Firm principle vs Pure Utopianism?

[RedKobra]

One of the great struggles for many on the left is where to draw the line between firm principle and pure utopianism*. I've found, for myself, that its not a static line, it moves back and forth over time, not just as the material conditions change but also as we process new ideas and information and also as we gain new experiences.

I'd like to throw it open and ask you guys where's your line and much, much more importantly how do you decide where to draw it?


*Utopianism: Strong Principle unrestrained irrespective and, or, in contrast to real material conditions or reality.

[The Idler]

For me a 'socialist' is someone who has as their goal a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

For organising a socialist party members should adhere to the principles of accepting the class struggle, that the working-class need to win, that we are not discriminatory other than on class, that the working-class must emancipate themselves, workers must organise politically, so the party must organise politically to contest all other political power and groups.

Many thinkers have discussed what compromises to make.
In 1889 there was a lot of disagreement in the Second International in France between possibilists and impossibilists. Engels doubted the credentials of the possibilists here
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1889/08/10.htm

Eugene Debs said 'I am opposed under all circumstances to any party alliances or affiliations with reactionary trade-unions and to compromising tactics of every kind and form, excepting alone in event of some extreme emergency.'

Wilhelm Liebknecht wrote a work in 1899 called 'No Compromise, No Political Trading'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1899/nocomp/index.htm
In doing so he managed to grow a tiny sect into Germany's largest party.
His co-founder August Bebel stated in 1904
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1904/x01/x01.htm
'If a fight were undertaken tomorrow in our country we would assist with vigour, but we would take good care not to contract any compromise that might diminish our independence, and would not abandon the defence of working-class interests, not even in moments when the struggle may be hottest.'

Its a myth that compromising gets more membership growth.

In 1909 James Connolly wrote a chapter on Practical Politics in a pamphlet Socialism Made Easy http://www.marxist.net/ireland/connolly/socialism/ch2.htm


PRACTICAL POLITICS

LET US BE PRACTICAL. WE WANT SOMETHING PR-R-RACTICAL.

Always the cry of hum-drum mediocrity, afraid to face the stern necessity for uncompromising action. That saying has done more yeoman service in the cause of oppression than all its avowed supporters.

The average man dislikes to be thought unpractical, and so, while frequently loathing the principles or distrusting the leaders of the particular political party he is associated with, declines to leave them, in the hope that their very lack of earnestness may be more fruitful of practical results than the honest outspokenness of the party in whose principles he does believe.

In the phraseology of politics, a party too indifferent to the sorrow and sufferings of humanity to raise its voice in protest, is a moderate, practical party; whilst a party totally indifferent to the personality of leaders, or questions of leadership, but hot to enthusiasm on every question affecting the well-being of the toiling masses, is an extreme, a dangerous party.

Yet, although it may seem a paradox to say so, there is no party so incapable of achieving practical results as an orthodox political party; and there is no party so certain of placing moderate reforms to its credit as an extreme - a revolutionary party.

The possessing classes will and do laugh to scorn every scheme for the amelioration of the workers so long as those responsible for the initiation of the scheme admit as justifiable the 'rights of property'; but when the public attention is directed towards questioning the justifiable nature of those 'rights' in themselves, then the master class, alarmed for the safety of their booty, yield reform after reform - in order to prevent revolution.

Moral - Don't be 'practical' in politics. To be practical in that sense means that you have schooled yourself to think along the lines, and in the grooves those who rob you would desire you to think.
I'm not sure when it dates from but 'be realistic, demand the impossible' has been a popular anarchist slogan for a long time. In fact there's a good book by Peter Marshall on the history of anarchism with a similar title.

Muhammed Ali once said 'Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.'

Most recently in 2011, Deterritorial Support Group popularised 'Full Communism Now' to trend on twitter.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I reject the way in which the question has been framed. Utopianism is not adherence to principle, but the belief that social change is a matter of drawing up a clever plan - which can be filled with as many compromises as you like, after all utopianism of the Owenite sort was based on the idea of compromise with the philanthropic bourgeoisie - instead of the material conditions and the class struggle (in fact utopians abhor the class struggle as it makes clever plans hard to implement).


