The Famous Capitalist Rebuttal [Archive]

Remus Bleys

14th April 2014, 13:36

Socialism doesn't mean equal pay. The first phase of socialism is "to each according to their contribution." This doesn't mean that you work x hours you receive x amount of labor notes therefore x amount of labor power you're allowed to receive. Rather the total amount of labor is taken, and necessary things (some form of welfare, the ability to keep the means of production in usable conditions etc) is subtracted from that. Then this is then divided up and the proportion of contribution is found - so you can work 6 hours and receive a 6 hour labor note but you may only be able to "4 hours worth " of stuff, or you could get "7 hours worth" of stuff. It all really depends on the circumstances - this isn't direct but proportional.

Higher phase communist society, on the other hand, is "to each their need." In this phase, the development of the productive forces and rational management has allowed a sort of "post-scarcity" and thus labor notes do not need to be used. In this phase, one works because it is now a joy - all this allows a major surplus of goods and now it is fully possible to supply everyone with their needs and wants. It would be foolish to retain the labor notes as it's use is moot.

Equality has nothing to do with this. To those who want their full contribution and undiminished labor we can't help but laugh. To do so would be to deprive both society of its productive possibility and the fellow human their productive possibility - which results in their own labor being increased and the products quality drastically reduced. All this can be found in the critique of the Gotha program.

The Jay

14th April 2014, 13:48

Socialism doesn't mean equal pay. The first phase of socialism is "to each according to their contribution." This doesn't mean that you work x hours you receive x amount of labor notes therefore x amount of labor power you're allowed to receive. Rather the total amount of labor is taken, and necessary things (some form of welfare, the ability to keep the means of production in usable conditions etc). Then this is then divided up and the proportion of contribution is found - so you can work 6 hours and receive a 6 hour labor note but you may only be able to "4 hours worth " of stuff, or you could get "7 hours worth" of stuff. It all really depends on the circumstances - this isn't direct but proportional.

Higher phase communist society, on the other hand, is "to each their need." In this phase, the development of the productive forces and rational management has allowed a sort of "post-scarcity" and thus labor notes do not need to be used. In this phase, one works because it is now a joy - all this allows a major surplus of goods and now it is fully possible to supply everyone with their needs and wants. It would be foolish to retain the labor notes as it's use is moot.

Equality has nothing to do with this. To those who want their full contribution and undiminished labor we can't help but laugh. To do so would be to deprive both society of its productive possibility and the fellow human their productive possibility - which results in their own labor being increased and the products quality drastically reduced. All this can be found in the critique of the Gotha program.

First, I don't think that this would be a viable response to a supporter of Capitalism. The goal is to sway and not overwhelm the subject. That's why I responded the way that I did. Break down their reasoning and then introduce your own as a practical alternative.

Second, I ask you to clarify something: are you suggesting that labor should be calculated out into simple common labor, into hours worked, or some combination? If it is either one then they could be accumulated and used to lend, purchase, ect so long as they are a maintainer of value across time and persons. Capital would still be alive, just in a different form. It must be crushed.

Remus Bleys

14th April 2014, 13:55

Well of course capital must be crushed, but the labor notes isn't a way of keeping capital about. I refer to camatte's capital and community, specifically the section entitled "the transistion of capitalism to communism." I don't really know how exactly it'll be calculated, perhaps a measure of the two. The labor note however cannot be exchanged nor can it be accumulated. It has a limited amount of time and as soon as this time is up, the labor note becomes invalid. In addition, it cannot be transferred it can only be used at whatever is distributing the notes and goods. The labor note unlike money cannot be saved lent or transferred.
Of course there is a certain problem with its value of course but I'm only advocating it as a "necessary and temporary measure."

The Jay

14th April 2014, 14:04

I wonder how much was borrowed from Keynes because IIRC he suggested that money left in banks should have a negative interest rate such that spending be encouraged.

I get what you're saying though.

The Jay

14th April 2014, 15:56

You could, for one, suggest they take a guess at how high survival rates would be in a hospital with no janitors or housekeeping services (hint: low).

Sorry, I'll try to give a better answer when I have a bit more time.

Working as one of the manual labor people in an hospital I can attest to this. If I got lazy and didn't clean the stretchers people would end up dying.

The Jay

14th April 2014, 16:25

Why is "equal pay" touted by anti-socialists as a principle of socialism? Respond with "Equal pay is not what socialists advocate for," plain and simply. If that brings you to a point where you must explain socialism, then do so in a simple manner as well.

They think so because that is what was told to them. Not many have even read a thing by a socialist save possibly the manifesto, which imo can be a source of confusion due to it being simplified.

Fourth Internationalist

14th April 2014, 16:29

Kill all the fetuses!

14th April 2014, 18:23

Ask them why a factory worker who actually produces stuff should be paid minimum wage, while an investment banker, who doesn't really produce anything should be paid tens of thousands?

They will most probably say something vague about supply and demand. Then ask them why our entire lives ought to be structured around some arbitrary capitalist laws (of supply and demand).

Dagoth Ur

14th April 2014, 18:37

Communists believe in the Labor Theory of Value. Why would we turn around and then reject it by paying everyone the same? We aren't Levelers and Marx himself argued against such idiocy several times.

Remus Bleys

14th April 2014, 18:48

Communists believe in the Labor Theory of Value. Why would we turn around and then reject it by paying everyone the same? We aren't Levelers and Marx himself argued against such idiocy several times.

No communists don't. Communists don't believe in the labor theory of value they recognize that the law of value is a cornerstone of capital. Even stalin mantained that communism doesn't retain this and said that in socialism its suppressed.
It's not a morality statement just a truth. It's a basic law of capital and to say communists argue for the retention of this law is to say that communists fight for capitalism and just call it capitalism - or you know typical stalinism. You are making this too easy for me.

Dagoth Ur

14th April 2014, 18:58

All Marxists accept the LTV. Marx took it from Smith and thanked him for it. What value system do you think communists use?

Also source on Stalin being against LTV.

Fakeblock

14th April 2014, 19:08

All Marxists accept the LTV. Marx took it from Smith and thanked him for it. What value system do you think communists use?

Also source on Stalin being against LTV.

Communists are for the abolition of capitalist commodity production and the law of value. What do you think communism is?

Zukunftsmusik

14th April 2014, 19:09

What do you think communism is?

Or what do you think LTV is?

Remus Bleys

14th April 2014, 19:14

I'm not endorsing stalin nor do I agree with this text but

But does this mean that the operation of the law of value has as much scope with us as it has under capitalism, and that it is the regulator of production in our country too? No, it does not. Actually, the sphere of operation of the law of value under our economic system is strictly limited and placed within definite bounds.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm

all marxists accept that the law of value functions within capitalism. To say it functions in socialism is to call capitalism socialism - the worst of all the revisions.
Of course as the leader of a capitalist state stalin was not against the law of value - nor does it really matter in the real world. But you aren't even stalinism correctly.

Alan OldStudent

14th April 2014, 19:38

Whenever I bring up the topic of Socialism to a Capitalist, I always hear the same thing "If I have a job that requires a lot of skill and education, why should I get the same pay as a lowly janitor?", etc.
How can I respond to this when it is said?

First of all, if you’re arguing with someone who claims to be a capitalist, you can probably tell them that they’re not a capitalist but rather a supporter of capitalism. A capitalist is a member of the economic class that owns and controls the major means of production and distribution. Having a few shares of Microsoft stock doesn’t qualify. A capitalist has to be able to exercise control and be more than a minor investor. Tell him/her that, and this may help them to see things from a bit different perspective.

To your would-be capitalist, you can make the following explanation:

Under capitalism, labor power itself is a commodity. A commodity has both use value and exchange value and is the product of labor. The capitalist purchases labor power on the market. S/he pays a wage, which is the purchase price of the labor power. A worker has to survive, reproduce, and be replaced when no longer able to work.

A highly-skilled worker needs some education above and beyond the relatively unskilled worker. That is an investment. The labor power of a highly-skilled worker, such as a surgeon, requires much more labor to produce than the labor power of a relatively unskilled worker because the surgeon has to spend years and money acquiring the education. All work is skilled to one degree or another. A janitor or a fast-food worker requires less work to produce his/her labor power than a software engineer or an auto mechanic.

Under capitalism and the early stages of socialism, the labor power of highly-skilled workers cost more. Under modern capitalism, however, this disparity is highly distorted. For example, collecting garbage may be far harder and more grueling than sitting in an air-conditioned office doing secretarial work, and the difference in pay may be distorted because the bean counters cannot put discomfort into a spreadsheet.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

reb

14th April 2014, 19:41

Communists are for the abolition of wage labor. Any thing else is just superfluous. The sort of counter argument that you provided is really just a misconception of what socialism is. I doubt that a capitalist is really going to change their minds. It also doesn't help that Stalinists always say how great it is for wage differentials to be small, as it this is a cornerstone of socialism.

ckaihatsu

14th April 2014, 19:42

Whenever I bring up the topic of Socialism to a Capitalist, I always hear the same thing "If I have a job that requires a lot of skill and education, why should I get the same pay as a lowly janitor?", etc.
How can I respond to this when it is said?

