Simple question

[Ritzy Cat]

This may be a simple question or not, but I'm not sure. I've been reading some commie literature but I'm having a bit of a discrepancy with some of the stuff I am reading.

What would you call someone would agrees with most of Lenin's points regarding the role of the state, purpose of a communist society, and that a capitalist society must be completely overthrown, but this revolution does not necessarily have to be violent?

[Slavic]

A non-revolutionary socialist? So a Social Democrat I'm assuming.

You agree with socialist principles but you wish them to be implemented in a non-revolutionary way, I would call that a Social Democrat. Someone who works within the capitalist system to gain power and change the means of production through stateism and legal decrees. Also this method can not be claimed as revolutionary or even non-violent revolutionary because a revolution is an authoritative changing of a social order. Such a sudden and dramatic change can never be done without bloodshed.

[Niccolo]

I think that description fits reformist socialism very well. If you meant gradual change as opposed to violent tactics when you made this comment: "but this revolution does not necessarily have to be violent?", then I would say you fit 'reformism', indeed.

I think you would be interested in the 'evolutionary socialism' advocated by Eduard Bernstein, and in order to keep your mind sharpened on the issue, after reading some Bernstein, read Luxemburg's attack on this reformism, titled Reform or Revolution. An interesting debate indeed, and a very splitting issue among socialists.

[Ritzy Cat]

I may just simply be turned off of the idea of a violent, bloody revolution. My personal belief is that it is necessary to completely abolish the capitalist system because we cannot "salvage" something from what is inherently corrupt, but I wouldn't want it to be violent. However as from what I've been reading with Lenin, his critique on the idea of "withering of the State" makes sense to me, and I don't think gradual reform would allow us to evolve into a communist society over time.

I'm assuming that Lenin wouldn't WANT It to be violent, but it would only simply become violent because of reactionary's desire to preserve their power, thus the communists would have to fight them to remove the bourgeoisie state. Is this what he means to say?

This is probably an overly simple concept I'm failing to grasp, but any clearing up would be great!

[Damon]

Some things are determined by the design of nature, and are therefor out of our hands to a certain degree.

Throughout history world-changing movements came and went, but they always started off slowly. They began as internal revolutions in the hearts and minds of a few, and then grew over time. But there nearly always came a time when the growth became exponentially rapid and literally went from questionable one day to all-consuming the next.

In this way it would seem that ideological revolution behaves similar to flame: a single spark may ignite kindling, and the kindling may ignite a single branch. From there the flame may ignite a pile of timber, and from there become an unstoppable blaze.

If ever we find ourselves wondering how things may work or are supposed to work, try turning to the natural world for examples. Everything in this world is interconnected, and parallels between all things abound.

I too am no fan of violence, but I recognize that nature is quite often a violent and dangerous force. We may not be able to control our conditions, but we do have considerably more control over how we respond to the elements. The winds come and go and bring with them changes in the weather, but it is up to us to decide how we respond to those ever-changing conditions. The world belongs to nature, but our thoughts, words, and actions belong to us.

[consuming negativity]

Leaving the room open for a hypothetically peaceful transfer of power from the bourgeoisie to the people doesn't make you a non-revolutionary, a social democrat, or anything else that people ITT have said. As long as you do not rule out violent revolution, I still think calling yourself a Leninist would be appropriate. However, what you ought to understand - and will in time - is that there has never been any truly non-violent revolutions in history and there won't be any time soon.

Here's a little excerpt of Engels that I like, taken from The Principles of Communism:



Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

[Ritzy Cat]

That makes sense. I understand there never has been, I just hope that some hypothetical situation could occur in which the proletariat could "peacefully" rid of the power, and I'm sure everyone would hope that, but what kind of bourgeoisie would willingly give up his power?

I like that quote.

I also have another question, if you all don't mind answering.

Can someone give me a list of several examples of a bourgeoisie and a proletariat in modern America? I can understand the terms, but most of the people I know are not labor-workers, and I don't particularly know anyone who "manages" these workers. The historical context Lenin and Marx wrote in is different from today so I'm having trouble trying to figure out who needs to be labeled "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie".

[Damon]

Also, just something to consider:

Lasting change is change made voluntarily. External revolution is one thing, but it isn't as tangible as internal revolution. Those who go through the metamorphosis without being forced remain changed forever; however, those who change because of violent force tend to one day rebel.