Most recently in 2011, Deterritorial Support Group popularised 'Full Communism Now' to trend on twitter.

Alright?

Most people in the world don't even use twitter, and the phrase trended probably because it sounds so bizarre to most people. I don't know why you brought it up, to be honest.

[The Idler]

I reject the way in which the question has been framed. Utopianism is not adherence to principle, but the belief that social change is a matter of drawing up a clever plan - which can be filled with as many compromises as you like, after all utopianism of the Owenite sort was based on the idea of compromise with the philanthropic bourgeoisie - instead of the material conditions and the class struggle (in fact utopians abhor the class struggle as it makes clever plans hard to implement).



Alright?

Most people in the world don't even use twitter, and the phrase trended probably because it sounds so bizarre to most people. I don't know why you brought it up, to be honest.
I don't think RedKobra is saying adherence to principle is the only type of utopianism, but that utopianism can include adherence to principle.
Utopianism is a postulating a society that has no basis in reality or current material conditions e.g. an emancipated working-class under workers co-operatives competing under capitalism
The point of socialism is to propose some societal change to what has not previously existed e.g. abolition of the wages system would be revolutionary but is based on the reality that we have a wages system and could do away with it.
I think you're trying to pin compromise on utopians when this isn't the case.
Many more compromises have been reached under the guise of class struggle. Socialists supporting class struggle does not mean picking and choosing which causes the workers happen to support.
What's needed is a socialist party supporting and engaging with the class struggle not in an opportunistic way but an open way. It should be honest and up front about its own objectives and how compromise on measures which do not benefit the cause of socialism are off the party's agenda.

The Full Communism Now was an afterthought but it demonstrates a very recent example of the 'workers (by themselves) trade union consciousness' that Bolsheviks like to claim being rubbished. This slogan was retweeted by lots of unaligned workers entertaining and grasping the rudimentary idea that half-measures are unnecessary.
Bizarre ideas you might think are utopian, but its a bizarre notion here that trended.
There's more info on it in this article
http://libcom.org/library/full-communism

[RedKobra]

I don't think RedKobra is saying adherence to principle is the only type of utopianism, but that utopianism can include adherence to principle.
Utopianism is a postulating a society that has no basis in reality or current material conditions e.g. an emancipated working-class under workers co-operatives competing under capitalism
The point of socialism is to propose some societal change to what has not previously existed e.g. abolition of the wages system would be revolutionary but is based on the reality that we have a wages system and could do away with it.

Precisely. We all draw the line on the principle-utopianism line somewhere different and I can't help but find that interesting.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Camus had some fairly interesting things to say about cynical left-wing 'pragmatism' (compromising of principles) in the brief essay quoted in my signature.

The Idler's response pretty much sums it up for me. The existence of even a small group expressing refusal to 'water down' a struggle for socialism into 'demands' which are more palatable to the existing system is absolutely essential. The left won't be able to just worm its way through any amount of pragmatic reforms into making it 'acceptable', according to hegemonic ideology, to support socialist revolution. The left will just have to 'intransigently' support it anyway as what it is: a radical, uncompromising rejection of the capitalist system and a call for an alternative.

As others have said, the dichotomy itself is questionable. It presumes that a refusal to compromise on the ultimate and important aim of socialism (workers' self-emancipation and control of the means of production) is utopian. If anything, the idea of achieving socialism from a series of progressive compromises designed to win over people who buy into hegemonic ideology (rather than outright rejecting that ideology) by temporarily setting aside that 'maximum programme', is utopian.
To support socialist revolution as a "firm principle" is not to support it as an inflexible dogma irrespective of material conditions. It is to avoid obscurantist pragmatism and sophistry which claims certain specific material conditions override the fundamental material contradictions of capitalism and somehow bring proletarian and bourgeois interests into alignment or at least cause them to be reconcilable (i.e. as seen in 'national unity' or in reformism, respectively).