The paramount point we should stress is that a collectivized society would have a collective interest in *eliminating* all gruntwork -- fully cooperative social planning and fully automated mechanics / logistics would be at the heart of this new social political consciousness.

Here's from a past thread on the topic:

[I] think the *political* consciousness aspect would play a large role in that no one *should* want to waste their life-time with lesser socially meaningful occupations. A nascent communist society as a whole would no doubt turn its immediate attention to logistically phasing out grunt-work-type positions as quickly as possible, if only to avoid its own political embarrassment....

(This reiterating, recursive dynamic may actually be what could drive a communist society forward, endlessly, in terms of technological and humanities-type development -- generally, people's sentiments of self-worth would be higher than now, under labor commodification, so no one would *want* to do relatively lower-level work in terms of the society's norms at any given point, *plus* the society would be politically "self-conscious" about not wanting to look objectively regressive by allowing the use of human labor for such tasks....)

The doctor argument against communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/doctor-argument-against-t147012/index4.html

That said, though, I'm of the position that per-project work roles *would* continue to exist, indefinitely, and not everyone would have the personal inclination to do just *anything* -- I'm critical and dismissive of the world-of-happy-campers-for-ever-after conception of communism.

So if individuality is to be respected in an enlightened way, individual sentiments will vary, and not all work efforts will be embraced as equivalent.

I would ask if monetary reward was all that people seek in life.

Nice guilt-tripping.... (heh)

Why then would everyone say that they want a job that they enjoy?

Good point.

If shoveling horse shit off of woods trails paid like a doctor's job would they want to do it? Which would they prefer: shoveling shit in the mud and rain or treating patients and saving lives? If they only do things for the money then they're probably just reactionary assholes but if they do things for fulfillment then they're contradicting themselves.

This is a fair argument, but it also happens to sidestep the point about the gruntwork itself -- what would a post-capitalist society do about the care of horses (as this example seems to be about) -- ?

Again, it'd be better to address how all demeaning labor could be obviated, which is the point of a revolution, anyway, imo.

Redistribute the Rep

14th April 2014, 21:10

Whenever I bring up the topic of Socialism to a Capitalist, I always hear the same thing "If I have a job that requires a lot of skill and education, why should I get the same pay as a lowly janitor?", etc.
How can I respond to this when it is said?

Well, it takes way more resources to create a doctor. Think of all those unproductive years the medical has to spend studying, having their basic needs provided for them, while the janitor has been working away for all those years. Even in the context of capitalism the argument that a janitor is worth less than a doctor is laughable, so it fails on many levels.

The Intransigent Faction

14th April 2014, 22:32

You shouldn't because you wouldn't be "paid" a wage. You and the janitor would both have access to enough resources to live well and challenge yourselves with more fulfilling careers as you saw fit. Even if janitorial work is somehow less 'worthy', the janitor not being worse off than you would have no logical bearing on your choice to do or not to do something 'better'.

If anything, people in capitalist societies are more deterred from seeking a fulfilling career based on concerns about costs, among other things. The fact that even in capitalism there are people who do certain jobs primarily because they enjoy them shows that in a socialist society this suppressed form of motivation will be incredibly strong.

In a post-scarcity society (in simple terms, in a world where things are produced for the benefit of people rather than profits), the question of how to allocate "scarce" resources won't apply. There won't be a need or reason for worry about whether one has more or less than one's neighbor.

If you're craving pie and someone offers you the choice between dividing up a small pie and giving you the larger piece, or dividing up a large pie and giving everyone an equal (or roughly equal) size piece, would you really take the larger piece of the smaller pie out of some arrogant notion that you deserve to have more than others, even if it meant you might be the one with less in the long run? That would be some serious pathological vindictiveness. Sorry if that's a somewhat labored analogy (no pun intended!).

That's the best I can do for now in my usual caffeine-fuelled Monday state of mind. :P

d3crypt

14th April 2014, 23:25

reb

15th April 2014, 01:01

UGH!!!!:mad: I HATE when they say that shit. I have to deal with this fucking straw-man every time i argue with fucking liberals. "Who will pave the roads" "Its good in theory, but bad in practice" "Why should i be paid the same as a burger flipper" DAMN it. I swear the fucking cappies have successfully and thoroughly brainwashed this damn society we live in.

The main reason is because many people view socialism as just being a nice idea or a set of principals to put be put into practice. It isn't helped that many "socialists" also hold this same conception of what socialism is. It allows to paint socialism as a failed experiment that was finally done away with when the wall came down rather then socialism being a direct result of the capitalist mode of production.

RedMaterialist

15th April 2014, 02:33

Whenever I bring up the topic of Socialism to a Capitalist, I always hear the same thing "If I have a job that requires a lot of skill and education, why should I get the same pay as a lowly janitor?", etc.
How can I respond to this when it is said?

Check out Marx's
The Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marx agreed with your capitalist. The person who has more skill, intelligence, is stronger, has more education, etc., will get paid more. However, with highly progressive taxation, the higher income will be taxed to pay for health care, education, etc for everybody. There won't be any inheritance or accumulation of capital allowed. If your capitalist says that then he won't have any incentive to work, then tell him/her that he/she won't be able to eat.

At the later stage of development, communism, then payment of wages for labor will no longer exist.

Skyhilist

15th April 2014, 03:20

Yeah, there aren't wages so that's a dumb argument to begin with.

But, it's likely that after explaining what socialism really entails you might get some response like "well how come the doctor and janitor get access to the exact same amount of resources?"

Careful with this question. The way it is asked, it will sound like they think the doctor isn't getting "paid" (with access to resources) enough. But when you take into consideration the elimination of artificial scarcity, the doctor will likely be able to have access to all the goods an average doctor today would, plus more - they wont be making less than now. The real issue this person has is that the janitor ALSO has plentiful access to resources. And why would that be a problem? Well, the only real argument is that it wont motivate people to become doctors. To see why this is a foolish argument, go up to any young kid who has aspirations to become something - suppose the kid wants to be a doctor. Ask any of these aspiring kids "why?" and they're never going to tell you "because I'll get more stuff", because that isn't what intrinsically motivates people. There will still be plenty of doctors because being a doctor is a much more intrinsically enjoyable job than being a janitor full time.

Speaking of which - there shouldn't be too many, if any "full time" jobs under communism. Communism should be working towards the abolition of work, or at least undesirable work (depending on your definition of at least work is), and will likely involve people sharing the undesirable work - there won't be a division of labor. People have intrinsic interests. Under the right conditions (communism is a manifestation of these conditions) almost no one is going to ignore these interests just because a "lousy" job is easier - and even if they do, that's ok. It doesn't wreck anything.

TheSocialistMetalhead

15th April 2014, 03:29

No communists don't. Communists don't believe in the labor theory of value they recognize that the law of value is a cornerstone of capital. Even stalin mantained that communism doesn't retain this and said that in socialism its suppressed.
It's not a morality statement just a truth. It's a basic law of capital and to say communists argue for the retention of this law is to say that communists fight for capitalism and just call it capitalism - or you know typical stalinism. You are making this too easy for me.

Honest question:

Why and how is the labor theory of value a 'cornerstone of capital? Do you mean this is the case simply because it implies wage labor'? If you say it shouldn't retained, are you simply saying the value of a commodity should be determined by something else?

The Jay

15th April 2014, 03:42

Honest question:

Why and how is the labor theory of value a 'cornerstone of capital? Do you mean this is the case simply because it implies wage labor'? If you say it shouldn't retained, are you simply saying the value of a commodity should be determined by something else?

Value here has a very specific meaning: the marxist one. Communism is about abolishing Capitalism and the core of Capitalism is the commodity and capital: the increasing of the concentration of surplus value. If commodities are produced and used in exchange then you have capital, ergo Capitalism.

bropasaran

15th April 2014, 07:42

Whenever I bring up the topic of Socialism to a Capitalist, I always hear the same thing "If I have a job that requires a lot of skill and education, why should I get the same pay as a lowly janitor?", etc.

How can I respond to this when it is said?

You should say that the janitor isn't supposed to have an equal pay- he's supposed to have a larger pay them him!

First of all- if you're having 1on1 conversation and you can see that he is vehemently set in his view and just wants to preach to you and basically troll everything you say, don't waste your time. If he's like that but there are other people participating in or listening to the conversation them engage him and remain respectful throughout.

If the second is the case, or if the guy just has capitalist preconception that are driven in all of our head by this system but is willing to listen to what you have to say- if it's reasonable to assume that he might consider your arguments and rething his ideas, then you should go on and engage him. How should you do that? First of all avoid socialist terminology and theories. Explain to his in plain terms and concrete ways the basic ideas and values that are at the core of socialism, and even there, don't do it directly- you should firstly go in that direction, but making him realize that he should reject capitalist notions and accept those that point to values such as liberty equality and solidarity.

My suggestion is to talk about how the janitor should get a higher a pay then him, and that he actually supports that if he thinks about it a little.

Ask him to think of a minimally humane and just society, where people are not born priviledged over other people, meaning at least that everyone has access to quality schooling, in that society no child is poor and driven by destitution to work, instead- all children have the opportunity to develop his capacities and freely choose their occupation, society has the minimum of disency to provide for it's future generations free education and livelihood during that education, from kindergarten to higher schooling. He is likely to support such a thing, especially when the alternative is spelled out, almost all people are humane that way, only a small minority of people brainwashed into accepting capitalist ideology would oppose it based on some dubious exuses.

