If the revolution is inevitable, why do we have to die for it?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I don't remember who said it, was it Plekhanov? Anyway, my question has to do with historical materialism, as I am still trying to grasp Marxist worldview.

Correct me if I am wrong at any point, but the very basic idea of historical materialism is that it's the economic interests that drive history, not ideas, not religion, not politics as all of that in Marxist world is superstructure. But he wasn't a determinist as he said that people make history, but only within the framework of prevailing conditions.

Furthermore, Marx said that communism will come about due to development of capitalist society. More specifically, it will reach the climax of technological developments of productivity, which will set the basis for communism and the climax of its own inherent contradictions, which will lead to its inevitable collapse.

My question has to do with materialist explanation of a revolution. Or a major social change which wouldn't be called revolution. Many radicals attempt to raise consciousness of their fellow workers in various ways, let it be distributing leaflets, reading lectures or anything else, presumably to make people understand their conditions or whatnot, in hope that ultimately it will lead to a revolution. But isn't this view anti-materialist, i.e. an idealist one? Because we want to make a revolution within the current framework economic conditions by engaging in the realm of ideas with a goal to change material reality, i.e. economic conditions. Why any Marxist would do anything like it, why wouldn't s/he wait till capitalism reaches that climax of its own contradictions? Why would any Marxist engage in any revolutionary activity? Is it because s/he doesn't believe in the inevitability of a revolution and instead goes with Luxembourg's "socialism or barbarism"?

On top of that, a very related question - how does historical materialism deal with a significant changes in society that could in no way be attributed to a change in prevailing economic conditions. Well, say, civil rights movement or whatnot, I hope you get my point. Or is it that I am thinking about historical materialism in too strict terms?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Socialism or barbarism" isn't specifically Luxemburg's view; it was, and continues to be, the view of the majority of Marxists. Socialism is not inevitable, particularly since the decay and decomposition of capitalism sets in motion forces that might well lead to barbarism and social collapse. This depends on the detailed balance of forces.

Why shouldn't we wait? Well, if you're a well-off member of the intelligentsia, who hasn't had the poor foresight to be born as a woman, queer, member of a national or racial minority etc. you can probably wait. For the rest of us, this is a matter of objective interest.

Class consciousness is not an idealist term - it doesn't describe ideas held by individual proletarians (except in a secondary sense), but how groups of proletarians act collectively. Behaviour is a fairly materialist concept, I think. And the importance of class consciousness is not due to the "correctness" of ideas and sentiments that proceed from class consciousness, but due to the material conditions that allow for the overthrow of capitalism.

The (often overestimated) civil rights granted to blacks in the US were the result of pressure from black militants - which impacted the American bourgeoisie chiefly through the disruption of the normal functioning of the economy and the threat of a broader social rupture. They were reforms granted by a section of the capitalists to strengthen the class rule of the bourgeoisie.

[Red Economist]

Correct me if I am wrong at any point, but the very basic idea of historical materialism is that it's the economic interests that drive history, not ideas, not religion, not politics as all of that in Marxist world is superstructure. But he wasn't a determinist as he said that people make history, but only within the framework of prevailing conditions.

Correct, he wasn't a determinist. The relationship between the basis (economics) and superstructure (politics/ideology) is not one-way, from economics to politics, but is dialectical. there is a 'feedback' effect from politics onto economics as the way society is organized limits the possibilities for technological/economic development.

the best example would be how reduced competition in the economy leads to a reduced incentive for the new monopolies to invest in technology. hence development slows down. (Note; I'm using monopolies as a way of describing corporations which is common in Marxism, but more specifically refers to one company within a market in mainstream or neoclassical economics).

in addition the monopolies 'squeeze' the workers wages and this intensifies the conflict between workers and capitalists. The monopolies also take over the state (here's the politics bit) (even more beyond it's class character) and use government funds to support their finances and increase profits.


Furthermore, Marx said that communism will come about due to development of capitalist society. More specifically, it will reach the climax of technological developments of productivity, which will set the basis for communism and the climax of its own inherent contradictions, which will lead to its inevitable collapse.

It will "collapse" but it is not "inevitable" in the sense it is "automatic". The proletariat still has to overthrow capitalism to establish new production relations/social organization. but as capitalism develops the situations for this become more acute as the workers get put under more stress by the monopolies.


My question has to do with materialist explanation of a revolution. Or a major social change which wouldn't be called revolution. Many radicals attempt to raise consciousness of their fellow workers in various ways, let it be distributing leaflets, reading lectures or anything else, presumably to make people understand their conditions or whatnot, in hope that ultimately it will lead to a revolution.

But isn't this view anti-materialist, i.e. an idealist one? Because we want to make a revolution within the current framework economic conditions by engaging in the realm of ideas with a goal to change material reality, i.e. economic conditions.


potentially yes. it is not uncommon for people to think 'intellectuals' make a revolution. This can emphasis the role of the 'will' of an individual or leader in such away that it becomes virtually fascist.
But people have to become receptive to the ideas, and this is based on their experiences. "class consciousness" develops under conditions when capitalism screws up enough that alot of people look at their personal experience and what they've been told is 'supposed' to happen and they think; "this isn't right?"
Marxists have gone through this process as well, so again "economics" sets the scene for ideological changes. though this often not as simple as losing a job, a small business owner going bankrupt, etc. something just seems "out of place" and "isn't supposed to happen", so you start looking for alternative explanations (and importantly have the time to find out what is going on and think about it).


Why any Marxist would do anything like it, why wouldn't s/he wait till capitalism reaches that climax of its own contradictions? Why would any Marxist engage in any revolutionary activity?

The contradictions exist all the time; but become acute during particular periods. Economic crises are one, 'revolutionary situation' (according to Lenin: sharp fall in living standards+ widespread political activism+ paralysis of government). Consequently Wars are particularly likely to produce revolutions because of the economic problems they create (and the appalling human experience that goes along with it).


Is it because s/he doesn't believe in the inevitability of a revolution and instead goes with Luxembourg's "socialism or barbarism"?

Basically yes. They believe that capitalism will inevitably produce circumstances where revolution is possible. But it is still up to the workers to go out and organize for it.


On top of that, a very related question - how does historical materialism deal with a significant changes in society that could in no way be attributed to a change in prevailing economic conditions. Well, say, civil rights movement or whatnot, I hope you get my point. Or is it that I am thinking about historical materialism in too strict terms?

Yeah, this is a little too strict. Philosophically, Marxian "Materialism" swallows up 'ideology' as an economic activity as it does not recognize the 'mind' or 'ideas' as separate from the 'body' or 'matter' or 'society'. When I've read some Marxist-Leninist stuff; the brain is part of the body and dependent on it and there is no distinction between the concept of the 'mind' and the 'brain'. These are important philosophical questions, so take your time and read around and see what you come up with.

So for example, reading, writing, studying, speaking in public, are an expenditure of effort/labor time as so count as "economic activities" in terms of both time used and energy. you still have to eat and sleep to do these things, so they have an 'economic' component.

