When are people ready for socialism?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Time and time again I see people claiming this such as "Russia wasn't ready for socialism". In a recent thread about Mensheviks this is mentioned by 2 or 3 people. And needless to say I have absolutely no idea what it means.

Presumably it has something to do with first going through capitalist phase, but why is that necessary? How does that even bear on a feasibility of Socialism?

[The Jay]

They mean that the capitalism of russia was not as advanced as europe's capitalism was. The proletariat was a small fraction of the population, which was mostly peasants. This is why the peasants were allowed to maintain their ownership of farms, a bribe to get them to support the revolution. The point of going through a bourgeois revolution will create the proletariat that will bring the proletarian revolution. That's what the hubub is about in a gross fashion.

[bropasaran]

The first problem is having a wrong idea of what socialism is. Instead of seeing it as worker control over production and as correlates to that people control over communities and society of free association- some talk about nationalization, central planning, party rule (right marxism, leninism) or about forced ['libertarian'] communist collectivizations and economic planning (left communists).

The notion itself- of some (underdeveloped) societies "not being ready for socialism"- in another sense has to do with Marxist dogma of technological utopianism where one is suppossed to think that it's impossible to abolish capitalism until technology is advanced enough to do away with need for labor, and we can all subsist without toiling, the only semblance of work being hobbies which are done spontaneously. We will be able to fish in the morning, hunt in the afternoon, criticise in the evening, without ever being hunters, fishers or critics, as Marx said.

Concerning Russia it has has to do with Marxist erroneous theory of class, which separates working people (people who don't exploit anyone) into different classes (peasants and proletariat), and thus in rural societies advocates tyranny of the urban (wage) workers over the majority of people (along with advocating, in case of Leninism, tyranny of the marxist intelligentsia over both the urban workers and the rest of the people), because according to Marxism proletariat is the only revolutionary class, and all others, like peasantry, are reactionary. Some still hold on to this dogma, even though it's the peasants in Ukraine and Spain that were the only people in the world to abolish exploitation in their midst and establish classless societies, and that it was the urban worker / wage-worker/ intelligentsia fetishising leninists that destroyed or participated in destruction of those sparks of revolution.

I suggest reading this entire section: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append4.html

[SHORAS]

Everyone is ready and capable of socialism now.

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi leftist: You know lots of leftists do not like psychology, morality and do not take into consideration the mental state of people. But from my own point I believe that there is a great impediment for a hardcore radical change (i.e: regular joes and janes willingo to revolt in the streets), that impediment is called conformism, lazyness, low-self esteem, ultra-optimism and a sort of fake state of happiness.

And I truely believe that this is the behaviour trend in America among the lower poor classes who live a shitty life, maybe a life more painful than the poor people of poor countries (Because USA is planned and built for people who earn a lot of money), so in USA many poor people suffer more, more physical suffering than the poor people of poor countries. but despite poor americans living such a painful life, at the same time, they seem to me too ultra-optimist, too happy, and too conformist with the way they live. Maybe this might a sort of subtle mental state of suicidal tendencies, or plain passive-nihilism (a will to suffer and to go to hell).

You don't have a psychologist to see with your own eyes how the majority of american poor people in one way or the other love poverty and pain, and support it.

So having said all this, poor americans have to get out of their suicidal nihilism trap, and viscious suicidal circle, into people who are willing to revolt in the streets and to fight real military internal war in USA of the poor against the rich in order for the poor to get out of poverty thru a communist-revolution,

But none of that is happening right now in America, poor americans are very very depressed, very very down, and when humans are very depressed, very down they don't have the moral motivation to fight against the capitalist powers that be of USA.

So I don't really foresee a communist-revolution in a nation where millions of poor people are suicidal, and depressed.