Now let's say that one person in that kind of society finishes high school and starts working as a janitor for a certain pay, and he can live fine with that pay. Then ask this guy to imagine that he is in that minimally humane and just society, he is finishing high school and has in front of him the choise to go work as a janitor and the choice to go through higher schooling and after that work an office job.

The office job has shorter work time, it's a pleasant job, nice office, air-conditioned, it's not dirty or onerous, it's to a degree mentally challenging and thus more pleasing, you develop your various creative mental skill by doing it, it's an important job which carries with it an amount of prestige, when you do it you know you're doing something important for people, and people recognize that, you ingange in pleasant contact with other people during your work and people respect you for doing it, in general it's a way more empowering and more enjoyable job then beying a janitor; which is somewhat hard work, dirty, longer hours, you have a small crapy room in the basement, you just go around every day doing mechanically the boring rote work, people don't even notice you, they don't value the work you do, you clean something up and they reclessly mess it up a few second later, people pretty much look down upon you, in general it's a disempoweing and a shitty job.

Then ask him- if the office job was payed the same as the janitor job, when finishing high school in that society, what would he choose- to become a janitor, or to go for the office job?

Then ask him this- what if the office job was payed somewhat less then the janitor job but still enough so one can live just fine- would he then reject going through higher schooling and getting an office job and instead decide to work as a janitor?

Then ask him this- if the office job was payed only half as much as the janitor's job, but still enough to like ok- would he then decide to be a janitor instead of an office worker?

I'm pretty sure that a huge number of people of people would choose the office job even if was payed a subsistence wage that is less then half they they janitor wage.

I've talked basically more or less exactly like this to many people, and found that a large majority will follow the line of the talk and approve of the point. Just let them think about that, ask them to compare such a common sense, intuitively just system with the current system where money speculators and company owners have millions while people like blue collar workers and house parents who toil a lot more then them live in poverty, and ask them to think about the fact how we're being duped and lied how there's some kind of 'american dream'- you just have to work hard and honest and you can live comfortably, whereas in reality it's not a person's labor that's valued, it's what someone owns and in what position of priviledge he is.

Do something like this and you will make people anti-capitalist, that is, you'll help them realize that they already were anti-capitalist. After you do that, you give them some other explanations about questions that they have and then you call them to join some (libertarian socialist) activist organization (that you're part of)- educational, mutual aid organization, whatever.

ckaihatsu

15th April 2014, 22:20

Check out Marx's . Marx agreed with your capitalist. The person who has more skill, intelligence, is stronger, has more education, etc., will get paid more. However, with highly progressive taxation, the higher income will be taxed to pay for health care, education, etc for everybody. There won't be any inheritance or accumulation of capital allowed. If your capitalist says that then he won't have any incentive to work, then tell him/her that he/she won't be able to eat.

At the later stage of development, communism, then payment of wages for labor will no longer exist.

---

If your capitalist says that then he won't have any incentive to work, then tell him/her that he/she won't be able to eat.

I, for one, find this particular line abhorrent -- I think it's a misinterpretation of what socialism is about, and I prefer to think that a revolutionary movement would be looking to *win people over* with more of an 'early free-access' policy to show everyone how much better a socialist social order is compared to capitalism.

Also, I just finished a new graphic that's relevant to this thread, so here it is:

Pies Must Line Up

http://s6.postimg.org/erqcsdyb1/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/)

RedMaterialist

15th April 2014, 23:32

---

I, for one, find this particular line abhorrent --

I find capitalists abhorrent.

ckaihatsu

15th April 2014, 23:41

I find capitalists abhorrent.

So the 'no work no eat' thing would only apply to capitalists, then?

If that's the case it's understandable, of course, but I'd imagine that capitalists would be dealt with in a more-explicitly *political* way, as with trials over specific offenses, or something like that.

My only concern is that the 'labor camp' approach might be more logistically demanding than it's worth.

Ahab Strange

16th April 2014, 19:38

Good thread, dammit I always come across these things too late.

Equality has nothing to do with this. To those who want their full contribution and undiminished labor we can't help but laugh. To do so would be to deprive both society of its productive possibility and the fellow human their productive possibility - which results in their own labor being increased and the products quality drastically reduced. All this can be found in the critique of the Gotha program.

A fascinatingly baffling post. Im interested to know what you are saying here. By what mechanism does the workers receiving the full product of their labour deprive society of its "productive possibility?

Are you arguing about the inevitability of taxes somehow?

Remus Bleys

16th April 2014, 19:52

Good thread, dammit I always come across these things too late.

A fascinatingly baffling post. Im interested to know what you are saying here. By what mechanism does the workers receiving the full product of their labour deprive society of its "productive possibility?

Are you arguing about the inevitability of taxes somehow?
so I don't want to deal with being called baffling when I have numerous times referred to my basis. I'm a shit explainer so I'll just refer to this guy (you may have heard of him)

To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?

But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the*total social product.

From this must now be deducted:*First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up.Second, additional portion for expansion of production.Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it:*First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops.*Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops.*Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion -- namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

edit: ckhaistu, if the numbers aren't even based on the real world why fucking make the graph in the first place?

bropasaran

16th April 2014, 20:14

ckaihatsu

16th April 2014, 20:45

edit: ckhaistu, if the numbers aren't even based on the real world why fucking make the graph in the first place?

As the graphic notes, they're 'for illustration purposes only', meaning that such budgeting-by-categories would be a real part of any collective planning.

The *point* of the whole illustration is in the text: '[T]he totality of any one economic component [must correspond] to the totality of each of the others.'

Remus Bleys

16th April 2014, 20:48

Critique of Gotha Program Draft is just basically flak going into pointless nit-picking, here being the perfect example with Marx babbling and obscuring a clear part of the program. Gotha Program, of course, isn't a libertarian socialist program, but both the Draft and the final version were far better then any program Marx and Engels proposed.

Oh my god dude you prefer even lassalle over marx? What is wrong with you God. Are you just trying to be an edgy hipstershit?

Ckhaistu --- no *one understands /what* __ it - is that "youre" saying

ckaihatsu

16th April 2014, 20:52

Ckhaistu --- no *one understands /what* __ it - is that "youre" saying

Then don't ask.

Remus Bleys

16th April 2014, 21:07

Or type better and learn to communicate in a way that people can actually understand - or get off the learning subforum.

ckaihatsu

17th April 2014, 00:31

Or type better and learn to communicate in a way that people can actually understand - or get off the learning subforum.

You're just being antagonistic -- get over it, or else ask *specific* questions and then *try* to understand what's being given to you.

Remus Bleys

17th April 2014, 02:00

That's right how dare I question your genius

bropasaran

17th April 2014, 04:02

Oh my god dude you prefer even lassalle over marx? What is wrong with you God. Are you just trying to be an edgy hipstershit?
I'm just not automatically predisposed to accept Marx' words as Scripture. I don't support Lassalle, but yes- he's way better then Marx, he is very similar Marx, but without a lot of irrationalities. Way more progressive/ libertarian then Marx for sure, e.g. Gotha Program explicitly sets for it's goal popular control over production and explicitly mentions workplace democracy, neither of which Marx did, concerning the former he talked only about state control, and concerning the latter he thought it to be impossible; also Marx' view of emancipation through the ballot and talk about making the state subordinate instead of superimposed on the people seem nothing but ridiculous when we see that he never actually proposed to enact that, whereas the Gotha Program did, by setting as it's demand actual (/direct) democracy- abolition of state legislature, judiciary and army and their replacement by referenda, people's courts and a people's militia, whereas Marx never talked about direct democracy.

Fourth Internationalist

17th April 2014, 05:38

I'm just not automatically predisposed to accept Marx' words as Scripture. I don't support Lassalle, but yes- he's way better then Marx, he is very similar Marx, but without a lot of irrationalities. Way more progressive/ libertarian then Marx for sure, e.g. Gotha Program explicitly sets for it's goal popular control over production and explicitly mentions workplace democracy, neither of which Marx did, concerning the former he talked only about state control, and concerning the latter he thought it to be impossible; also Marx' view of emancipation through the ballot and talk about making the state subordinate instead of superimposed on the people seem nothing but ridiculous when we see that he never actually proposed to enact that, whereas the Gotha Program did, by setting as it's demand actual (/direct) democracy- abolition of state legislature, judiciary and army and their replacement by referenda, people's courts and a people's militia, whereas Marx never talked about direct democracy.

How much do you know about Lassalle? And Marx?

bropasaran

17th April 2014, 05:40

I've read what's available in English of and about their works.

Fourth Internationalist

17th April 2014, 05:42

I've read what's available in English of and about their works.

Do you know what Lasalle's view of the state was?

bropasaran

17th April 2014, 23:38

What was it?

tallguy

18th April 2014, 00:37

I wouldn't begin with socialism in response. I would begin by asking the person if they thought that there was any job that could be done full time, but which they felt was sufficiently unimportant/lacking in value that even working full time in that job, the wage it paid did not allow a person to economically function. That is to say, pay their bills and feed themselves. Most people would agree that no full time job should pay insufficient to get by, in the way described above.