I'm not sure on the civil rights movement, but in the case of the sexual revolution, this had 'economic causes' with the development of contraception, abortions became easier etc, and therefore opened up new possibilities for development. It remained however, for human beings to fight for freedom to realize these possibilities against the existing social conditions.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Class consciousness is not an idealist term - it doesn't describe ideas held by individual proletarians (except in a secondary sense), but how groups of proletarians act collectively. Behaviour is a fairly materialist concept, I think. And the importance of class consciousness is not due to the "correctness" of ideas and sentiments that proceed from class consciousness, but due to the material conditions that allow for the overthrow of capitalism.

Thanks for you answer. My problem is this, I guess - if you say "we need to raise consciousness so that we can collectively overthrow capitalism" you are fine, but if you would say "we need to raise people's understanding about corruption and then we could collectively hold politicians accountable and there would be no more corruption" then this is pure idealism, as far as I understand it. But where is the fundamental difference between these two? I am somewhat playing as a devil's advocate here for my own learning purposes if you don't mind.



The (often overestimated) civil rights granted to blacks in the US were the result of pressure from black militants - which impacted the American bourgeoisie chiefly through the disruption of the normal functioning of the economy and the threat of a broader social rupture. They were reforms granted by a section of the capitalists to strengthen the class rule of the bourgeoisie.

I understand this. What I don't understand is how strictly materialist Marxist can explain why it happened, considering that there were no major changes in economic conditions. In other words it was an idea that led to action, wasn't it? Although, I saw from the beginning that civil rights movement was a rather bad example, but nothing better came to my head at that point.

[motion denied]

Correct me if I am wrong at any point, but the very basic idea of historical materialism is that it's the economic interests that drive history, not ideas, not religion, not politics as all of that in Marxist world is superstructure.

While I might not be disagreeing with you on this, I think that reducing historical development to "economic interests" can lead to misconceptions.

Men need to modify nature in order to produce things necessary to their reproduction, things that will keep them alive. In doing so, they not only relate themselves to nature, but relate themselves to other men, in determined manner. Be it tribal ownership, communal ownership, private property etc.

So, the core of historical materialism, as you rightfully put it, is human praxis, more especifically labour, not ideas or religion. However, it means that ideas etc have "no history", are not independent - not that they do not affect the course of history.

Consciousness, despite being a late development, has material force. The dialectical relationship between "base" and "superstructure", between Men and objective reality, is made clear by acknowledging that Men is both producer and product of society.

That being sad, Capitalism will not collapse on its own. Or rather, it may take us all with it. We not only want capitalism to fall - we want socialism to be built. I'll perhaps address some other points later, I've got stuff to do.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Thanks for you answer. My problem is this, I guess - if you say "we need to raise consciousness so that we can collectively overthrow capitalism" you are fine, but if you would say "we need to raise people's understanding about corruption and then we could collectively hold politicians accountable and there would be no more corruption" then this is pure idealism, as far as I understand it. But where is the fundamental difference between these two? I am somewhat playing as a devil's advocate here for my own learning purposes if you don't mind.

The difference is that corruption is not an independent phenomenon but the result of class society. Corruption can't be completely eliminated without eliminating the class structure of society as well.

And "raising consciousness" about capitalism would be meaningless if the material conditions didn't allow for the overthrow of capitalism.


I understand this. What I don't understand is how strictly materialist Marxist can explain why it happened, considering that there were no major changes in economic conditions. In other words it was an idea that led to action, wasn't it? Although, I saw from the beginning that civil rights movement was a rather bad example, but nothing better came to my head at that point.

What "led to action" were the living conditions of blacks, particularly black workers. And the struggle had been going on for a long time - it's just that in the sixties, worsening economic conditions and a historic blow to American imperialism in Vietnam made the American bourgeoisie uncomfortably vulnerable to domestic militancy.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Just to clarify, Marx's 'materialism' was different from that of, say, Feuerbach. Marx presented a view which proposed a dialectical relationship between a purely monist conception of materialism and the idealist equivalent. He then went on to state that in the first instance material circumstances condition humans. You could say it looks this:

(1) Primary material conditions -> (2) Resulting materialist/idealist relationship.

Thus we are produced first and are assigned to a historical period and plunged into certain forms of stratification etc. then we proceed to deal with problems that we encounter through an active process of forming solutions and new links to these problems, restricted in scope but active nonetheless.

[motion denied]

As for class consciousness:


Indeed private property drives itself in its economic movement towards its own dissolution, but only through a development which does not depend on it, which is unconscious and which takes place against the will of private property by the very nature of things, only inasmuch as it produces the proletariat as proletariat, poverty which is conscious of its spiritual and physical poverty, dehumanization which is conscious of its dehumanization, and therefore self-abolishing. The proletariat executes the sentence that private property pronounces on itself by producing the proletariat, just as it executes the sentence that wage-labour pronounces on itself by producing wealth for others and poverty for itself. When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property.
[...]
It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do [all bolds mine]

We should note that when Marx says that the "proletariat will be compelled, according to its being, to emancipate itself and the whole of humanity" he doesn't necessarily mean it will reach such consciousness on its own; rather, the being of the proletariat is much more than production (even though it's the predominant moment), encompassing all the complex ideological factor as well.

Therefore, it's not idealist, insofar as this consciousness is linked to the concrete existing conditions of said class.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I really like this Kautsky quote from the Class Struggle about this:

"We do not mean that the social revolution – the abolition of private property in the means of production – will be accomplished of itself, that the irresistible, inevitable course of evolution will do the work without the assistance of man; nor yet that all social reforms are worthless and that nothing is left to those who suffer from the contradiction between the modern powers of production and the system of property but idly to fold their arms and patiently to wait for its abolition.

When we speak of the irresistible and inevitable nature of the social revolution, we presuppose that men are men and not puppets; that they are beings endowed with certain wants and impulses, with certain physical and mental powers which they will seek to use in their own interest. Patiently to yield to what may seem unavoidable is not to allow the social revolution to take its course, but to bring it to a standstill.

When we declare the abolition of private property in the means of production to be unavoidable, we do not mean that some fine morning the exploited classes will find that, without their help, some good fairy has brought about the revolution. We consider the breakdown of the present social system to be unavoidable, because we know that the economic evolution inevitably brings on conditions that will compel the exploited classes to rise against this system of private ownership. We know that this system multiplies the number and the strength of the exploited, and diminishes the number and strength of the exploiting, classes, and that it will finally lead to such unbearable conditions for the mass of the population that they will have no choice but to go down into degradation or to overthrow the system of private property."

[Rafiq]

The only thing inevitable is the descend into barbarism.

To paraphrase sorel, the path toward greatness is always forced, while the path towards decadence is natural.

The social foundations for proletarian dictatorship do not exist within capitalism, and will not develop within capitalism. Thus, the importance of political will is prime with regard to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Brotto Rühle]

The only thing inevitable is the descend into barbarism.

To paraphrase sorel, the path toward greatness is always forced, while the path towards decadence is natural.

The social foundations for proletarian dictatorship do not exist within capitalism, and will not develop within capitalism. Thus, the importance of political will is prime with regard to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Capitalism is precisely what necessitates the DOTP; it's simple base-superstructure.

Bakunin wrote in Statism and Anarchy "The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state."

In reply, Marx said "It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it... It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared..."