If that was too much of a rant, it's because I'm a little tired and agitated at the moment.

[RedKobra]

Camus had some fairly interesting things to say about cynical left-wing 'pragmatism' (compromising of principles) in the brief essay quoted in my signature.

The Idler's response pretty much sums it up for me. The existence of even a small group expressing refusal to 'water down' a struggle for socialism into 'demands' which are more palatable to the existing system is absolutely essential. The left won't be able to just worm its way through any amount of pragmatic reforms into making it 'acceptable', according to hegemonic ideology, to support socialist revolution. The left will just have to 'intransigently' support it anyway as what it is, a radical, uncompromising rejection of the capitalist system and a call for an alternative.

As others have said, the dichotomy itself is questionable. It presumes that a refusal to compromise on the ultimate and important aim of socialism (workers' self-emancipation and control of the means of production) is utopian. If anything, the idea of achieving socialism from a series of progressive compromises designed to win over people who buy into hegemonic ideology (rather than outright rejecting that ideology) by temporarily setting aside that 'maximum programme', is utopian.
To support socialist revolution as a "firm principle" is not to support it as an inflexible dogma irrespective of material conditions. It is to avoid obscurantist pragmatism and sophistry which claims certain specific material conditions override the fundamental material contradictions of capitalism and somehow bring proletarian and bourgeois interests into alignment or at least cause them to be reconcilable (i.e. as seen in 'national unity' or in reformism, respectively).

If that was too much of a rant, it's because I'm a little tired and agitated at the moment.

I think you some of you have got the wrong end of this stick. I am not, to be clear, saying that foundational Marxist/Revolutionary aims/demands are utopian. Not at all. What I am saying is that I presume we are all Materialists in the Marxist sense and as such some methods and aims conform to Material conceptions of history and society and others don't. What I find interesting is that we all have a different conception of what conforms to that Materialism conception.

Whether I'm making things clearer or more opaque I don't know but I've exhausted the ways I can phrase the question.

[The Idler]

To put the criticism of certain people briefly
No doubt there are some who think
'Class struggle' = compromise
therefore
Non-compromising = 'utopian'

To believe that is to remove the terms 'class struggle' and 'utopian' of meaningful definition.

But yep this then begs the question of what 'class struggle' and 'utopian' means. Engels gave a good answer to this but it would be going off on what the topic is about.
What should 'socialists' compromise on?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think RedKobra is saying adherence to principle is the only type of utopianism, but that utopianism can include adherence to principle.

Of course. But that doesn't tell us much; anything can include adherence to principle, from Salafism to vegetarianism. The point is that utopianism isn't defined by adherence to principle.


Utopianism is a postulating a society that has no basis in reality or current material conditions e.g. an emancipated working-class under workers co-operatives competing under capitalism

But the society described by Bellamy, for example, definitely can exist, as it is merely a "national" capitalism. The same could almost be said of Saint Simon, were it not for his attachment to the idea of full employment.

On the other hand, the society described by Fourier is almost the socialist society, albeit a particularly unusually organised one, with its knights and sibyls, and the thirteen omniarchs whose complete powerlessness stands in ironic contrast with "Our Committee" of the proto-anarchist Nechayev. In fact, Fourier, for all his caesarates and scales of passional types, was far to the left of, not just Cabet and Saint Simon, but many a Marxist (Morris comes to mind), when it came to the women's question. He had a far greater understanding of the family than they did.

What Fourier's phalansteries lacked, in addition to some elementary economy when it came to titles, was central, social planning. But this element could have been added, and Fourier's society would then be identical in all the relevant points (social control of the means of production, production for need, liberated labour, the liberation of women etc.) to the socialist society. But Fourier would have remained a utopian, not because the society he idealised was impossible, but because he had no conception of this society arising as the result of the development of the productive forces and the conflict this development engenders. Instead Fourier would debase himself by going around and dragging various people by the sleeve, trying to sell them the position in the regency of his trial phalanstery in return for patronage.