I would then ask the person how they felt about the state having to pick up the tab in the form of top-up social security benefits to make up for the shortfall in a person's wage even though they are working full time? Most people, at this point, would agree that it's pretty stupid for the state to be having to pick up the tab. I would then ask them if the state is picking up the tab, and that this tab is being paid for out of taxes, who should be paying those taxes to cover the shortfall in some peoples wages, the middle ranking earners or the higher ranking earners? Most people would agree that it should be the higher ranking earners.

I would then point out to the person that instead of taxing the richest group of earners and redistributing it to the lowest earners in the form of social security benefits, with all of the inefficiencies and bureaucracy that comes with such redistribution, it would be far better to simply not allow people to earn over and above a certain amount, and not allow people to earn below a certain amount and that this, in turn, would not disadvantage any employer since they would all be subject to the same employment and wage laws. Most people, following all of the above, are apt to agree with this as being the most logical solution to people at the bottom not earning enough. I would finish this initial exchange by asking the person why they think that none of their various governments have enacted such an eminently logical pay policy?

Now, I know that none of the above is in any way true socialism. But, what it serves to do is to get that person's head working in a way it has hitherto not being doing. It represents the potential start of a political journey for them.

Acorns to oak trees and all that.

RedMaterialist

18th April 2014, 04:01

also Marx' view of emancipation through the ballot and talk about making the state subordinate instead of superimposed on the people

Marx, Engels and Lenin, later, specifically made it clear that the state is an organized force for the suppression of a particular class of people. It is the function of the state to subordinate and superimpose itself on the people. The question is what people.

The capitalist state, best concealed as a democracy (itself a state), exists for the purpose of suppressing and exploiting the working class. The socialist state (the dictatorship of the working class) exists to suppress and exterminate the capitalist classes (bourgeois, petit-bourgeois.)

I don't recall Marx ever using the phrase "emancipation through the ballot," but if he did he meant that the working class will use whatever means it needs, parliamentary, democratic, whatever, to liberate itself from the control of the capitalist class.

After the capitalist class is exterminated, which can only be done on a worldwide scale otherwise the working class of one country will find itself confronted with worldwide capitalism after liberating itself from its own national capitalist class, then and only then will the socialist state wither away and die. (cf. Lenin, The State and Revolution.)

Marx was a revolutionary, LaSalle a reformist. So far, in the 20th century, no socialist revolution, according to a lot of socialists, has been ultimately successful. Maybe the reformists are right.

bropasaran

18th April 2014, 05:02

Marx, Engels and Lenin, later, specifically made it clear that the state is an organized force for the suppression of a particular class of people.Which would be true if they didn't have a economically reductionist view of what classes are (and even in that narrow view they had a wrong definition of class). None of them saw the state bureaucracy as a separate (sub)class, along with technocrats (intellectuals and managers), as opposed to anarchists- they obfuscated the existence of those groups, and instead made up some vague artificial class of "petite bourgeoise", which I see you mention.

The capitalist state, best concealed as a democracy (itself a state), exists for the purpose of suppressing and exploiting the working class. The socialist stateIs a contradiction in terms, because socialism is workers' control of production, and if it's the state that has control over the production instead of the workers (which Lenin, who you are appealing to, advocated and established) then that's not socialism.

After the capitalist class is exterminatedYou mean abolished? Being that the point of the revolution to dismantle institutions and abolish social relations, not kill people.

Marx was a revolutionary, LaSalle a reformist.Actually both were reformist, read Principles of Communism, Communist Manifesto and Program of the French Workers Party to see that Marx was a reformist all his life and advocated emancipation by the ballot and a gradual legal revolution. On comparison, Lassalle was far more revolutionary then Marx, he explicitly advocated workplace democracy (something which Marx thought impossible, showing his reactionaryness by support of economic hierarchy) and popular control over the economy (something which Marx never mentioned, only state control), and replacement of state legislature, judiciary and army with referenda, people's courts and a people's militia, (of which Marx advocated only the people's militia, and where his non-advocacy of direct democracy shows his support of political hierarchy).

All in all, Lassalle should be definitely preferred to Marx.

Five Year Plan

18th April 2014, 16:09

Actually both were reformist, read Principles of Communism, Communist Manifesto and Program of the French Workers Party to see that Marx was a reformist all his life and advocated emancipation by the ballot and a gradual legal revolution.

Some examples of Marx's "reformism" for you:

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

Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew. (The German Ideology)

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. (The Communist Manifesto)

"The proletariat cannot conquer political power, the only door to the new society, without violent revolution. For the proletariat to be strong enough to win on the decisive day it must — and Marx and I have advocated this ever since 1847 — form a separate party distinct from all others and opposed to them, a conscious class party." Letter From Engels to Trier, 1889

tallguy

18th April 2014, 17:15

bropasaran

18th April 2014, 17:50

Some examples of Marx's "reformism" for you:
I give move of quotation like that by Proudhon, moreover one of his main works is called "General idea of the Revolution", and he also wrote a work "Confessions of a Revolutionary", do you see me claiming that he was a revolutionary? No. Why? Because I don't see Proudhon as some prophet whose word is scripture that is always correct and to be blindly followed and defended. Obviously, in his use of the word "revolution" he somewhere means violent uprising, and does uphold that people have the right to such a revolution, but somewhere doesn't use the word in that sense, being that he proposed a dual power gradual abolition of capitalism and called that a revolution.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask ourselves- when Marx uses the word 'revolution', what does he exactly mean? When we go about to examine that we find that he, too, doesn't use "revolution" only in the sense of violent uprising, and we find that when advocates for revolution, it is a gradual and a legal one. We find in the Princples of Communism things like:

"the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually"

"What will be the course of this revolution? Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution"

"Gradual expropriation"

"measures directed against private property ... It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once."

In the Communist Manifesto we see Marx advocates electionereeing and that talks about a legal gradual revolution:

"the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie"

In his last work before his death, the Program of the French Workers Party, we see Marx staying true to his views, and he talkes about entering the elections as a means of organization and struggle for the expropriation of the capitalist class, and says that the ballot will be an instrument of emancipation of the proletariat.

It is a fact that Marx advocated electionereeing and when a party of the prolatariat wins the elections and gets power, it's then to use the state to gradually expropriate the capitalists; he wrote reformist programs; so, yes, Marx was a reformist and to claim otherwise is to delude oneself and others.

In the meantime folks, whilst your conversation is all very illuminating and, whilst I understand it's a bit low-brow of me to ask, would either of you care to remind me what your rebuttal to our supposed man-in-the-street capitalist supporter would be because I've got a feeling the finer points of Marxist theory isn't going to cut it with him.
I've answered on the previous page:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2740129&postcount=29

Ocean Seal

18th April 2014, 17:52

Whenever I bring up the topic of Socialism to a Capitalist, I always hear the same thing "If I have a job that requires a lot of skill and education, why should I get the same pay as a lowly janitor?", etc.
How can I respond to this when it is said?
Because we are the motherfucking communists and what we say about what is important goes.

Five Year Plan

18th April 2014, 18:06

It is perfectly reasonable to ask ourselves- when Marx uses the word 'revolution', what does he exactly mean?

When Engels and Marx consistently and repeatedly refer to a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism and its state, could they not possibly, in fact, be referring to a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism?

When we go about to examine that we find that he, too, doesn't use "revolution" only in the sense of violent uprising, and we find that when advocates for revolution, it is a gradual and a legal one. We find in the Princples of Communism things like:

"the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually"

"What will be the course of this revolution? Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution"

"Gradual expropriation"

"measures directed against private property ... It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once."Yes, Marx doesn't only use the term "revolution" to refer to a single act or explosion of violent political expropriation. He uses the term also to refer to the process (not instantaneous moment) of transitioning "gradually" from capitalism to socialism under the dictatorship of the proletariat, through realizing the transitional measures he spells out in the quote you invoke (here, some of the left communists who insist on calling a state "capitalist" just because remnants of capitalism still exist in society should take notice). Those measures occur, as Marx says, "under the dominance of the proletariat," after a revolutionary expropriation of the bourgeoisie has occurred, not as the means of gradually winning political power through a process of reforms.

In other words, while there's talk of a process of transition unfolding through time, there's not a single indication that this process occurs without the proletariat first forcibly seizing state power in a revolution.

In the Communist Manifesto we see Marx advocates electionereeing and that talks about a legal gradual revolution:

"the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie"This is the exact same point Marx makes in the earlier passage you quoted. Marx refers to the proletariat overthrowing through the bourgeois state, then using state power to effect a transition from capitalism to communism, which entails a program of transitional measures (the much misunderstood concept of a "transitional program"). Nothing in this passage supports your interpretation, and everything else Marx and Engels ever wrote on the question contradicts it.

As Engels stated very clearly in Anti-Duhring:

The proletariat seizes state power, and then transforms the means of production into state property. But in doing this, it puts an end to itself as the proletariat, it puts an end to all class differences and class antagonisms, it puts an end also to the state as the state.First the revolutionary overthrow of existing state power, and then the use of that state power (the establishment of "proletarian democracy") to put into effect the series of transitional measures leading to communism, including nationalization of the means of production (the "gradual process"). You are taking the second part, and conflating it with the first, pretending that state power is won gradually. It's not.