In order to see a change in USA poor americans have to say themselves: "Enough, we are not gonna take it anymore", fuck Obama, fuck Republicans, fuck both parties, fuck all US voters who vote for republicans and democrats and fuck all TV stations, news stations that support democrats and republicans. And fuck all stupid americans who are suicidal and away from politics playing stupid video games and acting stupid; "We are not gonna take it anymore, we need 15 dollars per hour of minimum wage and those of us who are not working need a free check from a new socialist american government of 800 dolllars per month"


V9AbeALNVkk
In order to see the creation of a super large united leftist front composed of angry poor americans hungry for socialism. Angry poor americans have to say to themselves: We are not gonna take it anymore !!

We are not gonna take it anymore !!



.







Time and time again I see people claiming this such as "Russia wasn't ready for socialism". In a recent thread about Mensheviks this is mentioned by 2 or 3 people. And needless to say I have absolutely no idea what it means.

Presumably it has something to do with first going through capitalist phase, but why is that necessary? How does that even bear on a feasibility of Socialism?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

The first problem is having a wrong idea of what socialism is. Instead of seeing it as worker control over production and as correlates to that people control over communities and society of free association- some talk about nationalization, central planning, party rule (right marxism, leninism) or about forced ['libertarian'] communist collectivizations and economic planning (left communists).

The notion itself- of some (underdeveloped) societies "not being ready for socialism"- in another sense has to do with Marxist dogma of technological utopianism where one is suppossed to think that it's impossible to abolish capitalism until technology is advanced enough to do away with need for labor, and we can all subsist without toiling, the only semblance of work being hobbies which are done spontaneously. We will be able to fish in the morning, hunt in the afternoon, criticise in the evening, without ever being hunters, fishers or critics, as Marx said.

Concerning Russia it has has to do with Marxist erroneous theory of class, which separates working people (people who don't exploit anyone) into different classes (peasants and proletariat), and thus in rural societies advocates tyranny of the urban (wage) workers over the majority of people (along with advocating, in case of Leninism, tyranny of the marxist intelligentsia over both the urban workers and the rest of the people), because according to Marxism proletariat is the only revolutionary class, and all others, like peasantry, are reactionary. Some still hold on to this dogma, even though it's the peasants in Ukraine and Spain that were the only people in the world to abolish exploitation in their midst and establish classless societies, and that it was the urban worker / wage-worker/ intelligentsia fetishising leninists that destroyed or participated in destruction of those sparks of revolution.

I suggest reading this entire section: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append4.html

Thanks. It seems to me as well that this Marxist dogma of what a revolutionary class is is rather ludicrous. Not only on a theoretical level, but historical experience also shows that Marxist view at very least needs some update, e.g. as you rightly suggest, the biggest revolutionaries back in Spain were the peasants, while the whole Anarchist movement was initiated almost exclusively by the middle class.

[SHORAS]

You don't have a psychologist to see with your own eyes how the majority of american poor people in one way or the other love poverty and pain, and support it.


lol

How reactionary and bizarre. Because workers do not struggle all the time or even rarely or in the wrong way does not therefore mean in general they support the status quo. It only appears that way.

[AmilcarCabral]

Millions of US poor voters vote for democrats and republicans in every presidential and congress elections, every 2 years and they don't vote for democrats and republicans at gun-point, (they are not forced with guns to vote for democrats and republicans), millions of poor americans have rejected over and over any anti-war third parties, the green party, cindy sheehan, kucinich and every alternative politician.

The great majority of poor people of USA are drunk on wars, capitalism and imperialism


lol

How reactionary and bizarre. Because workers do not struggle all the time or even rarely or in the wrong way does not therefore mean in general they support the status quo. It only appears that way.

[Slavic]

Millions of US poor voters vote for democrats and republicans in every presidential and congress elections, every 2 years and they don't vote for democrats and republicans at gun-point, (they are not forced with guns to vote for democrats and republicans), millions of poor americans have rejected over and over any anti-war third parties, the green party, cindy sheehan, kucinich and every alternative politician.

The great majority of poor people of USA are drunk on wars, capitalism and imperialism

More like the great majority of the poor do not know of any options besides the Republican and Democratic party. The marketing campaigns for both those parties are enormous and dwarfs that of the third parties; Green and Libertarian.