The point of socialism is to propose some societal change to what has not previously existed e.g. abolition of the wages system would be revolutionary but is based on the reality that we have a wages system and could do away with it.

And how do you intend to abolish wage labour? It's not a matter of policy - as if some kind of parliament could vote to abolish wage labour and, just like that, there would be no more wage labour. Wage labour will be abolished by the revolution engulfing the globe, not by some kind of ukaz. To talk of socialism being a matter of policy strongly hints at some sort of "socialism" in one country.


I think you're trying to pin compromise on utopians when this isn't the case.
Many more compromises have been reached under the guise of class struggle. Socialists supporting class struggle does not mean picking and choosing which causes the workers happen to support.

Of course it does. Socialists are not tailists. If workers come out with slogans of "British jobs to British workers", we criticise them.


The Full Communism Now was an afterthought but it demonstrates a very recent example of the 'workers (by themselves) trade union consciousness' that Bolsheviks like to claim being rubbished. This slogan was retweeted by lots of unaligned workers entertaining and grasping the rudimentary idea that half-measures are unnecessary.
Bizarre ideas you might think are utopian, but its a bizarre notion here that trended.
There's more info on it in this article
http://libcom.org/library/full-communism

What do Lenin's comments on the historical development of Marxism have with anything?

The article is awful. Not because I disagree with it per se, in fact it reinforces my point, but because it is written in the worst kind of masturbatory crit-theory jargon. I mean, look at this:

"It is this very rhetoric which the community around FULL COMMUNISM wish to distance themselves from. They tend to be activists who have been involved in political action for longer, and, rather than the slightly amorphous, undefined ideology of #Occupy, self-identify dogmatically on the anti-authoritarian left; anarchists, anarcho-communists, autonomists, Maoists and the ultra-left have all taken up the semi-ironic slogan. It has also transferred to similar online-communities operating the US, who operate a creative twitter practice indulging in the absurd and the fanciful, whilst utilizing a base level of formal Marxist rhetoric and political abrasiveness.
Despite utilizing the slogan to draw clear ground between themselves and the “fluffy liberals” who coalesce around the Occupy hashtags, I wish to posit a controversial stance on FULL COMMUNISM as a hashtag community: FULL COMMUNISM operates as a memetic non-demand; that is, its vital memetic resonance functions precisely because, as most successful memes, it is essentially contentless. FULL COMMUNISM pulls together a hashtag community around a cipher of radicalism, disguising the reality, which is that within that community there are no real political demands capable of creating a sense of political purpose. Like #occupy, it is a slogan or hashtag of will rather than a hashtag of intent."


It's always nice to see Maoists placed among ultra-lefts (probably because of some misplaced affection for GP). But anyway, this tells us the same thing I said, and bugger all else. People are tweeting this because it's bizarre, and they're "being ironic" (ugh).


And it gets better:

"The tone of these tweets are almost always light-hearted; the slogan may be utilized to signify a pleasant physical or mental state, an escape from an unpleasant experience, or an angry retort towards a person (tweeter, politician or celebrity) who expresses positions not in line with the community norm. It’s a shared aspiration, in short, which binds those who use it into a sense of commonality or solidarity. Its very extremism, excluding those who either don’t “get the joke” or, more likely, are intimidated by it, forms a common bond. This “like it or lump it” form of distanciation, couched in multiple ironic layers, is also popular with philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who is fond of making statements such as “Communism! I am absolutely in favour of egalitarianism with a taste of terror”, or claiming to be a Stalinist."


And now, with the invocation of Žižek, the Grad-Student Crit-Theory Article experience is complete; a couple of years ago it would have been Deleuze and Guattari, but they committed the cardinal sin of making sense.