[Rafiq]

The point is that the economic conditions from which class struggle is derived, will not have changed as an immediate result of the victorious conquest of the state. The whole point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that capitalist relations, the social foundations of life cannot be immediately abolished. The other classes will not have dissapeared after the conquest of the state. It is not as though the existence of class is a matter of policy, it is not as though capitalist social relations can simply dissolve should the state decree it so through the medium of a law, or through some kind of direct political will. What the proletarian dictatorship entails is not some kind of harmonious, utilitarian form of political rule. The proletarian dictatorship does not signify the end of class struggle, merely the strategic and tactical change of power relations, it entails the hegemonic ideological and political dictatorship of the proletarian class. The capitalist mode of production does not exist as a lawful decree, the state reaffirms capitalist relations in a dynamic and continual fashion, or the social hegemony of the bourgeoisie (the state does not "defend capitalism" in such a way, the state could care less for the 'idea of capitalism'. They exist as the manifestation of the social dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, by which it defends the specific interests of the bourgeois class).

According to Marx, a new form of social relations would be a result of the active means by which the proletariat asserts its political hegemony (civil war). Proletarian dictatorship entails civil war. The proletarian dictatorship, I would expect, would be like a new Sparta. One of the reasons the Paris Commune failed was it's reluctance in investing time and effort into building a sufficient military. The again, Marx was not concerned with the building of a new form of social relations. We cannot know, a "future social relations", which is why he was solely (in this regard) concerned with the immediate class interests of the proletariat, as they existed within capitalism. It is true that capitalism necessitates the dictatorship of the proletariat - the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, the class contradictions bring forth the foundations for it's own demise, the dissonant interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, before the proletarian dictatorship even exists.

The state re-affirms the conditions of production, but that does not mean that should the state cease to do so, a new affirmative form of social relations form as a result of proletarian interests. A logical result is barbarism, and the destruction of civilization. Which is why even though capitalist relations will not be reproduced by proletarian dictatorship, an affirmative manifestation of their interests is necessary. Once in a position of state, political dictatorship, the bourgeois class still retains social hegemony, they simply do not possess control of a state-apparatus which re-affirms existing relations, which puts them in a distinct position of weakness. Of course we would see this as logically the end of capitalism, but especially considering the globalized proportions, with all of the social complexities existent, this could take hundreds of years, perhaps more. The bourgeois class, the petite bourgeoisie, would still exist, even if they are deprived of their social being, as a class with according uniform interests which would inevitably oppose the political dominance of the proletariat. The relationship between the base and the superstructure is not so direct as the conducting of electricity, it is more complicated than the mode of production creating a superstructure, as a historical law. There are also those moments of transition... Which leads me to wonder...

The bourgeois class had retained social hegemony for some five hundred years. The capitalist mode of production had prevailed for just as long, and yet, politically they were not in a position of complete class dictatorship until a few centuries afterwards

I have yet to find anything useful of Bakunin. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I do not know enough, but as an intellectual he is relatively worthless.

[Brotto Rühle]

The point is that the economic conditions from which class struggle is derived, will not have changed as an immediate result of the victorious conquest of the state.In your previous post, you state that the DOTP, or "conquest of the state", cannot come about in the present economic conditions.


According to Marx, a new form of social relations would be a result of the active means by which the proletariat asserts its political hegemony (civil war). Proletarian dictatorship entails civil war. The proletarian dictatorship, I would expect, would be like a new Sparta. One of the reasons the Paris Commune failed was it's reluctance in investing time and effort into building a sufficient military. The again, Marx was not concerned with the building of a new form of social relations. We cannot know, a "future social relations", which is why he was solely (in this regard) concerned with the immediate class interests of the proletariat, as they existed within capitalism. It is true that capitalism necessitates the dictatorship of the proletariat - the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, the class contradictions bring forth the foundations for it's own demise, the dissonant interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, before the proletarian dictatorship even exists. Again contradicting your statement: "The social foundations for proletarian dictatorship do not exist within capitalism".


The state re-affirms the conditions of production, but that does not mean that should the state cease to do so, a new affirmative form of social relations form as a result of proletarian interests. A logical result is barbarism, and the destruction of civilization. More vague nonsense.


Which is why even though capitalist relations will not be reproduced by proletarian dictatorship, an affirmative manifestation of their interests is necessary.This needs some explanation... the dotp is forced to operate under the laws of bourgeois production, of capitalism.


Once in a position of state, political dictatorship, the bourgeois class still retains social hegemony, they simply do not possess control of a state-apparatus which re-affirms existing relations, which puts them in a distinct position of weakness.How do the bourgeoisie have social hegemony? I want to hear this...


Of course we would see this as logically the end of capitalism, but especially considering the globalized proportions, with all of the social complexities existent, this could take hundreds of years, perhaps more. The bourgeois class, the petite bourgeoisie, would still exist, even if they are deprived of their social being, as a class with according uniform interests which would inevitably oppose the political dominance of the proletariat. The relationship between the base and the superstructure is not so direct as the conducting of electricity, it is more complicated than the mode of production creating a superstructure, as a historical law. There are also those moments of transition... Which leads me to wonder... Oh god... First, no we don't see that "as logically the end of capitalism". Only the first negation, yet to come is the negation of the negation (communism).


The bourgeois class had retained social hegemony for some five hundred years. The capitalist mode of production had prevailed for just as long, and yet, politically they were not in a position of complete class dictatorship until a few centuries afterwards

I have yet to find anything useful of Bakunin. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I do not know enough, but as an intellectual he is relatively worthless.What?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I can not speak for a political and moral reason, I have none nor do I believe in imposing a moral framework to convince others to march towards their slaughter. but I can speak from my personal aesthetic tastes. Life is temporary, fleeing, and pointless. Death is permanent and the only thing worth aspiring to,

[Firebrand]

It's the difference between the fuel and the spark. Capitalism inevitably produces the conditions for revolution. It is the job of people existing in those conditions to make it happen. If you leave the gas on in a house it produces the conditions for an explosion and the odds are eventually someone will make a spark that sends the whole thing up in flames. However if everyone decides to do absolutely nothing then nothing will happen.
Besides just because we know it's going to happen doesn't mean accelerating the process is unnecessary, the longer capitalism persists the more people will have to suffer because of it.

[Rafiq]

The social foundations for the proletarian dictatorship do not exist within capitalism, AND NEVER WILL. Which is why POLITICAL WILL is of prime importance. The bourgeois class, the social foundations for their dictatorship existed long before their political hegemony, but this is not the case with regard to the proletariat, which makes them historically unique. How could you have not understood that? How could you have not understood what I meant? What a damned fool you are, accusing me of contradicting myself. You completely lose all legitimacy just for that.

You don't know what social foundations actually entail

You don't understand their relationship to politics

Political dictatorship does not prerequisite the foundations for new social relations to develop within the framework of the society from which such a dictatorship occurs. Proletarian interests will not be fulfilled WITHIN capitalist relations naturally, otherwise, what is the point of a proletarian dictatorship?

Honestly, you're a waste of my time, and a waste of life. Stop being an ass. Do you actually, really believe anything you said could ever even pose as a viable argument? Be honest with yourself.