RedMaterialist

18th April 2014, 19:07

economically reductionist view of what classes are

= historical materialism..class is the antagonistic production of the means of life.

(vague artificial class of "petite bourgeoise", which I see you mention.

= small capitalist, small business

Is a contradiction in terms, because socialism is workers' control of production,

= the dictatorship of the proletariat; society's control over production is communism

You mean abolished? Being that the point of the revolution to dismantle institutions and abolish social relations, not kill people.

How do you abolish someone who is raping and killing your family?

All in all, Lassalle should be definitely preferred to Marx.

All in all, LaSalle is now mostly forgotten, unless there is a non-revolutionary way to get from capitalism to socialism. And after 50 years of Keynesianism and the modern welfare state, the grotesque inequality of wealth, it looks like reformism is dead.

RedMaterialist

18th April 2014, 19:43

In the meantime folks, whilst your conversation is all very illuminating and, whilst I understand it's a bit low-brow of me to ask, would either of you care to remind me what your rebuttal to our supposed man-in-the-street capitalist supporter would be because I've got a feeling the finer points of Marxist theory isn't going to cut it with him.

I think that is a good point. The answer is that he is correct. There will, under socialism and the early stage of communism, there will be unequal pay for unequal work. Marx explicitly states this in Critique of the Gotha Programme.

The janitor will receive less pay because he has had less education, less health care, less housing, less quality food, etc. He is, as a commodity, and his value is, like all commodities, is determined by the amount of value which has gone into his production.

This is a necessary part of the transition from capitalism to socialism. It is still necessary even though the capitalist state has been destroyed. The economic system will take longer to change.

The important point is that the janitor may be making, say $10 per hour (or 10 labor units, or labor chits) and he will not be taxed. The man-in-the-street capitalist supporter may be making $100 per hour. He will be taxed at $80 per hour to pay for education, healthcare, etc. for the children of the janitor.

As Marx said, (referring to what is deducted from the total product of labor)

"Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today."

The capitalist usually objects that it is not fair to tax him at a higher rate than the janitor. Well, he's right. Socialism is no more fair to him than he is to the janitor.

They usually say next that then no one will have an incentive to work and the economic system will collapse. To that I say that selfishness and greed are not incentives to work under socialism; and the entire point of socialism is the abolishing of capitalism. And what's to stop all the former capitalists from going on welfare or the dole? Although it sounds harsh, if you don't work you don't eat.

bropasaran

18th April 2014, 20:52

When Engels and Marx consistently and repeatedly refer to a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism and its state, could they not possibly, in fact, be referring to a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism?
It would seem that when Marx and Engels consistently and repeatedly advocate electioneering and gradual expropriation, that could not possibly mean that they are, in fact, referring to electioneering and gradual expropriation.

Those measures occur, as Marx says, "under the dominance of the proletariat," after a revolutionary expropriation of the bourgeoisie has occurredMeasures of gradually expropriating the bourgeoisie occur after the revolutionary expropriation of the bourgeoisie has occurred. Now, that's a revolutionary interpretation of Marx.

First the revolutionary overthrow of existing state power, and then the use of that state power (the establishment of "proletarian democracy")Having in mind the fact that Marx and Engels advocated electioneering as a means of emancipation of the proletariat thus showing their view that "self-emancipation" actually means "emancipation" by representatives, we can see clearly that their proposed "proletarian democracy" is neither proletarian nor democracy. What this means is that when in Marx' and Engels' scheme it is the state bureaucracy and not the workers that have possession and control over them and that therefore their propositions are in fact anti-socialist, as already pointed out during their lifetimes by Bakunin.

It is interesting to note that oppossed to this state-capitalist project, Lassalle didn't advocate that the means of production be are turned into state property, but into common property which would be cooperatively and democratically controlled, and to also note that Lassallian term democracy, as opposed to the Marxist one- actually means democracy, being that Lassalle explicitly advocated direct democracy.

= historical materialism..
Historical materialism is just a bunch of nonsense, no better then then historical idealism of which it is the inverse form, both are total gibberish, Marx literally took the most stupid part of Hegelianism and held on it like it's some great revelation.

class is the antagonistic production of the means of life.
= small capitalist, small businessWhich means nothing. "Petite bourgeoise" is a term that has at least three possible meanings: 1- people who own their means of production and use them themselves without any employees, 2- people who their own means of production and use them themselves and hire a small number of employees, 3- both 1 and 2. To those possibilities it can be added still more- 4- people who own means of production, don't use them, but hire a small number of employees, 5- all three of those groups. There is also the question of how small is small when it comes to the question of how much employees you need to have to go from small to big capitalist. This is just the beginning, because there is actually no clear definition in Marxism of who exactly is a capitalist and who is not, thus opening an array of possibilities of having dozens and dozens of different class analyses.

= the dictatorship of the proletariat; society's control over production is communismIs the dictatorship of the proletariat same as the dictatorship of the representatives of the proletariat (being that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc all thought that it is)? Being that the workers are proletarians only if they are economically subjugated- how can the proletariat be in the position of dictators if they are economically in the position of servants? Dictatorship over whom? Who makes up the society except the proletariat?

Five Year Plan

18th April 2014, 21:24

It would seem that when Marx and Engels consistently and repeatedly advocate electioneering and gradual expropriation, that could not possibly mean that they are, in fact, referring to electioneering and gradual expropriation.

You keep mashing together "electioneering" with "gradual expropriation," and conflating political expropriation (taking state power) with economic expropriation (taking control of productive property). None of the quotes you provided say anything about how POLITICAL expropriation being gradual, or that it would occur through bourgeois elections. You just invent this idea by assembling together keywords that Marx and Engels were using to convey a very different set of points: that following political expropriation, the process of economic transition takes time and is gradual. What you're doing is pointing to the word "gradual" that Marx and Engels employ to argue to describe the process of the economic transition to communism under a dictatorship of the proletariat, and to argue against the ultra-left idea that communism is established the day after the revolution. Then you conflate this gradual process of revolutionizing the mode of production, in part through extending the revolution to other societies, and try to make it seems like Marx and Engels were saying that the proletariat could gradually acquire state power through a series of bourgeois elections.

When I point out the massive flaw in this interpretation, you don't debate my points directly. Instead, you just repeat yourself. It's a game I won't be playing. Feel free to invent your own "Marxism" with no serious relationship with what Marx and Engels ever wrote. Just don't be surprised when people on this forum don't take you seriously.

Measures of gradually expropriating the bourgeoisie occur after the revolutionary expropriation of the bourgeoisie has occurred. Now, that's a revolutionary interpretation of Marx.You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between the political expropriation of the bourgeoisie (removing them and their representatives from state power), and their economic expropriation (taking away their control and ownership of productive property). Do you not discern the difference between these two things?

Having in mind the fact that Marx and Engels advocated electioneering as a means of emancipation of the proletariat thus showing their view that "self-emancipation" actually means "emancipation" by representatives, we can see clearly that their proposed "proletarian democracy" is neither proletarian nor democracy. What this means is that when in Marx' and Engels' scheme it is the state bureaucracy and not the workers that have possession and control over them and that therefore their propositions are in fact anti-socialist, as already pointed out during their lifetimes by Bakunin.The problem here is that your quotes don't show Marx and Engels saying anything about the proletariat emancipating themselves through bourgeois elections. The closest that they come is a rather ambiguous statement about "winning the battle of democracy," which of course means little more than the fact that only a proletarian state (achieved forcibly through a revolutionary political expropriation of the bourgeoisie) realizes democracy in a way that trasncends the sham of formal bourgeois democracy.

bropasaran

18th April 2014, 21:56

and try to make it seems like Marx and Engels were saying that the proletariat could gradually acquire state power through a series of bourgeois elections.

I have nowhere done this, I haven't at all hinted that Marx and Engels advocated gradual taking of state power. What I did do is pointed out what they said. They said that the revolution will be gradual; they said that revolution will be first to establish a democratic constitution and then to gradually [economically] expropriate the capitalists.

The problem here is that your quotes don't show Marx and Engels saying anything about the proletariat emancipating themselves through bourgeois elections.Both Principle of Communism and Communist Manifesto are electioneering documents, but being that Marxists often invent some bogus story how Marx and Engels abandoned their electioneering and reformism after the Paris Commune, it is best to look at the programs which they supported after that, e.g. in the mentioned Program of the French Workers' Party, in 1880, Marx wrote:

"this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party;

That a such an organization must be pursued by all the means the proletariat has at its disposal including universal suffrage which will thus be transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation;

The French socialist workers, in adopting as the aim of their efforts the political and economic expropriation of the capitalist class and the return to community of all the means of production, have decided, as a means of organization and struggle, to enter the elections"

Let's stop for a second and appreciate what Marx is saying here: the ballot is the means of emancipation of the proletariat, and entering the elections is a means of struggle for the political and economic expropriation of capitalists. If someone were to say this today, he would be laughed at by virtually all marxists (let alone anarchists) which just show how much of a confused religion marxism is.