Now you might wonder whether the vitriol is necessary. The truth is, I'm a bitter old man, I think only contempt is in order for people who claim that:

"the internet is not just a space for organizing IRL political actions, but a territory of action in itself (as the actions of Anonymous and, more recently, the Anti-SOPA actions suggest), we should think about what sort of territory it is. The idea of a hashtag community is, I think, a potential for building effective, “weak” social ties, useful in swarm and hive practices."


No, I'm sorry, no matter how many spoons you've got left today because everyone made fun of you for being a trans-dragon with self-diagnosed Asperger's, getting a topic to trend is not political action.


Now, as for the actual slogan, if anyone seriously proposed "full communism now", I would think they are either very young and mistake being aggressive in their demands for being politically radical, very delusional and think it is possible for the revolution to take place in an extremely short period of time throughout the globe, or, more likely, they're implicitly assuming some sort of "communism in one country". And well, if people think communism is possible in one country, there is really no ground for political conversation with them, is there?

[RedKobra]

Aaaaaaand breathe.

[RedKobra]

Oh & not that you were talking about me but I was diagnosed by two different psychologists so there! :p:cool:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Oh & not that you were talking about me but I was diagnosed by two different psychologists so there! :p:cool:

Good for you (for getting diagnosed), but you have to admit Asperger's is one of the favourite maladies for the self-diagnosed crowd, eclipsed only by gluten intolerance, and fairly recently at that, and particularly for the type of person who likes to hang out on various blogs complaining about how oppressed they are (when they're not oppressed at all) - the sort of person who might think getting a topic to trend is political work.

I guess I should count being sarcastic and unpleasant on the Internet as political work too, in which case I am a tireless political worker. Hell, I even do house calls. I can be unpleasant face-to-face as well (only in Croatia).

[RedKobra]

There are actually online tests you can take. Twelve questions and voila you've become an aspie in your lunch break. These "tests" are about as accurate & scientific as an MBTI test. I.e not very. Being a dork, a loner, socially awkward & glued to your computer all day is necessary for a diagnosis but alas, alone, not sufficient.

[The Idler]

I don't think anyone here is saying 'utopianism' is defined solely by adherence to principle. That Salafism and vegetarianism may be, is not relevant to socialism. An inadvertent strawman may be being constructed.

Societies described by some of the writers mentioned would either not emancipate the working-class or were utopian in that they had no basis in material conditions.

Again I don't think anyone here is saying parliament will abolish the wages system. The only ones I can think of who might could be SPEW. Whether you think that makes them utopians is up to you, but I don't think that is a useful way to distinguish utopianism. For Marx, the way to do it was not for socialists but for workers 'to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"'

What causes workers support or do not support, or the tailism you mention, is not the way to formulate what socialists should be doing or supporting. You might overlap but the ideas of socialism is about what are the long-term interests of the working-class. Workers are quite capable of deciding whether to support socialism or not themselves. You don't pick and choose workers favourite causes for socialism to ape. If workers come out with 'British jobs for British workers' socialists already ought to have rejected nationalism and said so, not merely opposition by reaction after the fact.

I kind of find the article a bit overblown too, but if you think 'full communism now' (and I mean globally) is 'bizarre', 'aggressive' or 'delusional' then you may have reached your limit of 'revolution'. And I do wonder what your advice to workers would be?

The end of the Communist manifesto reads '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.'

[John Nada]

One of the great struggles for many on the left is where to draw the line between firm principle and pure utopianism*. I've found, for myself, that its not a static line, it moves back and forth over time, not just as the material conditions change but also as we process new ideas and information and also as we gain new experiences.

I'd like to throw it open and ask you guys where's your line and much, much more importantly how do you decide where to draw it?


*Utopianism: Strong Principle unrestrained irrespective and, or, in contrast to real material conditions or reality.By utopianism, do you mean more like dogmatism?

[RedKobra]

By utopianism, do you mean more like dogmatism?

Not as such.