[Brotto Rühle]

The social foundations for the proletarian dictatorship do not exist within capitalism, AND NEVER WILL. Which is why POLITICAL WILL is of prime importance. The bourgeois class, the social foundations for their dictatorship existed long before their political hegemony, but this is not the case with regard to the proletariat, which makes them historically unique. How could you have not understood that? How could you have not understood what I meant? What a damned fool you are, accusing me of contradicting myself. You completely lose all legitimacy just for that. Then a DOTP can never exist. Unless you believe the DOTP exists in "socialism", or some "transitional mode of production".


You don't know what social foundations actually entail Neither do you, apparently.


You don't understand their relationship to politics Neither do you... again.


Political dictatorship does not prerequisite the foundations for new social relations to develop within the framework of the society from which such a dictatorship occurs. Proletarian interests will not be fulfilled WITHIN capitalist relations naturally, otherwise, what is the point of a proletarian dictatorship? I never said proletarian interests will be fulfilled within capitalism, at any point. I merely stated the fact that the DOTP is a political entity which exists in the epoch of capitalist society (to be less vague, at the potential end of capitalist society).

[Rafiq]

The bourgeois class still retains social hegemony because the vestiges of bourgeois ideology, their social hegemony and the structures of capitallist relations remain, all that changes is proletarian political dictatorship, the posession of state power. The social foundations are done away with through the active struggle of this new state to repress the other classes as well as affirmatively shape society in accord with the protection of the proletarian dictatorship. In order for capitalism to survive, the bourgeois class requires the state to reaffirm capitalist relations.

Without this state, when left to its own devices capitalism becomes barbarism. But with the proletariat in a position of state power, which actively represses the bourgeoisie as a class as well as utilizes the state in accord with the interests of the proletariat, capitalist relations are not reaffirmed, but they none the less would still survive for perhaps hundreds of years as the relationship between the state and social relations is not like conducting electricity. Do you understand? A STATE POSESSED BY THE BOURGEOIS CLASS IS NECESSARY FOR CAPITALIST RELATIONS TO BE *REPRODUCED*. But that does not mean capitalist relations will diminish immediately!

If you don't understand my posts, that's your problem, it doesn't mean they're incoherent or nonsensical, it means you're a fucking moron who needs to stop posting when he doesn't understand.

[Rafiq]

Marx and Engels wrote vigorously explaining this. It's sad that I have to be the one to rehash something that argues for itself. So much for not keeping up with modern times.

The Bolsheviks didn't retain capitalist relations because they controlled the state. They did so because the vestiges of feudal society dissallowed a proletarian dictatorship to exist without civil war with the peasantry. They took the role that would otherwise have been the bourgeois class in coercing the peasantry into the industrial proletariat. The cycle of capitalist accumulation thus was necessary. The rest is history.

[Brotto Rühle]

The bourgeois class still retains social hegemony because the vestiges of bourgeois ideology, their social hegemony and the structures of capitallist relations remain, all that changes is proletarian political dictatorship, the posession of state power. The social foundations are done away with through the active struggle of this new state to repress the other classes as well as affirmatively shape society in accord with the protection of the proletarian dictatorship. In order for capitalism to survive, the bourgeois class requires the state to reaffirm capitalist relations. Clearly my previous quote from Marx eludes you. As does the capitalist mode of production. Apparently when Marx says "the ruling ideas in every epoch, are those of the ruling class". When the proletariat asserts itself as ruling class, is when it's own hegemony reigns.


Without this state, when left to its own devices capitalism becomes barbarism. But with the proletariat in a position of state power, which actively represses the bourgeoisie as a class as well as utilizes the state in accord with the interests of the proletariat, capitalist relations are not reaffirmed, but they none the less would still survive for perhaps hundreds of years as the relationship between the state and social relations is not like conducting electricity. Do you understand? A STATE POSESSED BY THE BOURGEOIS CLASS IS NECESSARY FOR CAPITALIST RELATIONS TO BE *REPRODUCED*. But that does not mean capitalist relations will diminish immediately!I like how you're changing my original point that THE DOTP PRESIDES OVER THE CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION.


If you don't understand my posts, that's your problem, it doesn't mean they're incoherent or nonsensical...They usually are extremely vague, and "poetical"... I ask you to elaborate, and like a manchild you get cranky and whine, and throw ad hominem, while ignoring what I AM SAYING. Just because everyone else just ignores your vulgar materialism, doesn't mean I will. You've replaced God with history, and that's your problem.

[Skyhilist]

a) Revolution isn't inevitable.

b) You don't have to die for it, no one is forcing you to.

[Rafiq]

Marx was trying to say that the economic conditions of class struggle will exist long after the proletariat has acquired state dictatorship. This is something he and Engels explicitly stated.

The ruling class is the class that posesses dictatorship over the state apparatus. It isn't something that happens over night. The DOTP is not a distinct historical epoch or mode of production but a phrase in which the proletariat actively attempts to ABOLISH itself. The DOTP presides over capitalist relations, but does not reinforce them.

The point is that the proletariat does not have a specific economic interest, it does not seek to exalt itself, like the bourgeoisie did within feudalism. It seeks to ABOLISH itself, which is why it cannot create the social foundations in its interests without political dictatorship. You are arguing that because this won't take a week, or a year, it supplements capitalist relations. You're a moron.

[Brotto Rühle]

Marx was trying to say that the economic conditions of class struggle will exist long after the proletariat has acquired state dictatorship. This is something he and Engels explicitly stated. Marx said "...from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive..." still exist.


The ruling class is the class that posesses dictatorship over the state apparatus. It isn't something that happens over night. The DOTP is not a distinct historical epoch or mode of production but a phrase in which the proletariat actively attempts to ABOLISH itself. The DOTP presides over capitalist relations, but does not reinforce them. Sure, but you explicitly said "The conditions for the DOTP do not exist within capitalism". This, pretty clearly, suggests that the DOTP does not occur or preside over the capitalist mode of production. This is precisely the point I was taking on when I replied to you.


The point is that the proletariat does not have a specific economic interest, it does not seek to exalt itself, like the bourgeoisie did within feudalism. It seeks to ABOLISH itself, which is why it cannot create the social foundations in its interests without political dictatorship. You are arguing that because this won't take a week, or a year, it supplements capitalist relations. You're a moron.I never said that at all. You're putting words in my mouth. MY POINT SINCE THE BEGINNING WAS THE CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION, AND HOW THE DOTP IS NECESSITATED BY IT, AND PRESIDES OVER IT.

[Rafiq]

'Libertarian Marxists' take the worst from anarchism and ignore the best of Marxism. They take anarchisms liberal intellectual foundations, but ignore its insurrectionary, cataclysmic and uncompromising sense of violence inherit to its social application. They take from Marxism Anglo Saxon empiricism, but ignore that which it is a mere component of, a wider form of continental thought, as well as the logical drive for world domination that is concluded from its logic and it's sense of affirmative power.

