.
It's workers who build drones, workers who load missiles into launchers, workers who fuel aircraft. A worker's revolution would prevent any ability of the capitalists to respond.


Yes, and who would win that fight? A general strike sounds powerful, but its vulnerable. How would the stikers survive? Where would they get food? Energy? Supplies? The rulers could easily deny them the use of agricultural land.
We reject the capitalists 'right' to deny land to the human race. Revolutionary workers would use that land regardless of the complaints of the landowners. You should read about the Seattle General strike and how they organised effectively to provide for virtually all the city during the five day stoppage or the early soviets, the communes in the Spanish Civil War, the Zapatistas in Mexico or the factory takeovers in Argentina and in Greece. All we advocate is taking that planned organisation to its revolutionary and logical conclusion and getting rid of the 'need' for a class of parasites who produce nothing but take everything.

[Unumundisto]

It's workers who build drones, workers who load missiles into launchers, workers who fuel aircraft. A worker's revolution would prevent any ability of the capitalists to respond.


Yes, but my concern would just be that the privileged 1% could field a few technicians, and highly-pay a few more money-loyal ones. ...and that, with todays high-tech military equipment, even that 1%, with their helpers, could make survival impossible for a general-strike.

Maybe any additioinal need for spare-parts and repairs could be met by foreign out-sourcing, which, after all, is much used now for the purpose of cheap wages.

Ok, I'm not one of those people who insists on being the one who's right; I'm merely expressing a concern. Maybe, even in this modern high-tech age, a general work-stoppage strike would collapse the capitalist regime, and maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

Sure, when the denial of democracy become sufficiently obvious to everyone, non-coopertation with an unwelcome oppressive regime would come easy and naturally. But, to some degree at least, advanced military technology has probably moved the balance-of-power in favor of the rulers, and that could adversely affect the prospects of a general strike.

At best it would make survival in a general-strike much more difficult. Maybe a mass-exodus could achieve the same result as a general-strike, without the hardship and risk of attack. That's what I meant in my previous posts.

At worst, it could mean that, due to advanced military technology, for the first time in history, there is an un-removable empire that will hang on for the rest of human history.

No doubt that's what the rulers think. Could it be so?



We reject the capitalists 'right' to deny land to the human race.


Of course, and I agree. But every day they're doing things they don't have a right to do.



Revolutionary workers would use that land regardless of the complaints of the landowners.


My concern was just that the rulers could use military means to deny the use of the land, in the event of a general strike.

I admit that you know the history better than I do. I should read more, before talking so pessimistic. My fear is just that modern technology has drastically changed history, for the worse, but my pessimism might be unwarranted.

I don't claim to know; I just wanted to express these concerns.



All we advocate is taking that planned organisation to its revolutionary and logical conclusion and getting rid of the 'need' for a class of parasites who produce nothing but take everything.

I completely agree with the desirability of that. When everyone sees that demoracy has been taken away (or that we never had it anyway), then certainly a general-strike would be a natural response.

I merely mention that mass-exodus, to other, sympathetic, countries, might be the form of support-withdrawal that might be able to achieve the same result, without as much hardship and risk of attack.

We preferrers of the communist parties are a diverse group, and I know that my perspective on these matters is a minoritiy-perspective, in that group. So I just wanted to express these considerations, in the spirit of completely open dialog, with the idea that there's positive value in considering even the most pessimistic possibilitis. I felt that OI is the place to express pessimistic speculation.

Unumundisto

[Unumundisto]

Look, I get that you think that people should withdraw their labour by going somewhere else.

WHERE?


Well, Russia, especially east of the Urals, and western China, have a lot of land, and are in the process of developing.

Ok, I admit that it's a questionable idea. I don't know if there is any feasible good scenario.

It's just that a general strike will be met by violence and a military denial of life-support, such as water-sources, agricultural land and other supplies. ...and possible direct attack.

So a successful general strike has feasibility problems too.

So I just wanted to bring up a form of support-withdrawal (mass-exodus) that could avoid those hardships and risks. As I said above, I admit that it's a questionable idea.

Maybe I shouldn't have brought up these pessimistic concerns. I should apologize to the group for the discouraging talk from a newcomer.

Unumundisto

[Celtic_0ne]

Have you heard of asymmetric warfare?