The poor are not "drunk on war, capitalism, and imperialism" the poor are drunk on anxiety over paying their bills on time and job security. That is what the poor, actually, that is what your average American worries about.

Also US elections are a horrible way to analyze how Americans are "feeling". Only a little over half eligible voters actually vote in these elections.

[Broviet Union]

Presumably it has something to do with first going through capitalist phase, but why is that necessary? How does that even bear on a feasibility of Socialism?

I mean, Marxism is not a moralist/ascetic framework. It USED to be a futurist sort of philosophy. There is no point in creating a socialist society if people cannot have a materially fulfilled existence with minimal labor.

[AmilcarCabral]

Broviet: You are 100% right, and indeed economic situation of a person determines their behaviour (wether they are happy or very sad, moralist or immoralist, good or evil).

If you give 1 million dollars to an angry rebellious gang member that person will not change into a saint, but he will change into a less angry, violent, depressed, less nervous, less anxious person.

There is a way to judge the mental state of people, how they feel inside (wether they are happy or sad) by looking at their faces, by their facial expressions. And you can clearly the great differences between the facial expressions of people who shop at stores of middle class economically stable people, who seem happy, compared with people who shop at retail stores of lower class people. You can see the hole, and vacuum in their souls by looking at their faces.

If the minimum wage in the whole world was 8000 dollars per month and the maximum wage 10,000 dollars a month, there wouldn't be any drug smuggling, any prostitution, any crime and not much need of police forces. And lots of love between people, because economic equality leads to peace, love and harmony






I mean, Marxism is not a moralist/ascetic framework. It USED to be a futurist sort of philosophy. There is no point in creating a socialist society if people cannot have a materially fulfilled existence with minimal labor.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I mean, Marxism is not a moralist/ascetic framework. It USED to be a futurist sort of philosophy. There is no point in creating a socialist society if people cannot have a materially fulfilled existence with minimal labor.

I am not sure whether it's that I reject it completely or that it makes absolutely no sense. Why NOT create something resembling communism and then develop productive technology from there, providing people with necessities as well? How the hell is it that capitalism would be somehow better in this case? I will punch you, if you tell me that capitalism is better at developing productive technology than socialism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems like "either perfect communism or fuck you".

[Zukunftsmusik]

Everyone is ready and capable of socialism now.

This is quite clearly not the case.

[Brotto Rühle]

You'll know when they're ready when they're actually overthrowing capitalism.

[Broviet Union]

I am not sure whether it's that I reject it completely or that it makes absolutely no sense. Why NOT create something resembling communism and then develop productive technology from there, providing people with necessities as well? How the hell is it that capitalism would be somehow better in this case? I will punch you, if you tell me that capitalism is better at developing productive technology than socialism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems like "either perfect communism or fuck you".

Abundance is not "perfect communism", it is the very condition that makes communism possible and desirable.

[AmilcarCabral]

Broviet: You are right, most humans wether they want to admit it or not, from indigent humans to Bill Gates love luxuries, pleasures and hate pain and suffering. Most humans are hedonic, and would love a lifestyle and a philosophy of life, full of pleasures, permanent instant gratifications on a regular basis like theme parks, parties, musical activities etc. Humans do not want socialism out of a romantic Robin Hood revolutionary dream, but because they themselves individually want a rise in luxuries, in living standards and in more $$$, more money in their pockets. Better cars, better washing machines, and physically as well, less obesity, less physical ugliness, less diabetes, less heart disease, less mental depression etc.

And we should create a socialist workers-state that would be able to be a powerful example of how humans can live a happier life than they live right now in USA, Germany, France, Sweeden, Italy, Japan and in most developed capitalist nations. With less cancer, less obesity, less diabetes, and less depression. Schopenhauer said that the development of a person is based on 2 traits: a powerful healthy body and a powerful mind full of knowledge. People do not need luxury cars, yats, luxury houses, diamonds, jewerly and other stupid inanities that are irrelevant and do not lead to the 2 main things that humans need: Great bodies and great brains. All humans need in a socialist and a communist-anarchist world are the tools that would be able to give all humans of the planet great bodies and great brains (scientific food, scientific transportation and the scientific political system anarchist-communism)


.