[Rafiq]

No, I said that the social foundations of the proletarian dictatorship do not exist in that the proletariat has no desire to exalt itself. The bourgeoisie, within feudalism, exalted their interests by acquiring social hegemony and changing history, or altering social relations as a result of this social hegemony. Thus, they laid the foundations for their political dictatorship within feudalism (not intentionally, of course). My point is that this will not be the case for the proletariat. When I attempted to help you understand this, you responded with 'what?'

And the reason for this difference, as I said numerous times, is that the proletariat seeks to ABOLISH itself, rather than exalt itself. Yet this is beyond you.

[Rafiq]

I said Marx was trying to say that the economic conditions of class struggle will exist long after the proletariat has acquired state dictatorship. This is something he and Engels explicitly stated.

You respond:


Marx said "...from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive..." still exist.


The full quote is
It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it... It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared

So let me calmly spell this out for you, the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive will STILL EXIST during the dictatorship of the proletariat.

They will not disappear a week after the proletarian dictatorship, it could take centuries. It is not in totality enough to be its own distinct historical social condition, but it would lay the foundations for something beyond capitalist relations by the very process of the proletariat repressing it's class enemies. You seem to be unable to understand that social relations cannot be destroyed by political will overnight. It would be an incredibly long process. Even before the recent machinations of capital, even before globalization and all of the problems that make this all the more relevant, Marx and Engels knew this.

[Brotto Rühle]

No, I said that the social foundations of the proletarian dictatorship do not exist in that the proletariat has no desire to exalt itself. The bourgeoisie, within feudalism, exalted their interests by acquiring social hegemony and changing history, or altering social relations as a result of this social hegemony. Thus, they laid the foundations for their political dictatorship within feudalism (not intentionally, of course). My point is that this will not be the case for the proletariat. When I attempted to help you understand this, you responded with 'what?'

And the reason for this difference, as I said numerous times, is that the proletariat seeks to ABOLISH itself, rather than exalt itself. Yet this is beyond you.
"The social foundations for proletarian dictatorship do not exist within capitalism, and will not develop within capitalism." is what you said.

This says, pretty clearly, that the DOTP is not possible under the capitalist mode of production, because the social foundations necessary for it "will not develop within capitalism". Make up your mind.


No, I said that the social foundations of the proletarian dictatorship do not exist in that the proletariat has no desire to exalt itself...the proletariat seeks to ABOLISH itself, rather than exalt itself. Yet this is beyond you.I never disagreed that the proletariat seeks to abolish class.


I said Marx was trying to say that the economic conditions of class struggle will exist long after the proletariat has acquired state dictatorship. This is something he and Engels explicitly stated. So let me calmly spell this out for you, the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive will STILL EXIST during the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hence me saying "the capitalist mode of production will continue to exist". Which is counter to what you claim, as you can see above.


They will not disappear a week after the proletarian dictatorship, it could take centuries. It is not in totality enough to be its own distinct historical social condition, but it would lay the foundations for something beyond capitalist relations by the very process of the proletariat repressing it's class enemies. You seem to be unable to understand that social relations cannot be destroyed by political will overnight. It would be an incredibly long process. Even before the recent machinations of capital, even before globalization and all of the problems that make this all the more relevant, Marx and Engels knew this.I never said it wouldn't be a long process. Do you even read?

The problem is that you keep missing my point. My point isn't about the lack/nonexistence of the "reproduction of capitalist social relations" under the DOTP, but that you explicitly say the DOTP is not possible within capitalism.

[Rafiq]

Just look at how he responds to my posts, he responds to it phrase by phrase, sentence by sentance. It is as though he is unable to form a comprehensive, detailed and insightful response to my post, he has to protect his own intellectual security by proving he addressed the argument by responding to them accordingly, out of context, individually. He cannot understand the summation of my post as a whole, and how it forms as a single argument. You can quote a large portion of my post, say "that's stupid" and it will make you look like more of an ass than not responding at all. What a damned child you are. I've wasted so much time on you, out of my own benevolence, I've tried to help you, but there's no use. Good luck, see if you're still a "radical" in five years.

[Rafiq]

"The social foundations for proletarian dictatorship do not exist within capitalism, and will not develop within capitalism." is what you said.

This says, pretty clearly, that the DOTP is not possible under the capitalist mode of production, because the social foundations necessary for it "will not develop within capitalism". Make up your mind.

I already explained what I meant! How is that contradictory! The proletariat dictatorship is not what I say "under capitalism" but above it!

[Rafiq]

I meant that the social foundations for the proletarian dictatorship will not develop within capitalism in the sense that it will not develop naturally as a result of non-political, economic forces of production. In essence, I meant that they will not develop BEFORE THE PROLETARIAT ACQUIRES STATE POWER.

The bourgeoisie ACQUIRED THE SOCIAL FOUNDATIONS FOR DICTATORSHIP before they took state power. I am trying to say that this is not the case with regard to the proletariat.

[Rafiq]

I'm not going to play a game of semantics with you, I'm not going to argue with you over what I meant, it's pretty clear that I am of higher authority with regard to my own fucking thought process and the intention of my posts, considering I am the one who posts them.

[Rafiq]

Just so everyone sees what a waste of time this is


The social foundations for proletarian dictatorship do not exist within capitalism, and will not develop within capitalism. Thus, the importance of political will is prime with regard to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The difference is that once in a position of state dictatorship, they do not reproduce capitalist relations, but actively undermine them and logically replace them.

[Brotto Rühle]

Just look at how he responds to my posts, he responds to it phrase by phrase, sentence by sentance. It is as though he is unable to form a comprehensive, detailed and insightful response to my post, he has to protect his own intellectual security by proving he addressed the argument by responding to them accordingly, out of context, individually. He cannot understand the summation of my post as a whole, and how it forms as a single argument. You can quote a large portion of my post, say "that's stupid" and it will make you look like more of an ass than not responding at all. What a damned child you are. I've wasted so much time on you, out of my own benevolence, I've tried to help you, but there's no use. Good luck, see if you're still a "radical" in five years.I'm not sure why you're QQing here. I've addressed your non-points, notably when you claim I said something I did not.

[Rafiq]

I said the FOUNDATIONS for them could not exist, I did not say it could not exist. The FOUNDATIONS of bourgeois dictatorship existed long before IT ACTUALLY EXISTED, POLITICALLY.

[Brotto Rühle]

I meant that the social foundations for the proletarian dictatorship will not develop within capitalism in the sense that it will not develop naturally as a result of non-political, economic forces of production. In essence, I meant that they will not develop BEFORE THE PROLETARIAT ACQUIRES STATE POWER. Was that so hard to say 40 posts ago? Instead of huffing and puffing and whining? I'll go ahead and say that it is precisely the capitalist mode of production that will develop this "political will" in the proletariat to assert itself as the ruling class.

[Brotto Rühle]

I said the FOUNDATIONS for them could not exist, I did not say it could not exist. The FOUNDATIONS of bourgeois dictatorship existed long before IT ACTUALLY EXISTED, POLITICALLY.
Doesn't really make sense. I mean, the foundations are there, the capitalist mode of production creates the foundations. How can the thing itself exist before it's foundations? It comes full circle, because, by the time the foundations are possible (as you say: outside of capitalism), the DOTP already enters a mode of nonexistence, as class is abolished post-capitalism. Ergo, in your line of thinking, the foundations for the DOTP never exist at the same time as the DOTP itself.