[Celtic_0ne]

Also when military relies so heavily upon advanced technology all that is necessary is to disable technology for it is weak making guerrilla hit and run tactics much more effective I believe the Chinese wrote a book on this recently

[Unumundisto]

Hi Celtic1--



Have you heard of asymmetric warfare


Sure. Maybe the people in the general strike could survive the attacks and other measures that will be used against them.

I was just talking about people withdrawig their labor by removing themselves to safety, somewere else.

There are few things that we here all agree on. Non-socialist progressives, and the parties known as "democratic socialist" parties, seem to be saying that the society that they advocate will come about electorally. We here all agree that that isn't likely, and sounds naive. We agree that it's obvious that we don't really have democracy, but, if we did, and we successfullly used it to elect someone better than the capitalists, the capitalists would be unlikey to step down just because they lose an election.

And we seem to all agree that, at such time as everyone realizes what's wrong, the power possessed by the people who do the work will be the power to withold and withdraw their labor. All we've been disagreeing on is the secondary detail about the form tht that labor-witholding and withdrawing will take: Staying in the home country and do a general strike, versus a mass-exodus in which people instead, somehow, remove themselves to safety.
somewhere.

Blake has questioned the feasibility of that, and yes its feasibility is dubious.

But both forms of labor-withdrawal have their problems.

I emphasize and repeat that everyone here seems to agree on the main point: The power possessed by the people who do the work is their power to withdraw their labor.

We all hope that someday the public, as a whole, will realize what's wrong with how they're being abused. There might be different scenarios about how that will come about. Maybe things will get economically worse, or maybe things will get so bad politically that the average Joe will take notice and refuse to support his rulers anymore.

Some, including me, feel that at least the first part of the process probably consists of _trying_ electoral improvment. That's the improvement-method that our media say can help us, and so it's what people believe in, if they haven't become so cynical that they've completely given up.
,
In that scenario, it's still a long and difficult multi-step process, without any certainty of success. First, people have to understand that some progressive party (it doesn't much matter which one) actually offers proposals that will fix the things that everyone is complaining about, and offers the things that so many people want. It's true, and maybe people will eventually realize it. Than, if they also come to realize that the corrupt incumbant parties (Democrats and Republicans, in this country) aren't different from eachother, and offer no improvement, then they'll start actually voting for what they want.

That's a very optimistic big step.

Then comes the next optimistic hope: If the democracy is genuine, if the vote-count is legitimate and honest, and if the rulers will accept their electoral defeat and step down, then we're free. In subsequent elections, in that newly elected progressive government, we'll have ample opportunity to discuss all the proposed forms of society, including socialism, and including, in particular, the socialists governments offered by the communist parties.

So, in the optmistic version, the full improvement can happen purely electorally. I don't think that will happen, and I doubt that anyone here believes it either.

But i feel that the way to the point where people reach the point of withdrawing their labor will be through at least _trying_ the electoral approach, because, as I said, that's what people believe in, if they believe in any attempt at improvement.

When people demand verifiable vote-count results, and the regime doesn't allow it, then that point will have been reached, the point where people realize that the existing system won't help them,and that they must stop supporting that system, by withdrawing their material support of it, their labor.

The other possibility (more farfetched) would be that we actually elect a progressive party to office, but then the powers-that-be refuse to step down, and we find outselves in an un-disguised dictatorship. That too would, in this scenario, trigger the disenchantment, resulting in the complete national labor-withdrawal.

The differences expressed here involve 1)The particular route by which the public reach the disillusionment,and the point of completely rejecting their capitalist rulers, and withdrawing their labor; And 2) The particular form that that labor withdrawal can, should &/or will take.

These details are things that can't really be known at this time anyway. And they are just secondary details. The disagreement here has only been about a secondary detail.

Unumundisto

[Canada]

Yes, but my concern would just be that the privileged 1% could field a few technicians, and highly-pay a few more money-loyal ones. ...and that, with todays high-tech military equipment, even that 1%, with their helpers, could make survival impossible for a general-strike.


The whole point of ruling is to have subjects who do your bidding, preferably voluntarily. With nukes, a tiny group is already capable of reducing all cities to rubble, and yet they don't do it. They could rule the whole world, but who would even want to then?