I mean, Marxism is not a moralist/ascetic framework. It USED to be a futurist sort of philosophy. There is no point in creating a socialist society if people cannot have a materially fulfilled existence with minimal labor.

[blake 3:17]

Accepting socialism as desirable is one thing, attempting it is another, and actually achieving it is something else.

It was much easier to get people to attempt it when they at thought it had been achieved somewhere.

I have no idea why people are still talking about Russia in terms of socialism except for academic/scholastic reasons.

[TheMask]

Personally I think the primary reasson the world is not ready to convert to communism is because the richest people and governments in our world have no interest in sharing their goods. Converting to communism would mean for them to give up part of their property for the good of all of us and since these people are the mightiest in our society they somewhat prevent a communist revolution. Ideally I think that those people not willing to support the communist society should not expect to be helped themselves. I think the selfish mighthavers are our greatest hinder towards socialist soceity.

[AmilcarCabral]

TheMask: There is an article in marxists.org by a marxist writer Bela Khun in which clearly states that the main enemy of a communist world is not the oligarchic billionaire class, the main enemy are really the middle classes and even part of the lower classes. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/kun-bela/1918/05/04.htm) And I think that's true, if you think about it, the upper oligarchic rich class of this world are small in number and they can be killed and destroyed really easy in communist revolutions. But the catch-22, the main block, the main enemy, the main destroyer of the objectives of a communist world are the middle classes and even a sector of the lower classes. The middle working class and part of the lower class in most countries of the world are very far to the right, are too right-wingers, too anti-communism.

So that's why I think that the leftist marxist scientists of this world will have to think a scientific-realist plan on how to overthrow capitalist governments without the support of the lower classes and the middle classes (because of the fact that the middle classes and the lower classes) are too weak ideologically, too anti-politics, too anti-communism, too pro-capitalism, too dumb and I really think that we cannot be patient, and naive in the thinking that when gasoline prices in USA rise to 8 dollars per gallon all american workers of Mcdonalds, Wal Marts and other corporations will automatically become loyal marxists communists. (They won't become communists, humans are habit-creatures, and are more loyal to their habits and pre-programmed slaved mentality than to truth and to science)

So having said all this, we will have to think and plan a scientific plan on how to overthrow capitalist governments all over the world without having to wait for stupid self-absorbed workers of Wal Mart, Target, American Airlines where workers are right-wingers, elitists, stuck-up and ultra-right wing ideologically



Personally I think the primary reasson the world is not ready to convert to communism is because the richest people and governments in our world have no interest in sharing their goods. Converting to communism would mean for them to give up part of their property for the good of all of us and since these people are the mightiest in our society they somewhat prevent a communist revolution. Ideally I think that those people not willing to support the communist society should not expect to be helped themselves. I think the selfish mighthavers are our greatest hinder towards socialist soceity.

[TheMask]

TheMask: There is an article in marxists.org by a marxist writer Bela Khun in which clearly states that the main enemy of a communist world is not the oligarchic billionaire class, the main enemy are really the middle classes and even part of the lower classes. And I think that's true, if you think about it, the upper oligarchic rich class of this world are small in number and they can be killed and destroyed really easy in communist revolutions. But the catch-22, the main block, the main enemy, the main destroyer of the objectives of a communist world are the middle classes and even a sector of the lower classes. The middle working class and part of the lower class in most countries of the world are very far to the right, are too right-wingers, too anti-communism.

So that's why I think that the leftist marxist scientists of this world will have to think a scientific-realist plan on how to overthrow capitalist governments without the support of the lower classes and the middle classes (because of the fact that the middle classes and the lower classes) are too weak ideologically, too anti-politics, too anti-communism, too pro-capitalism, too dumb and I really think that we cannot be patient, and naive in the thinking that when gasoline prices in USA rise to 8 dollars per gallon all american workers of Mcdonalds, Wal Marts and other corporations will automatically become loyal marxists communists. (They won't become communists, humans are habit-creatures, and are more loyal to their habits and pre-programmed slaved mentality than to truth and to science)

So having said all this, we will have to think and plan a scientific plan on how to overthrow capitalist governments all over the world without having to wait for stupid self-absorbed workers of Wal Mart, Target, American Airlines where workers are right-wingers, elitists, stuck-up and ultra-right wing ideologically

Hmm yes interesting point you have about how not only the upper-class billionaires prevent the expanding of a communist revolution but also the right-winged middle and lower-class.