ALSO

Pro-Tip friend: you can make one big post instead of a billion small ones :)

[Rafiq]

I've been saying that for the last 40 posts, you fucking dolt. The capitalist mode of production is not an external agent, but the summation of specific, real social relations. These social relations are contradictory in that the interests of the proletariat are inevitably at odds with that of the bourgeoisie. Thus, these relations "develop" this political will in the sense that they are the context from which it derives, but that's not what you're arguing, is it.

First of all, political will is the proletariat's will to possess power of the state, so does this magical being (the capitalist mode of production) whisper in the ear of the proletariat to take state power as a better ruling class to take care of it? What are you even saying? The proletarian dictatorship would not be this omnipotent being which could enreach all corners of society, and decide immediately, based on their most intimate demands, change the social foundations of society. The proletarian dictatorship entails a state of war, civil war. It is an active struggle, it is not an attempt to retain peace and harmony, or to create what's best for society.

[Rafiq]

Doesn't really make sense. I mean, the foundations are there, the capitalist mode of production creates the foundations. How can the thing itself exist before it's foundations? It comes full circle, because, by the time the foundations are possible (as you say: outside of capitalism), the DOTP already enters a mode of nonexistence, as class is abolished post-capitalism. Ergo, in your line of thinking, the foundations for the DOTP never exist at the same time as the DOTP itself.


Did I say that? Did I say it would be outside of capitalism? I said above capitalist relations in the sense that their political will is above the machinations and will of capital. There is a difference.

How does the capitalist mode of production create the foundations? Capitalism was created within feudalism. Do you at least understand that? The foundations are not simply the forces of class struggle, but real social foundations which a new mode of production arises, the foundations cannot exist until the proletariat has taken hold of the state, else there would be no point of the proletarian dictatorship. This isn't an argument, it's a constant reaffirmation of your own inability to comprehend what I am trying to say. Class is NOT immediately abolished during the proletarian dictatorship, it may take many lifetimes. Yes, you're correct, when the foundations for a new order of life actually exist, the enemies of the proletarian class would have been repressed and done away with and the proletariat itself would have dissolved. The point is that this does NOT occur before the proletarian dictatorship, but long after it. It is why they called it a transitional phrase.

[Brotto Rühle]

I've been saying that for the last 40 posts, you fucking dolt. The capitalist mode of production is not an external agent, but the summation of specific, real social relations. These social relations are contradictory in that the interests of the proletariat are inevitably at odds with that of the bourgeoisie. Thus, these relations "develop" this political will in the sense that they are the context from which it derives, but that's not what you're arguing, is it. yeah.


First of all, political will is the proletariat's will to possess power of the state, so does this magical being (the capitalist mode of production) whisper in the ear of the proletariat to take state power as a better ruling class to take care of it?No, a mass vanguard of folks like yourself does of course ;). I believe the working class is inherently able to come to the conclusion of a new society, and will through class struggle, realize it has to take state power and abolish capitalism, ergo abolishing itself, all classes, and the state with it.


What are you even saying? The proletarian dictatorship would not be this omnipotent being which could enreach all corners of society, and decide immediately, based on their most intimate demands, change the social foundations of society. The proletarian dictatorship entails a state of war, civil war. It is an active struggle, it is not an attempt to retain peace and harmony, or to create what's best for society.IT IS THE EXTINCTION OF HUMAN KIND! IT IS BLOODHSED AND THUNDER! GLORIOUS FIRE AND DEATH! Got a woody yet?


Did I say that? Did I say it would be outside of capitalism? I said above capitalist relations in the sense that their political will is above the machinations and will of capital. There is a difference.Yes. By saying that the foundations for it CANNOT EXIST WITHIN CAPITALISM, you are explicitly stating that either a) The DOTP cannot exist within capitalism or b) the DOTP and it's foundations cannot exist at the same time.


How does the capitalist mode of production create the foundations? Capitalism was created within feudalism. Do you at least understand that? The foundations are not simply the forces of class struggle, but real social foundations which a new mode of production arises, the foundations cannot exist until the proletariat has taken hold of the state, else there would be no point of the proletarian dictatorship. This isn't an argument, it's a constant reaffirmation of your own inability to comprehend what I am trying to sayYou said that these foundations cannot exist within capitalism. Now you are saying they can. Make up your mind.


Class is NOT immediately abolished during the proletarian dictatorship, it may take many lifetimes. Yes, you're correct, when the foundations for a new order of life actually exist, the enemies of the proletarian class would have been repressed and done away with and the proletariat itself would have dissolved. The point is that this does NOT occur before the proletarian dictatorship, but long after it. It is why they called it a transitional phrase.I never argued against the idea that the class is "NOT immediately abolished during the proletarian dictatorship". It's like you keep saying the same shit over and over, and no matter how many times I say "I didn't say that", you keep repeating it. You have NO idea how long it will take. Nor do I.

[Rafiq]

I just want other users to take the opportunity to see if he's just trying to anger me when he sais "make up your mind" when from the very beginning I have argued the same thing, he interpreted it the wrong way the first time, it took numerous posts to show him why his interpretation was wrong, he finally concurred, changed the subject in order to divert attention from his clear stupidity, and now he's going right back where we started from and claiming I espoused something I did not, which I clearly addressed.

[Rafiq]

If you repeat the same arguments, I have to do so as well. As a result, my time is wasted and too much energy is directed towards something which you are clearly in the wrong. Neither of us benefit, and forty posts later all arguments become incoherent for the sake of argument - when the debate itself is pointless. Why can't you just admit you were wrong about my post? Why can't you admit you didn't understand it correctly? The social foundations for political dictatorship aren't necessary before the political dictatorship so long as they represent the interests of a real class with real interests. The social foundations for proletarian dictatorship will not exist within the confines of capitalism and bourgeois political dictatorship because the proletariat seeks to abolish itself and has no economic interest in relation to property. That's what I was trying to say. The reason I wasn't so specific is because this is a basic concept that all Marxists espouse, as a matter of fact, it was something I learned, not created. So I assumed users here would be familiar with this fact, but apparently I was wrong. You have a lot of learning to do, the longer you deny that, the greater your politics will deteriorate. I'm being as kind as I can here.

Just admit you're wrong. It will be better for yourself in the long run.

[Rafiq]

There's a lot that is up for discussion, but that (the nature of proletarian revolution) isn't. It's an objective fact. What you're arguing about is what I meant in my first post, and clearly, anyone can deduce what I really meant. You're making this a game of semantics. You can't argue that I meant something otherwise, you can't say "YOU SAID!", quote me, and proceed to make it as if your conception of what I was conveying is proven by the quote itself. It's dishonest, and you come off as foolish because the words are right there, right in front of you, and they're telling everyone you're a moron. I understand that you're confused, but that doesn't mean you can form serious conclusions about subjects you're confused about.