The reformism and electioneering are a baggage that Marx left for anyone considering to accept his thought, but more importantly that advocacy of existence of political representatives coupled with the fact that his and Engels' proposal was to make means of production state property, goes on to show that their scheme is an anti-socialist one, a state-capitalist one, as was exposed long ago by Bakunin.

Five Year Plan

18th April 2014, 22:45

I have nowhere done this, I haven't at all hinted that Marx and Engels advocated gradual taking of state power. What I did do is pointed out what they said. They said that the revolution will be gradual; they said that revolution will be first to establish a democratic constitution and then to gradually [economically] expropriate the capitalists.

You keep repeating "they said it will be gradual," as if that supports your point. They said it will be gradual, in the sense that communism doesn't occur immediately after the political expropriation of the bourgeoisie. The "gradual" claim comes in response to the question: "Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?" If they were using the term in response to the question: "How will the proletariat come to political power?" you'd actually have a leg to stand on.

Both Principle of Communism and Communist Manifesto are electioneering documents

Your evidence for this is?

but being that Marxists often invent some bogus story how Marx and Engels abandoned their electioneering and reformism after the Paris Commune, it is best to look at the programs which they supported after that

Marx and Engels never abandoned the use of bourgeois elections for the purpose of propagandizing on the need for revolution. They never held out bourgeois elections as a path to proletarian power, and the winning of the battle for substantive, not just formal bourgeois, democracy. And they never abandoned the fight for reforms either. But they always insisted that the struggle for reforms be couched within a revolutionary line and program.

, e.g. in the mentioned Program of the French Workers' Party, in 1880, Marx wrote:

"this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party;

The full quote, to remind you, is: "The proletariat cannot conquer political power, the only door to the new society, without violent revolution. For the proletariat to be strong enough to win on the decisive day it must — and Marx and I have advocated this ever since 1847 — form a separate party distinct from all others and opposed to them, a conscious class party." Letter From Engels to Trier, 1889

And there's nothing in the section you quoted that in any ways suggests that the proletariat comes to power through bourgeois elections, or that their coming to power is part of a gradual process of reforms not punctuated by a forcible qualitative shift. In fact, the bolded part, the part you excised, says just the opposite.

That a such an organization must be pursued by all the means the proletariat has at its disposal including universal suffrage which will thus be transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation;

Yes, the proletariat smashing the bourgeois state and seizing power will turn universal suffrage from an empty and superficial deception into a substantive reality that then serves as the basis for the ongoing economic expropriation and transition to communism.

It goes without saying that their calling universal suffrage an "instrument of emancipation" in no ways means that they are saying that it is a sufficient instrument for the proletariat to seize power from the bourgeoisie. Suffrage is transformed (by an additional process) into an instrument of liberation. By itself, within the status quo, it functions, as Marx and Engels said it did, as an instrument of deception.

You are pretending that the instrument of deception magically becomes the process by which the proletariat seizes power. You are directly contradicting what they're saying in the quote.

The French socialist workers, in adopting as the aim of their efforts the political and economic expropriation of the capitalist class and the return to community of all the means of production, have decided, as a means of organization and struggle, to enter the elections"

Yes, Marx and Engels did not eschew participation in elections. But they didn't view those elections as a means in and of themselves, as a route to proletarian power. So pointing to Marx and Engels make a random observations about how French socialists entered elections shows nothing that would surprise anybody here.

You have obviously not read Marx and Engels to any significant degree, and have managed to cherry pick and badly misinterpreted isolated passages. I strongly suggest you go back to the drawing board.

Five Year Plan

18th April 2014, 22:51

I will add, "impossible," that your blind faith of the proletariat seizing power through a gradual process of electoral reforms fleshes out exactly what Marx and Engels were saying when they called suffrage a "deception." The trick is on you, it seems.

RedMaterialist

18th April 2014, 23:41

Historical materialism is just a bunch of nonsense, no better then then historical idealism of which it is the inverse form, both are total gibberish, Marx literally took the most stupid part of Hegelianism and held on it like it's some great revelation.

Materialism is the only way to explain how slave states, feudal-monarchies and then gigantic, bureaucratic, capitalist states arose. These political forms all arose because they were built on historically different modes, types of production. Before class based production arose there was no such thing as the "state."

Is the dictatorship of the proletariat same as the dictatorship of the representatives of the proletariat (being that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc all thought that it is)? Being that the workers are proletarians only if they are economically subjugated- how can the proletariat be in the position of dictators if they are economically in the position of servants? Dictatorship over whom? Who makes up the society except the proletariat?

The fact that a bureaucracy or committee or Soviet or even a party might exercise power on behalf of the working class is immaterial. The point is to exercise power to abolish the capitalist class and, therefore, capitalism.

Workers are only subjugated if they do not own the means of production. Once the capitalist state is destroyed and the working class has seized political power, then the process of replacing capitalism with socialism and then communism will begin. We already know from the example of China and Russia that this stage can be violent and be destroyed by counter-revolution.

In the first stage of socialism there are several classes that make up society. Landowners, capitalists, small capitalists, bureaucrats of the old political system, in some cases, farmers and peasants, factory managers, banking functionaries, the military.

I, for one, hope the transition won't be as bloody, as violent, or as nationally limited as the Russian and Chinese revolutions. But do not be mistaken, it will happen, and the events of the revolution will be determined by the material conditions of production existing at that time. I doubt if I will live to see it, but then I never thought I would live to see a black man elected president of the US., or see the origin of the universe explained.

bropasaran

19th April 2014, 04:01

They said it will be gradual, in the sense that communism doesn't occur immediately after the political expropriation of the bourgeoisie. The "gradual" claim comes in response to the question: "Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?"
Which is exactly the problem. Even if we ignore the obvious fallacy of equating representatives of the proletariat with the proletariat, there remains the fact that the economically subjected workers cannot politically subject their economical masters, being that they would just use their economic power against them. So even if the economical expropriation is to be done at one stroke (which it should be) it must be done at the same time as the political expropriation, and not after it. To advocate it being done after it is ludicrous enough, to advocate doing it gradually is even more simple-minded.

Your evidence for this is?Revolution begins with a democratic constitution, the first step of the revolution is to win the battle of democracy. Having in mind their writing and supporting reformist program, they obviously mean electioneering is the start of the revolution.

Marx and Engels never abandoned the use of bourgeois elections for the purpose of propagandizing on the need for revolution.For the purpose of conducting the revolution. Marx is clear, for him elections are means of struggle for the political and economic expropriation of the capitalists.

Yes, the proletariat smashing the bourgeois state and seizing power will turn universal suffrage bla blaA party representing proletariat winning the elections isn't actually smashing of the state. It's just reformism and electioneering.

Suffrage is transformed (by an additional process) into an instrument of liberation. Marx is clear, elections are means of struggle for the political and economic expropriation of the capitalists. He doesn't mention any additional processes that make the ballot a means of emancipation, just having universal suffrage for Marx means that the ballot is such a means.

But they didn't view those elections as a means in and of themselves, as a route to proletarian power.Marx clearly says that for him elections are means of struggle for the political and economic expropriation of the capitalists, and that the ballot will be the means of emancipation of the proletariat. You are acting exactly, and I mean exactly, like those stupid bible-thumpers who are beyond blind to what the Bible actually says, you can quote the nasty parts to them all you want, they are just going to blindly repeat how you're not understanding the bible correctly and how it's in fact all cool, basically what they doing is they close their ears and go la la la la can't hear you, which is the same thing you are doing here. When you turn on your sanity and read the fucking words, it is beyond a doubt that Marx was a reformist gradualist electioneering political representatives supporting state-capitalist. If you don't want to turn your brain on, but continue to delude yourself into worshiping some imaginary Marx the revolutionary, go ahead, but I will not be engaging your self-deception any more. Cheers.

Materialism is the only way to explain how slave states, feudal-monarchies and then gigantic, bureaucratic, capitalist states arose. These political forms all arose because they were built on historically different modes, types of production. Before class based production arose there was no such thing as the "state."
It explains it as much as the original Hegelian historical idealism does, it's basically plain superstition.

The fact that a bureaucracy or committee or Soviet or even a party might exercise power on behalf of the working class is immaterial. The point is to exercise power to abolish the capitalist class and, therefore, capitalism.Not only it is not immaterial, it is crucial, because if it is not the workers themselves who exercise power, but some representatives, then that automatically means that the system in question is not socialism. Abolishing the capitalist class but leaving their exploitatory function which is then filled by a body that allegedly represents the workers defeats the point of abolishing the capitalists, it just replaces one class society with another one, replaces one exploitation with another exploitation.

Workers are only subjugated if they do not own the means of production.Two problems- Marxism in the vein of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, advocates state ownership of the means of production, not worker ownership; secondly- workers can be subjugated even if they own the means of production, if the management of production is delegated, whereby the managers are the ruling elite, a class separated from the workers. In the Marxist state-capitalist scheme the state bureaucracy and economic management are one and the same people, a totalitarian ruling class over the working people. Workers must both possess and manage the means of production, i.e. they must have control over the means of production in order not to be subjugated, in order for there to be socialism.