Let's take a concrete example, someone like Owen Jones is a self described 'Socialist', amongst his reasons for fighting for the left to reclaim the Labour Party is that (i) He believes that Labour has a monopoly on working class representation. (ii) An alternative to Labour has never realistically existed even in times when all the social forces were in favour of it (iii) Revolution is totally unrealistic in modern capitalist nations like Britain (iv) The public would never accept a group advocating circumventing representative democracy.

Now regardless of whether you agree with all of it or whether you think he's completely wrong a lot of the arguments that I've ever heard him make are along the lines of 'well, your revolutionary program is nice and in an ideal world might work but here in the real world its completely fanciful. IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO REALITY AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY EVERYDAY PEOPLE.

Now, I hardly need remind anyone that I do not draw that line anywhere near where Owen would but it illustrates the general point that I'm trying to make. Owen's argument is essentially that we revolutionaries are impractical and utopian. Real change can only be delivered by the only the machinery that it has ever been delivered by and that is the Labour Party.

And just as Owen can draw a line and say up to this point is realistic and practical but everything over there is just plain ridiculous so can the rest of us. Marxist-Leninists point at Trotskyists and accuse them of incoherence. The Trotskyists look at the Left-Commnists and accuse them of an infantile disorder. Left-Communists look at Anarchists and accuse them of naivety. Anarchists look at Ancaps and accuse them of gullibility. What fascinates me is what makes us draw that line in different places.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think anyone here is saying 'utopianism' is defined solely by adherence to principle. That Salafism and vegetarianism may be, is not relevant to socialism. An inadvertent strawman may be being constructed.

The point is that utopianism is not defined by adherence to principle at all. Some utopians consistently applied their principles, others compromised.


Societies described by some of the writers mentioned would either not emancipate the working-class or were utopian in that they had no basis in material conditions.

Again, consider Fourier. The point of Fourier's system was free, what he called "libidinal" (undertaken because it is pleasant and because of the individual's inclinations), labour, the abolition of the state, money, and the family. Do these things have a basis in the material conditions? Yes, in the same sense in which socialism has a basis in the material conditions - particularly since all of these things are part of socialism as we understand it.


Again I don't think anyone here is saying parliament will abolish the wages system. The only ones I can think of who might could be SPEW. Whether you think that makes them utopians is up to you, but I don't think that is a useful way to distinguish utopianism. For Marx, the way to do it was not for socialists but for workers 'to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"'

Marx and Engels also made it quite clear, in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, in Antiduhring, and elsewhere, that socialism is not a matter of certain policies being enacted, but the end result of a process of social transformation that starts with the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie.


What causes workers support or do not support, or the tailism you mention, is not the way to formulate what socialists should be doing or supporting. You might overlap but the ideas of socialism is about what are the long-term interests of the working-class. Workers are quite capable of deciding whether to support socialism or not themselves. You don't pick and choose workers favourite causes for socialism to ape. If workers come out with 'British jobs for British workers' socialists already ought to have rejected nationalism and said so, not merely opposition by reaction after the fact.

I have next to no idea what you're talking about, to be honest. Of course socialists make their opposition to nationalism known. This does not mean that they should refrain from criticising workers when they come out with chauvinist slogans.


I kind of find the article a bit overblown too, but if you think 'full communism now' (and I mean globally) is 'bizarre', 'aggressive' or 'delusional' then you may have reached your limit of 'revolution'. And I do wonder what your advice to workers would be?