[bropasaran]

But he wasn't a determinist as he said that people make history, but only within the framework of prevailing conditions.
Sure he was. Nonsense about how windmill produces feudalism and the steam-mill produces capitalism (doesn't matter that capitalism came into being before the industrial revolution, with the enclosure movement) and that classlessness is possible only in a technological utopia, where "the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly" because "The realm of freedom begins, in reality, only there where that labor, which is determined through need and outer purposiveness no longer exists". Logical conclusion would be- who cares about the revolution, we should not concern ourselves with the emancipation of the working people, we should work on improving technology (but marxism isn't big on logic).


Why would any Marxist engage in any revolutionary activity?
Because the ideology itself is contradictory and nonsensical in many ways. My suggestion is- drop that, read this: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html , and go libertarian socialist.

[Sam_b]

a waste of life


it means you're a fucking moron who needs to stop posting when he doesn't understand.


you fucking dolt

I got tired of following all of your flames, but have an infraction for them regardless. You will be aware as a Committed User that we rave rules against this in the Learning forum, and it is a zero-tolerance area for flaming, or spamming. I suggest that you refrain from this in future.

[Brotto Rühle]

I just want other users to take the opportunity to see if he's just trying to anger me when he sais "make up your mind" when from the very beginning I have argued the same thing, he interpreted it the wrong way the first time, it took numerous posts to show him why his interpretation was wrong, he finally concurred, changed the subject in order to divert attention from his clear stupidity, and now he's going right back where we started from and claiming I espoused something I did not, which I clearly addressed.You can't make up your mind. You aren't arguing the same thing.

In the beginning you argue that: "The social foundations for proletarian dictatorship do not exist within capitalism, and will not develop within capitalism." aka, either you believe the social foundations for the existence of the DOTP and the DOTP itself never exist at the same time -- because post-capitalism, or socialism, is a classless and therefore DOTP free society... OR you believable the DOTP is a post-capitalist entity -- a Leninist revision of Marx.

You then said that the DOTP creates these foundations within capitalism. Contradicting what you initially said.


If you repeat the same arguments, I have to do so as well. As a result, my time is wasted and too much energy is directed towards something which you are clearly in the wrong.I am wrong that the DOTP preside within the capitalist mode of production? Nah, I'm right, you're just a very confused Vulgar Materialist.


The social foundations for political dictatorship aren't necessary before the political dictatorship so long as they represent the interests of a real class with real interests. Do go ahead and explain these social foundations.


The social foundations for proletarian dictatorship will not exist within the confines of capitalism and bourgeois political dictatorship because the proletariat seeks to abolish itself and has no economic interest in relation to property. That's what I was trying to say. The reason I wasn't so specific is because this is a basic concept that all Marxists espouse, as a matter of fact, it was something I learned, not created. So I assumed users here would be familiar with this fact, but apparently I was wrong. You have a lot of learning to do, the longer you deny that, the greater your politics will deteriorate. I'm being as kind as I can here. Again, that's fine, but then you can't agree with me that the DOTP is an entity which exists WITHIN the capitalist mode of production.


Just admit you're wrong. It will be better for yourself in the long run.Try harder.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

You can't make up your mind. You aren't arguing the same thing.

In the beginning you argue that: "The social foundations for proletarian dictatorship do not exist within capitalism, and will not develop within capitalism." aka, either you believe the social foundations for the existence of the DOTP and the DOTP itself never exist at the same time -- because post-capitalism, or socialism, is a classless and therefore DOTP free society... OR you believable the DOTP is a post-capitalist entity -- a Leninist revision of Marx.

You then said that the DOTP creates these foundations within capitalism. Contradicting what you initially said.

Rae Spiegel, I am no expert on this and Rafiq's comments are difficult for me to grasp, but I think that you are in the wrong here. Or it might be that you are talking past one another. Or I just don't get any of this, but let's see.

Rafiq is saying that social foundations aren't produced under capitalism, in his own words "in the sense that it will not develop naturally as a result of non-political, economic forces of production." Like, capitalists during feudalism created these social conditions for their own rule, because of their economic interest. Or rather its not they who created it, but natural economic forces that did so. Proletariat, on the other hand, has no economic interest or at least there is no natural economic force that would lie these social foundations, hence, the importance of the DoTP as a political agent to lie these foundations since there is no materialist/economic/natural law that would lie them without the DoPT.

I sort of get what I just said, but I still had some questions to Rafiq before he got ifracted (for instance, what the hell are these social foundations?), which is stupid. Well, I mean I prefer him swearing and insulting all over the place if that helps me or anyone else to learn in the learning forum, but whatever.

[Rafiq]

The social foundations of life are not laws created by the state, or policies. Social foundations are not organizations or institutions, they are the summation of social relations to the production and distribution of life, recources, whatever. When one sais "within capitalism" it implies within capitalist relations as they are reinforced by the state, within the process of capital accumulation. I was alluding to and comparing (proletarian revolution) to the rise of the bourgeois class and explaining how it cannot be the same. And whie this would still exist, the existence of proletarian dictatorship of the state actively undermines and struggles against the classes that form these social relations. Luckily enough, I have said this before, here, on this website. So if I have said prescisely before this thread, that, what brings you to the conclusion that I changed my mind? Why would I say political will is of prime importance if I said the social foundations for a new life cannot form even when the proletariat posesses political power? Maybe, just maybe, you didn't understand my post correctly. I'm the one who made the post and a quick glance at the posts I've made in this thread suggests a single consistent argument being made. When I change my position, or if I was in the wrong, I say so, and adopt whatever new position as my own. I have in the past. I'm not afraid of admitting I am wrong, but here, I am not. I'm not so immature as to argue in this manner. I don't care about what users think of me. You're acting like a child and honestly, it really discredits your posts. Especially since you can't respond with a comprehensive and coherent argument, you have to split up my posts and say "no", repeat the same phrases when I have addressed them, and then claim I'm being ridiculous. It's frustrating. You ask me to show you where I said this to back it up, and did, numerous times. I quoted myself exactly, and you said "no that isn't what you said!". But the quote is right there... ?(!)

This isn't a dick waving contest. It's supposed to be q constructive discussion. When you don't admit you're wrong, you deteriorate your own understanding of the subject. You're not submitting to me when you admit your mistakes, you're being mature and you demonstrate your dedication to a better understanding of the subject alone. But fine, if you are unable to do that, maybe you should Re assess why you post in the first place.

[Rafiq]

Re read posts 30-35.

[Brotto Rühle]

Rafiq is saying that social foundations aren't produced under capitalism, in his own words "in the sense that it will not develop naturally as a result of non-political, economic forces of production."What Rafiq initially doesn't understand is that any political will, and political force, is a direct result of the mode of production (or economic base of society). That's one of his mistakes. However, the problem with what he says is that he says they "will not develop within capitalism". This is clear language... it's not as if he said "will not develop naturally within capitalism". That is what I am calling him out on, that he initially claims (perhaps mistakenly in his own mind) that the social foundations will not develop within capitalism -- making the DOTP a post-capitalist entity as his logical conclusion.

He's had his chances to clarify, but instead ignores the point I am making.


Like, capitalists during feudalism created these social conditions for their own rule, because of their economic interest. Or rather its not they who created it, but natural economic forces that did so. Proletariat, on the other hand, has no economic interest or at least there is no natural economic force that would lie these social foundations, hence, the importance of the DoTP as a political agent to lie these foundations since there is no materialist/economic/natural law that would lie them without the DoPT.They do have an "economic interest". The abolition of capitalism.