So long as the change comes by force there will always be a force of resistance against it, no matter how powerful it becomes. Christianity nearly conquered the entire world, but even of the course of thousands of years there were always pockets of resistance, and now it is fading from existence.

Lasting change comes from freedom of choice - true freedom of choice, free of heavily biased influence or aggressive rhetoric.

[reb]

Unless you articulate your understanding of how the state is to function in this then we can't comment.

[Slavic]

I also have another question, if you all don't mind answering.

Can someone give me a list of several examples of a bourgeoisie and a proletariat in modern America? I can understand the terms, but most of the people I know are not labor-workers, and I don't particularly know anyone who "manages" these workers. The historical context Lenin and Marx wrote in is different from today so I'm having trouble trying to figure out who needs to be labeled "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie".

To simplify, proletariat are those who sell their labor for wages and the bourgeoisie are those who own the means of production and employ the proletariat.

This is a very basic and simple understanding of the two classes and I can give you some examples of who would fit into those classes in modern day.

The proletariat does not own the means of production and merely operates them for wages. Many people can fall into this category; laborers, clerks, teachers, factory and laboratory workers, service workers, etc. All of these people sell their labor to another for wages. One does not have to physically make something to be within the proletariat class.

The bourgeoisie own the means of production and employ the proletariat to operate them. This includes; CEOs, shareholders, business owners, etc. All of these people own outright or partially the means of production of an industry and employee the proletariat to operate them. Business owners who have no employees but themselves are considered petite-bourgeoisie.

I hope that helps you understand how even old Marxist terms are still useful today. My distinctions were very simple especially since I didn't touch on those who protect the means of production but do not own them such as police, military, security, managers, etc. Their status is not quiet clear cut bourgeois or proletariat but are typically considered opponents of the revolution since they actively work against the proletariat's interests.

[argeiphontes]

I think that description fits reformist socialism very well. If you meant gradual change as opposed to violent tactics when you made this comment: "but this revolution does not necessarily have to be violent?", then I would say you fit 'reformism', indeed.

Um, it doesn't. Aren't reformists people who want capitalism to continue, but reformed so that it's livable? Otherwise, as Pannekoek wrote, "the revolution is a series of reforms" so it doesn't make any sense to just add a temporal aspect and call it 'revolution', as if a slow or nonviolent revolution in social production wasn't a revolution anymore.

[Sea]

This may be a simple question or not, but I'm not sure. I've been reading some commie literature but I'm having a bit of a discrepancy with some of the stuff I am reading.

What would you call someone would agrees with most of Lenin's points regarding the role of the state, purpose of a communist society, and that a capitalist society must be completely overthrown, but this revolution does not necessarily have to be violent?I would call that person illiterate. This runs completely contrary to Lenin's thesis.
Um, it doesn't. Aren't reformists people who want capitalism to continue, but reformed so that it's livable? Otherwise, as Pannekoek wrote, "the revolution is a series of reforms" so it doesn't make any sense to just add a temporal aspect and call it 'revolution', as if a slow or nonviolent revolution in social production wasn't a revolution anymore.Reformists can also be "anti-capitalist", eg. Bernstein.

[Ritzy Cat]

I would call that person illiterate. This runs completely contrary to Lenin's thesis.Reformists can also be "anti-capitalist", eg. Bernstein.

I apologize for not understanding.

Thank you Slavic for the answer.

[consuming negativity]

It might seem more complicated, and I do not mean to confuse you, but the bourgeoisie/proletariat distinction made more sense to me when I learned of the other class distinctions that early communists made.

For example, the middle/upper-middle class persons doing comparatively well under capitalism, but who are not bourgeoisie, would be considered members of the petty bourgeoisie. These are your foremen, lawyers, and others like that. They usually are sort of ignored because Marx predicted that they would, ultimately, either rise up into the capitalist class or fall back down into the proletariat class (ie. being a petty bourgeois is temporary). He was mostly right about that if you look at data, particularly that of countries like the US.

The lumpenproletariat class consists of what we might today call the "underclass", including everyone from the truly impoverished to petty thieves and others on the margins of society. These people are generally considered very vulnerable to bourgeoisie influences and weren't considered a revolutionary class by Marx. However, others, particularly anarchists such as Bakunin, saw revolutionary potential in the lumpenproletariat.

In short, I think that being able to put these people into separate categories helps to understand what is meant by the politically-conscious proletariat and the business-owning bourgeoisie. Hope that helps!