We already know from the example of China and Russia that this stage can be violent and be destroyed by counter-revolution.In Russia and China the Marxist/ Leninist states were the counter-revolution, suppressing all popular strivings for emancipation and worker control over the means of production, i.e. suppressing socialism.

Remus Bleys

19th April 2014, 13:09

Oh hey look impossible made another thread about himself! HERES SOME MORE ATTENTION SOTIONOV!

Five Year Plan

19th April 2014, 15:42

Impossible, at least we can say that you've abandoned trying to use Marx and Engels quotes to claim that they thought that you could vote a revolution into existence through the bourgeois parliament. Now you've been reduced to making ex nihilo claims. I asked for you to provide evidence that the Communist Manifesto was specifically intended by Marx and Engels to be an "electioneering document." You've provided none, and just repeated your unsubstantiated (and easily contradicted claim) that Marx and Engels supported voting a revolution into existence through bourgeois parliamentarism.

Let's take stock of where things stand. In response to your claim that Marx and Engels thought that a revolution would take place through a series of reforms, I provided quotes of Marx and Engels saying that a revolution was necessary to establish communism, and that the revolution would necessarily have to be violent and forcible, not just a peaceful series of reforms. You've provided quotes of Marx and Engels talking about the revolution being "gradual," implying that this was the same as saying that the bourgeois state could be overcome through a gradual series of reforms.

I corrected you by showing you how Marx and Engels used the phrase "gradual" to refer to the economic transition that would take place once the bourgeoisie was forcibly politically expropriated. You then provided a couple of quotes showing Marx and Engels talking about the need not to shun work for reforms and in bourgeois elections, as if that means they thought that work alone would be sufficient for carrying through the political expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

Your arguments have no leg to stand on, I'm afraid. Marx and Engels were right in saying that universal suffrage under bourgeois society is indeed an instrument of deception. You've been deceived into thinking that it can be wielded to overthrow the bourgeois state. Yours is clear case of being deceived about how voting in bourgeois parliaments works, and the sort of power that actually underpins those elections. Marx and Engels were clear throughout their career that such bourgeois power could only be overthrown forcibly, and that the deception in bourgeois elections lies in the mirage of making the bourgeois system seem neutral, egalitarian, consensual, and therefore non-exploitative. In reality, elections are permitted only so long as they do not threaten the system of exploitation. This is why your logic about such elections, and Marx and Engels' clearly articulated ideas about them, are so shamefully wrong.

Dave B

19th April 2014, 19:45

The Class Struggles In France
Introduction by Frederick Engels 1895

The franchise has been, in the words of the French Marxist program, "transformé, de moyen de deperie gu'il a été jusqu'ici, en instrument d' émancipation"—they have transformed it from a means of deception, which it was heretofore, into an instrument of emancipation. And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in the number of votes it increased in equal measure the workers' certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us concerning our own strength and that of all hostile parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion for our actions second to none, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness—if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, then it would still have been more than enough. But it has done much more than this. In election agitation it provided us with a means, second to none, of getting in touch with the mass of the people, where they still stand aloof from us; of forcing all parties to defend their views and actions against our attacks before all the people; and, further, it opened to our representatives in the Reichstag a platform from which they could speak to their opponents in Parliament and to the masses without, with quite other authority and freedom than in the press or at meetings. Of what avail to the government and the bourgeoisie was their Anti-Socialist Law when election agitation and socialist speeches in the Reichstag continually broke through it?
With this successful utilization of universal suffrage, an entirely new mode of proletarian struggle came into force, and this quickly developed further. It was found that the state

All revolutions of modern times, beginning with the great English revolution of the seventeenth century, showed these features, which appeared inseparable from every revolutionary struggle. They appeared applicable, also, to the struggles of the proletariat for its emancipation; all the more applicable, since in 1848 there were few people who had any idea at all of the direction in which this emancipation was to be sought. The proletarian masses themselves, even in Paris, after the victory, were still absolutely in the dark as to the path to be taken. And yet the movement was there, instinctive, spontaneous, irrepressible. Was not this just the situation in which a revolution had to succeed, led certainly by a minority, but this time not in the interests of the minority, but in the real interests of the majority? If, in all the longer revolutionary periods, it was so easy to win the great masses of the people by the merely plausible and delusive views of the minorities thrusting themselves forward, how could they be less susceptible to ideas which were the truest reflex of their economic position, which were nothing but the clear, comprehensible expression of their needs, of needs not yet understood by themselves, but only vaguely felt? To be sure, this revolutionary mood of the masses had almost always, and usually very speedily, given way to lassitude or even to a revulsion to its opposite, so soon as illusion evaporated and disappointment set in. But here it was not a question of delusive views, but of giving effect to the very special interests of the great majority itself, interests, which at that time were certainly by no means clear to this great majority, but which must soon enough become clear in the course of giving practical effect to them, by their convincing obviousness. And if now, as Marx showed in the third article, in the spring of 1850, the development of the bourgeois republic that had arisen out of the "social" revolution of 1848 had concentrated the real power in the hands of the big bourgeoisie—monarchistically inclined as it was—and, on the other hand, had grouped all the other social classes, peasants as well as petty bourgeoisie, round the proletariat, so that, during and after the common victory, not they, but the proletariat grown wise by experience, must become the decisive factor—was there not every prospect here of turning the revolution of the minority into the revolution of the majority?

History has proved us, and all who thought like us, wrong. It has made it clear that the state of economic development on the Continent at that time was not, by a long way, ripe for the removal of capitalist production; it has proved this by the economic revolution which, since 1848, has seized the whole of the Continent, has really caused big industry for the first time to take root in France, Austria, Hungary, Poland and, recently, in Russia, while it has made Germany positively an industrial country of the first rank—all on a capitalist basis, which in the year 1848, therefore, still had great capacity for expansion. But it is just this industrial revolution which has everywhere for the first time produced clarity in the class relationships, which has removed a number of transition forms handed down from the manufacturing period and in Eastern Europe even from guild handicraft, and has created a genuine bourgeoisie and a genuine large-scale industrial proletariat and pushed them into the foreground of social development. But owing to this, the struggle of these two great classes, which, apart from England, existed in 1848 only in Paris and, at the most, a few big industrial centers, has been spread over the whole of Europe and has reached an intensity such as was unthinkable in 1848. At that time the many obscure evangels of the sects, with their panaceas; today the one generally recognized, transparently clear theory of Marx, sharply formulating the final aims of the struggle. At that time the masses, sundered and differing according to locality and nationality, linked only by the feeling of common suffering, undeveloped, tossed to and fro in their perplexity from enthusiasm to despair; today a great international army of Socialists, marching irresistibly on and growing daily in number, organization, discipline, insight and assurance of victory. If even this mighty army of the proletariat has still not reached its goal, if, a long way from winning victory with one mighty stroke, it has slowly to press forward from position to position in a hard, tenacious struggle, this only proves, once and for all, how impossible it was in 1848 to win social reconstruction by a simple surprise attack.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm

bropasaran

19th April 2014, 19:55

Marx was abundantly clear- elections are means of struggle for the political and economic expropriation of the capitalists, and that the ballot the means of emancipation of the proletariat.

Those who deny that Marx was a reformist gradualist electioneering political representatives supporting state-capitalist are deluding themselves to the point of blindness.

motion denied

19th April 2014, 20:00

Those who deny that Marx was a reformist gradualist electioneering political representatives supporting state-capitalist are deluding themselves to the point of blindness.

New sig. Thanks a lot.

Dave B

19th April 2014, 20:13

Frederick Engels, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State
Chapter IX: Barbarism and Civilization

In addition to America, the latest French republic illustrates this strikingly, and honest little Switzerland has also given a creditable performance in this field. But that a democratic republic is not essential to this brotherly bond between government and stock exchange is proved not only by England, but also by the new German Empire, where it is difficult to say who scored most by the introduction of universal suffrage, Bismarck or the Bleichroder bank. And lastly the possessing class rules directly by means of universal suffrage. As long as the oppressed class - in our case, therefore, the proletariat - is not yet ripe for its self-liberation, so long will it, in its majority, recognize the existing order of society as the only possible one and remain politically the tall of the capitalist class, its extreme left wing.

But in the measure in which it matures towards its self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state; but that is enough. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the workers, they as well as the capitalists will know where they stand.

The state, therefore, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which have managed without it, which had no notion of the state or state power. At a definite stage of economic development, which necessarily involved the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity because of this cleavage. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but becomes a positive hindrance to production.

They will fall as inevitably as they once arose. The state inevitably falls with them. The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong - into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm

bropasaran

19th April 2014, 20:33

RedMaterialist

20th April 2014, 07:02

It explains it as much as the original Hegelian historical idealism does, it's basically plain superstition.

Okay, what is your explanation for the origin of the ancient Greek slave state?

ckaihatsu

20th April 2014, 16:23

RedMaterialist

20th April 2014, 18:35

A very misleading quote. Let's look at another one:

The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society—the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society—this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished.” It dies out.