I sort of get what I just said, but I still had some questions to Rafiq before he got ifracted (for instance, what the hell are these social foundations?), which is stupid. Well, I mean I prefer him swearing and insulting all over the place if that helps me or anyone else to learn in the learning forum, but whatever.He's been here long enough to know the rules. However, I am also curious as to what he believes these social foundations to be.

[Thirsty Crow]

First of all, just to cover the basic premise of the thread.
I don't think that any communist should hold the position, irrespective of verbal adherence or rejection of historical materialism, that social revolution is inevitable, as this is nothing more than a soothing fairy tale tailored for radicals without any grounding in clear understanding of social life.

Social revolution is a possibility, and a real one at that (not merely a logical one), but no more than that.

That being said, I find this interesting:


Many radicals attempt to raise consciousness of their fellow workers in various ways, let it be distributing leaflets, reading lectures or anything else, presumably to make people understand their conditions or whatnot, in hope that ultimately it will lead to a revolution. But isn't this view anti-materialist, i.e. an idealist one? I'm quite partial to be honest to conclude that this problem you mention can indeed be understood through the opposition between materialism and idealism. But the situation on the ground is, I believe, more complex than that.

What's at stake here is probably some problematic view of the role and purpose of the organization of communists which rests on defending an organization's activity at any cost and more importantly, sees the role for it during counter-revolutionary periods (that of workers' defeat, demoralization and ruling class offensive) as one of either urging the proletariat to action via propagating socialism or even to conduct struggle on their own (which is the stage at which the disconnect between the org and the working class is most apparent and naked). You could say that this represents a kind of an idealism indeed, but more importantly, it is deadly for any chance of a future healthy development of an organization.

[Rafiq]

You called me a vulgarist, yet you have this bizarre mechanistic understanding of the relationship between the dominant social foundations of life and political will. Social foundations are the summation of DISTINCT class interests, capitalism, the idea of capitalism has no interest. Political will reflects a class interest, and we all agree that the proletariat exists exclusively within capitalism. In times in which the state supports and affirms social relations, or the class whose interest by which these relations exist from, these are distinct historical phrases. The dictatorship of the proletariat exists during the process by which history is changing, or a new foundation of life develops. One cannot be "outside" of social relations, or declare your intentions to have not derived from them. The point is that the proletariat's interests are antithetical with the retention of these social relations, but they are still derived from those social relations. It is indeed a contradiction, the social contradiction of capitalism. Capitalism, one way or another, carries the seeds of its own destruction. However, the proletariat has no social interest that can take root within capitalist production and form a new society within the shell of the old. The affirmative process of opposing the bourgeois class, once in a position of state dictatorship, even though capitalist relations have not yet been immediatly destroyed, it is this very ongoing act which dissallows the state, in possession of the proletariat, to be possessed by the hand of capital. But say we are able to "reform" society, over night. This would not address the opposing classes, they would still exist and retain their class interests, albeit their relations to production would have been destroyed, their ideological (political, religious) as well as their obvious memory of their social essence would still persist and thus proletarian dictatorship would be necessary in opposing them. Because politics and ideology do not disappear even after, politically, social relations are violated, proletarian political dictatorship is necessary.

The whole point I was getting at, was that workers co ops, or the Re organization of society within capitalism (the absence of political will), within the totality of capitalism (the summation of social relations and the capitalist state) can never challenge capitalist relations. We know the contradictory nature of the proletariat in posession of the state and the existing social foundations, which is why this contradiction manifests in the form of civil war, and struggle. It is transitional, bound to change. It's important not to think abstractly here. We are talking about OUR current conditions, not some abstract scenario on another planet. The nature of human social relations is not static, without movement, or finite. It is not as though a static condition exists and then experiences movement. The condition itself is the process of movement.

[Rafiq]

I also politely ask that you at least read my whole post before you respond to it in little bits, but then again, the whole point is that responding in isolated bits is easier for you in that you can't read the whole thing first and then compose a detailed rebuttal, no?

It's okay, taking things out of context makes false arguments much easier to convey.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

While I'm loathe to play at Marxology, let alone quibbling over semantics, since nobody seems to have mentioned it explicitly, I want to talk about the distinction between necessity and inevitability.
It's necessary that I eat, but not inevitable. The subjective factor here becomes crucial if not decisive: I could chose to forgo eating, so consciousness is a condition of this necessity. However, in the big (historical) picture, if there's no food, my decision/resolve/politics/etc. isn't going to mean much.

I think this has some implications for the discussion between Rae and Rafiq, but I'll wait to see if either of them picks anything up. ;)

[Rafiq]

When I say political will, not only do I stress that revolution is not inevitable, I also emphasize the importance of proletarian struggle to be grounded in more than survival. The necessity of an affirmative (rather than negative of passive) political struggle is of prime importance. It is necessary for a Communist mythology, our own ideological space to bring the class struggle to universal proportions. Essentially, we must create a moral paradigm in which the fight for our cause is a just one with the blessing of universality itself (which is the ideological dimension by which class struggle is conducted, against bourgeois mythology).

For the record, I should not like to be reduced to be having a discussion with Rae, as though our "positions" are of equal worth. What is going on here is that I am being accused of changing my position and contradicting myself in the midst of Rae's profound theoretical prowess (In case you didn't know, I'm being sarcastic). This is a game of semantics. Rae is not to me a rival or a worthy opponent in any meaningful discussion, but someone who is actively trying to divorce my posts from their actual substance in the learning forum. Though I must yield, I do not care, let them think what they want. Say whatever nonsense you like, my posts are there, there is enough information for someone to come to their own conclusion. I have already delegitimized myself by wasting so much energy here.

[RedMaterialist]

Birth is inevitable; it is also bloody, painful, and sometimes deadly.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Birth is inevitable; it is also bloody, painful, and sometimes deadly.

Erm, the thing though, birth isn't inevitable at all.
Rather, it falls in that category of "founding crimes" - the success of the subsequent life retroactively points to the inevitability of the birth (since, as far we know, the past is immutable). So, in a sense, yes, the birth of everyone on this board is an "inevitability" in that, well, it's historically factual.
Necessity, in this case is approached in its opposite sense - likely our births weren't necessary, and they could have been avoided. Still, the emphasis remains on the "subjective" factor.

[RedMaterialist]

Erm, the thing though, birth isn't inevitable at all.
Rather, it falls in that category of "founding crimes" - the success of the subsequent life retroactively points to the inevitability of the birth (since, as far we know, the past is immutable). So, in a sense, yes, the birth of everyone on this board is an "inevitability" in that, well, it's historically factual.
Necessity, in this case is approached in its opposite sense - likely our births weren't necessary, and they could have been avoided. Still, the emphasis remains on the "subjective" factor.


Each of our births certainly could have been avoided. However, the birth of socialism from the womb of capitalism is inevitable, if not predictable, either subjectively or objectively.

The point of the OP is that since the revolution is inevitable why not just wait for it? I would say that you don't have any choice but to wait. And when it comes it will be bloody, unless, I suppose, they figure out a way to do a C-section on history.