As a complete believer in the non-violent revolution I still hope you will take into account that we are making (although necessary and for the better) massive changes in the lives of human beings. Therefore it is my believe that the subject of non-violent and peaceful conversion into communism should be taken very seriously. Afterall we still need the compassion and support of the masses in order to both create and maintain a communist society.

[Red Economist]

In reading up about the USSR, personally I've reached the conclusion that the only time the proletariat is "ready" for socialism is when it is capable of self-emancipation without the need for a vanguard of intellectuals/professional revolutionaries (which sets the stage for a bureaucratic degeneration).

In practice this means the elimination of the division of mental and physical labor as the economic basis for exploiting societies. What this looks like in practice, I don't have the foggiest...

[Slavic]

So that's why I think that the leftist marxist scientists of this world will have to think a scientific-realist plan on how to overthrow capitalist governments without the support of the lower classes and the middle classes (because of the fact that the middle classes and the lower classes) are too weak ideologically, too anti-politics, too anti-communism, too pro-capitalism, too dumb and I really think that we cannot be patient, and naive in the thinking that when gasoline prices in USA rise to 8 dollars per gallon all american workers of Mcdonalds, Wal Marts and other corporations will automatically become loyal marxists communists. (They won't become communists, humans are habit-creatures, and are more loyal to their habits and pre-programmed slaved mentality than to truth and to science)

So having said all this, we will have to think and plan a scientific plan on how to overthrow capitalist governments all over the world without having to wait for stupid self-absorbed workers of Wal Mart, Target, American Airlines where workers are right-wingers, elitists, stuck-up and ultra-right wing ideologically

How's the view high up there in your ivory tower? Please don't let us dumb self-absorbed poor people bother you, I know you are hard at work forming a chemical reaction to create communism.:rolleyes:

I never understand where your posts come from, they are usualy loaded with anti-poor anti-worker rehtoric.

News Flash: The poor and the middle class ARE the proletariat. We are ultimatly the driving force that will challenge the ruling class. No "marxist scientist" policy wonk will ever change that fact.

[AmilcarCabral]

Slavic: Don't be romantic, utopian and naive. One thing is to read about how communist revolutions can be waged by poor masses, destroying capitalist governments. About how romantic utopian movies like Robin Hood destroying and overthrowing corrupt tyrannies.

And the other thing is the real-reality, the real reality is that most poor oppressed people in USA are worse than right-wingers, most poor americans are totally away from politics, and those who do vote every 4 years, vote for the democratic party and the republican party.

Be realist and not utopian, rely on reality, on how the world works not how you wish it should work. I wish that all poor americans would vote for the socialist party of USA, for the workers world party, or for the revolutionary communist party. But the reality is that most poor voters of USA are voting for Democrats and Republicans in every elections.

When i see poor americans being open to communism, i will support them, but I will not support an oppressed person who supports his oppressor because by supporting his oppressor he becomes a person more evil than his oppressor

PD: I have been offended, insulted, bashed and trashed by poor americans when I've tried to do my best to get them into socialism, to try to get them to join and to be pro-active members of leftist labor parties. I've lost my patience to do that, I don't do that anymore, because it was a waste of time, most poor americans are suicidal, they love poverty, they get high on poverty, they are addicted to working, they support rich wealthy celebrities, rich wealthy political celebrities like Obama, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Chelsea Clinton, and the most radical they can get is Bernie Sanders (who supported Obama and John Kerry to bomb and invade Syria). There are many impediments right now in USA for poor americans to become communists among those impediments are: Dumbness, conformism, low-self esteem, physical tiredness from excess of work, narcissism, family-narcissism, self-absorbed behaviour, racism, ultra-nationalism, ultra-patriotism, mind-control by mainstream TV news like CNN and NBC, etc. etc


PD 2: so we communists will have to wait for a radical crisis like I have in my signature of like gas prices rising to 25 dollars per gallon, chicken prices rising to 40 dollars per lb (a powerful inflation) for americans poor people to be willing to support the communist ideology in USA as their only salvation in this world


.