My "advice" to the workers would be to be careful of anyone selling them an instant, painless transformation of society. We know that there is a transitional period between communism and capitalism. Quite an unpleasant thing, but socialists can either call for the workers to organise, to overthrow the bourgeois state and prepare to bloodily defend their conquest of power from all who think the proletariat should not rule, or they can foster illusions about a peaceful instant transition to communism (globally, at that! are you sure you're not thinking of something else?).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If you popularize slogans based on bloodshed and terror you're really only going to attract the kind of useless and emotionally stunted individuals that already populate most of the left. I don't think an optimistic slogan necessarily precludes a realization that civil war follows insurrection, full communism now isn't too bad as far as slogans go. Slogans alone won't lead to a class consciousness anyhow, we should assume or at least hope that someone drawn in by such a slogan would then do some research after that, it isn't the same thing as selling a simple commodity.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If you popularize slogans based on bloodshed and terror you're really only going to attract the kind of useless and emotionally stunted individuals that already populate most of the left. I don't think an optimistic slogan necessarily precludes a realization that civil war follows insurrection, full communism now isn't too bad as far as slogans go. Slogans alone won't lead to a class consciousness anyhow, we should assume or at least hope that someone drawn in by such a slogan would then do some research after that, it isn't the same thing as selling a simple commodity.

I never said that we should "popularise slogans based on bloodshed and terror", but the necessity of the defense of the revolution, the inevitability of the civil war - that needs to be kept in mind. Not in the Žižekian "ooh lokkit me I talk about terror my dick is very hard" sense, but in the sense of something unpleasant that we need to get done so we can move beyond that stage.

And yes, I agree that slogans themselves do not amount to much. Nonetheless, I think "full communism now", as a slogan, shows the sort of impatience that leads to socialism in one country and similar slogans (and yes, some of the anarchists and ultra-lefts, particularly on the Internet, do apparently think SiOC is possible),

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Communism is impatient though, it sneaks into our world from every little crack and fold. It seems bizarre to characterize soic as an ideology of impatience, when patience and stoicism as qualities were practically turned into a new state religion inside of the USSR. Again, demanding full communism now isn't separate from civil war, in fact it could also be read as "full civil war now" if you really wanted to be all romantic and gloomy about it. As an experiment you should see how far that slogan trends.

[The Feral Underclass]

Incidentally, DSG were responsible for the rumour that Zizek and Lady Gaga had become a couple; it went viral thanks to the LA Times reporting it as fact.

(They also exposed Johann Hari for being a plagiarist, as well as the author of some online incest erotica stories).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Communism is impatient though, it sneaks into our world from every little crack and fold. It seems bizarre to characterize soic as an ideology of impatience, when patience and stoicism as qualities were practically turned into a new state religion inside of the USSR. Again, demanding full communism now isn't separate from civil war, in fact it could also be read as "full civil war now" if you really wanted to be all romantic and gloomy about it. As an experiment you should see how far that slogan trends.

Stoicism when it came to living conditions and patience when it came to their improvement, perhaps. At the same time, there was impatience when it came to socialism - the opposition was criticised for holding back the "development of socialism" by wanting to "wait" for the global victory of the revolution. A lot of members of the old "Kuhnist", "permanent offensive" group also jumped on board with SiOC.

And I don't think "full civil war now" is any less of a stupid slogan - it's the sort of thing that might trend on Twitter, correct, because stupid things do tend to trend on Twitter. But "full communism now" means, at least prima facie, that any measure that does not immediately result in communism (nationalisation, for example, the monopoly on foreign trade, publishing secret treaties etc.) is at best a waste of time. That is a dangerous attitude to take.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'll take civil war over nationalization. And who the hell is producing the secret treaties or conducting foreign trade? Are we still waiting for the productive forces in 2015? Communization should begin immediately in any liberated area, if the wave fails those areas will be crushed and we can start again, life is unfair. We aren't competing with capitalism, we're abandoning it.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'll take civil war over nationalization. And who the hell is producing the secret treaties or conducting foreign trade? Are we still waiting for the productive forces in 2015? Communization should begin immediately in any liberated area, if the wave fails those areas will be crushed and we can start again, life is unfair. We aren't competing with capitalism, we're abandoning it.

Don't wait to be liberated, full communisation now!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'll take civil war over nationalization. And who the hell is producing the secret treaties or conducting foreign trade? Are we still waiting for the productive forces in 2015? Communization should begin immediately in any liberated area, if the wave fails those areas will be crushed and we can start again, life is unfair. We aren't competing with capitalism, we're abandoning it.