A nice ideas, state dies out. Unless we know the peculiar marxist definition of the state, as tool of class oppression. We then see that even though there might exist what every person with an ounce of common sense would call a state, a marxist can call a society with such a state a stateless society if he consideres that society classless. We can also note that in the Marx' and Engels' scheme the state would eventually nationalize basically all of the economy, enlarging itself to the magnitude beyond any state before it, making it impossible for any sane person not to see that is a state, yet a Marxist, with his nonsensical notion of classes based on the ownership of the means of production doesn't have such an inhibition, and if he considers that the classes have been abolished, he will also have no problem in denying that such a leviathian is a state. The lunacy of "scientific" "socialism".

Your problem, or one of them, is that you cannot see past the dictatorship of the proletariat as the last state.

A state, any state, is an organized force for the suppression of some class. The proletariat organizes itself as an organized force for the suppression of the capitalist class. It will not destroy the capitalist class overnight. "State interference in one domain after another becomes superfluous." It is only after there is no class left to suppress that the fundamental basis for the existence of the state becomes superfluous and unnecessary.

When the foundation of a building is destroyed, then the building falls down. The state falls down, withers away and dies, because class suppression no longer exists. All states in written history, patriarchal, slave, serf, bourgeois, have existed on the basis of class suppression and exploitation. When the only class left is the non-exploiting working class, then for the first time in history, humans will be free of the oppression of the "state."

Will that final state be leviathan? Almost certainly it will. It will have to be a world wide state because the capitalist class is a world dominating force. A county commission will not destroy Walmart.

bropasaran

21st April 2014, 06:36

Okay, what is your explanation for the origin of the ancient Greek slave state?
Why would I need to have one? Try and explain why a worm (without direct stimuli) turns left instead of right, it's literally impossible to know, and who knows how big of advance in science we will have to make to find out the answer to that question. When you get to humans, who are incomparably more complex animals then worms, one who suggests to have some insight (beyond tautological ones) into human behavior is simply delusional. To suggest that one can have profound insight into why historical changes and events in human societies happen the way they happen is lunacy on the level that cult founders have.

What I mean by profound/ tautological would be e.g. if someone says "the level of technological development in the sphere of production probably had some degree of influence on the social relations of that society" is tautological, it's an obvious point and a trivial observation, likewise if one would say "the level of spiritual development in the sphere of culture had some degree of influence on the social relations of that society" - same. To say either of those proposition in a definitive sense "I know" or even "I suppose" that "this kind of development has the definitive influence on the social relations of any society" is to rise to the level of the mentioned insanity, because that there absolutely cannot be any arguments for any such presumptuous statement, we don't have anything near the necessary knowledge to speculate on those things. This is plainly illustrated by these two alternatives- the Marxian and the Hegelian one, both are equally probable, and by probable I mean improbable, so much that the both views are, as I said, basically just superstition.

Your problem, or one of them, is that you cannot see past the dictatorship of the proletariat as the last state.

A state, any state, is an organized force for the suppression of some class.
Yes, but that is not the only thing that is, i.e. that characteristic of doesn't exhaust it's definition, as Marxists suggest. Moreover, to define it in such a way is largely unrealistic (and ironically non-materialist) being that it ignores the substance of what the state is and talks only about it's function, and it's substance is the rule of a small group of people over the society.

Marxism has a very erroneous class analysis, and because of that (in this case it's economic reductionism) Marxists fail to see what Anarchists have always pointed out, as Malatesta says, that "A government, that is a group of people entrusted with making the laws and empowered to use the collective force to oblige each individual to obey them, is already a privileged class and cut off from the people."

The state isn't just an instrument of class rule, it's an institution that is class rule; e.g. in a situation where there would be no class division of society in the economic sphere but there would exist a state, that society would still be a class society, the people in the state apparatus constituting one class (with two subclasses- rulers and bureaucrats) and the people over whom the state has authority constituting the other class.

The proletariat organizes itself as an organized force for the suppression of the capitalist class.The working people (not the proletariat, this is another point where Marxist class analysis is wrong) must organize in non-statist manner in order to fight for a classless society. If we want to abolish capitalism but establish some other class society, then sure, we can be an organized force by "using" a state.

Will that final state be leviathan? Almost certainly it will.The point is, if we make a leviathan to use to destroy a class that dominates and exploits us, the leviathan itself (people who constitute it) will be the new ruling class that dominates and exploits us. Bakunin predicted that would be a result of a Marxist revolution, and we have seen on the example of Leninist states that he was spot on right.

RedMaterialist

21st April 2014, 22:59

Why would I need to have one? Try and explain why a worm (without direct stimuli) turns left instead of right, it's literally impossible to know, and who knows how big of advance in science we will have to make to find out the answer to that question. When you get to humans, who are incomparably more complex animals then worms, one who suggests to have some insight (beyond tautological ones) into human behavior is simply delusional. To suggest that one can have profound insight into why historical changes and events in human societies happen the way they happen is lunacy on the level that cult founders have.

All you are saying is that science is impossible. We don't know how the universe got started, we don't know what the sun is, we don't know how humans came to exist, we don't know why the dinosaurs disappeared, we don't know how electrons move thousands of miles across space and then suddenly appear on these odd looking "computer" screens. You don't really believe any of that nonsense, except when it comes to understanding human society. Then science is impossible.

What I mean by profound/ tautological would be e.g. if someone says "the level of technological development in the sphere of production probably had some degree of influence on the social relations of that society" is tautological, it's an obvious point and a trivial observation,

It's neither obvious nor trivial. And it is extremely revolutionary and dangerous for any ruling class, which is why so much energy is spent denying it.

Yes, but that is not the only thing that is, i.e. that characteristic of doesn't exhaust it's definition, as Marxists suggest. Moreover, to define it in such a way is largely unrealistic (and ironically non-materialist) being that it ignores the substance of what the state is and talks only about it's function, and it's substance is the rule of a small group of people over the society.

You said earlier that it was impossible to understand why societies or states exist. Now you're telling us what the "substance" of a state is. And you're correct, the "substance" of a state is the rule of a small group of people, by force, over society. The working class state, however, is the rule of society over a small group of people, the capitalists.

Marxism has a very erroneous class analysis, and because of that (in this case it's economic reductionism) Marxists fail to see what Anarchists have always pointed out, as Malatesta says, that "A government, that is a group of people entrusted

[not entrusted with power, but a group which takes and controls power....big difference]

with making the laws and empowered to use the collective force to oblige each individual to obey them, is already a privileged class and cut off from the people...

[cut off from the capitalists/exploiters not from the people.]"

The state isn't just an instrument of class rule, it's an institution that is class rule; e.g. in a situation where there would be no class division of society in the economic sphere but there would exist a state, that society would still be a class society, the people in the state apparatus constituting one class (with two subclasses- rulers and bureaucrats) and the people over whom the state has authority constituting the other class.

You keep forgetting, you don't know and can't know what a state is or how it came into existence or why it exists.

The point is, if we make a leviathan to use to destroy a class that dominates and exploits us, the leviathan itself (people who constitute it) will be the new ruling class that dominates and exploits us. Bakunin predicted that would be a result of a Marxist revolution, and we have seen on the example of Leninist states that he was spot on right.

The working class state will exist only to destroy the capitalist class. Once that class is destroyed there will be no other economic class to exploit, unless you think that the working class will exploit itself. The Leninist state was quickly betrayed by the "socialism in one state" of Stalin.

bropasaran

22nd April 2014, 00:11

All you are saying is that science is impossible. We don't know how the universe got started, we don't know what the sun is, we don't know how humans came to exist, we don't know why the dinosaurs disappeared, we don't know how electrons move thousands of miles across space and then suddenly appear on these odd looking "computer" screens. You don't really believe any of that nonsense, except when it comes to understanding human society. Then science is impossible.
If you understand it as knowledge, it is. If you understand as you should, then it's possible. How should you understand it- as a bundle of assumptions. Science doesn't try to explain the world, it supposes some stuff about the world, and then tries to explain it's suppositions. Science doesn't try to understand the world, it tries to give understandable theories about the world, which is a huge difference; it's not based on verificationism- striving to find out truths, but falsificationism- striving to give theories that can be proved wrong but hopefully won't be (and if they are, we're just going to ad hoc revise them to make them not proved wrong). This discussion is already off-topic, and I will go into off-topic further by going into philosophy of science, I will just suggest reading (or listening) Chomsky on science, Kuhn about scientific paradigms and Feyerabend on scientific method, if you want to understand something about philosophy of science.

You said earlier that it was impossible to understand why societies or states exist. Now you're telling us what the "substance" of a state is.
It's an observation of factual state, not a theory about why and how.

The working class state, however, is the rule of society over a small group of people, the capitalists.
The people constituting the state are a class in themselves. A "working class state" where capitalists still exist would be a society where the nomenklatura (state class) rules over both capitalists and the workers.

[not entrusted with power, but a group which takes and controls power....big difference]
Even worse.

The working class state will exist only to destroy the capitalist class. Once that class is destroyed there will be no other economic class to exploit, unless you think that the working class will exploit itself.
The working people is always a large majority of the population, and a state is a body that is by definition constituted of a small minority of people in society, and therefore there can never be a "worker state".

The people constituting the state are by virtue of constituting the state a class separate from the working people.

That "worker state" if it destroys the capitalist class will then itself exploit the workers, that is- the nomenklatura class will oppress and exploit the working class, just like it did in any bolshevik state.