.







How's the view high up there in your ivory tower? Please don't let us dumb self-absorbed poor people bother you, I know you are hard at work forming a chemical reaction to create communism.:rolleyes:

I never understand where your posts come from, they are usualy loaded with anti-poor anti-worker rehtoric.

News Flash: The poor and the middle class ARE the proletariat. We are ultimatly the driving force that will challenge the ruling class. No "marxist scientist" policy wonk will ever change that fact.

[Slavic]

Slavic: Don't be romantic, utopian and naive. One thing is to read about how communist revolutions can be waged by poor masses, destroying capitalist governments. About how romantic utopian movies like Robin Hood destroying and overthrowing corrupt tyrannies.

Do tell me, how can a socialist revolution not be led by the working class. I am not being romantic nor utopian when I state that no other class, other than the working class, can bring about a socialist revolution. That is just Marxism 101.


And the other thing is the real-reality, the real reality is that most poor oppressed people in USA are worse than right-wingers, most poor americans are totally away from politics, and those who do vote every 4 years, vote for the democratic party and the republican party.

Again, I don't see how being uninterested in politics and voting for centrist parties constitutes a person as being "worse than right-wingers".


Be realist and not utopian, rely on reality, on how the world works not how you wish it should work. I wish that all poor americans would vote for the socialist party of USA, for the workers world party, or for the revolutionary communist party. But the reality is that most poor voters of USA are voting for Democrats and Republicans in every elections.

As I stated before, I don't care how Americans vote in presidential elections, nor do I find such elections as an accurate indicator of the people's concerns and interests. As previously stated, the Dem/Rep parties have utterly dominated elections because they are the parties of the American ruling class and thus are extremely well funded and legally protected from alternate parties. So it is reasonable for an American to vote for one of these parties, that is if that American believes that voting has an impact on their life.

Honestly how would Americans voting for the varied socialist parties change the social structure of America. I am pretty certain that not one of those parties you listed seeks to eliminate wage-labor.


When i see poor americans being open to communism, i will support them, but I will not support an oppressed person who supports his oppressor because by supporting his oppressor he becomes a person more evil than his oppressor

Dismiss the slave because he is not actively fighting for his freedom.

[tallguy]

Time and time again I see people claiming this such as "Russia wasn't ready for socialism". In a recent thread about Mensheviks this is mentioned by 2 or 3 people. And needless to say I have absolutely no idea what it means.

Presumably it has something to do with first going through capitalist phase, but why is that necessary? How does that even bear on a feasibility of Socialism?Some people are ready for socialism when they have thought about it for long enough. Most people are ready for socialism when they have nothing left to lose.

[Blake's Baby]

In reading up about the USSR, personally I've reached the conclusion that the only time the proletariat is "ready" for socialism is when it is capable of self-emancipation without the need for a vanguard of intellectuals/professional revolutionaries (which sets the stage for a bureaucratic degeneration).

In practice this means the elimination of the division of mental and physical labor as the economic basis for exploiting societies. What this looks like in practice, I don't have the foggiest...

This is looking at the question completely backwards. The revolution didn't degenerate because 'professional' revolutionaries were able to take control, rather professional revolutionaries were able to take control because the revolution degenerated.

'The Party' - that is, the organisation of revolutionaries - is a tool of the working class. If that tool escapes the control of the class it's because the class itself is not pushing the revolution forward. Whatever the Bolsheviks did in Russia, the world revolution was defeated in on the streets of Berlin. Different policies or actions in Russia wouldn't have been able to complete the world revolution or establish socialism in one country.