No one said the revolutionary authorities are competing with capitalism. But the notion that "communisation" (which, to be honest, I think is sort of vague; there are in fact various authors who talk about "communisation", and the meaning is slightly different each time) should begin immediately is precisely what I would criticise. It implies that communist social relations can exist in one territory, isolated and surrounded by the global market. That you can abolish commodity production by "dropping out" instead of smashing the rule of capital globally. Actually, I think that's slightly worse than socialism in one country.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What structure will be carrying out this nationalization though and on who's behalf? Shit if foreign trade exists then no you really are completing with capitalism at that point. Communism cannot come into existence in isolated territories but certainly the building blocks can be put into place. False representation can be eliminated, direct coordination and distribution can be organized, defense etc. The only transitional state I'm interested in is from full clip -> empty clip, if I can get all gross and macho for a second. Our concerns should be those that are direct, concentrating our efforts on contingencies for what happens in the event of a defeat just sets us up for a different kind of defeat. We either live the revolution directly and win or party until the bombs drop.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What structure will be carrying out this nationalization though and on who's behalf?

The proletarian dictatorship, on behalf of the proletariat organised as the ruling class.


Shit if foreign trade exists then no you really are completing with capitalism at that point.

Well, no, that would only be the case if you believe in some kind of "peaceful coexistence" nonsense, and think a revolutionary area can outcompete capitalism in commodity production (if it can, that's several kinds of sad and disturbing). But the thing is, no single area has all of the goods and materials that are necessary for the continued functioning of the revolutionary dictatorship, as well as minor things like the workers not dying of starvation. So foreign trade is an unfortunate necessity.


Communism cannot come into existence in isolated territories but certainly the building blocks can be put into place.

In what way? Again, it seems as though you think commodity production can be abolished by willpower alone, but the only way that would work is if the revolutionary area is capable of complete autarky. And that is a pipe dream with modern, objectively socialised, global industrial production.


False representation can be eliminated,

What does that mean?


direct coordination and distribution can be organized, defense etc.

And how are you going to defend yourself? That's the issue - how are you going to get the war materiel? Where are you going to get food for the cities and the armies? "Direct coordination and distribution" can be organised, but the problem lies in the area of production, not distribution.


The only transitional state I'm interested in is from full clip -> empty clip, if I can get all gross and macho for a second.

Good for you? I don't like the state either, I'm not some kind of maniac. But it is a necessity.

[Rafiq]

One of the great struggles for many on the left is where to draw the line between firm principle and pure utopianism*.

Not only do they struggle to draw the line, they in effect have absolutely no line at all. The point is not that utopianism is defined by creating a society with a "clever plan" - this is only a facet of a wider definitive problem. While any principled Marxist would reject the notion of spontaneity, it must be understood that the proletarian class struggle can exist independently of class-consciousness, albeit not for very long or in an impotent manner. The point of this otherwise pointless truism is that the revolutionary struggle is not simply an ideological struggle formed on the basis of "nice ideas" or even solely scientific articulations of the world around us. It is derived and based on our real, present conditions of power. The notion of Communism or a society of world-conscious individuals is only a notion, an abstract notion. Its contextual bearing is wholly dependent on prevailing conditions of capitalism and the nature of a real existing struggle - it is a relative truth of whose absolute nature is deduced by the sum total of its relative existence.

Abstract ideas, refined and forged by the impotent fires of ruling ideology do not constitute a basis for a movement or actual Communist struggle. Moreover, ideas forged as supersessions of prevailing ideas are not the sole pre-requisites to Communist struggle. No ideas form independently of their respective social contexts - Communism was possible as a radical elaboration of bourgeois-liberalism, and so on. The essence of these ideas are proven through a process of ideological-natural selection, their widespread prevalence and popularity among respective social demographic indicates whether they manifest class interest. We must assume that a multitude of combinations of different ideas are POSSIBLE, but that they are only capable of embodying present class interest if they gain credence movementally. The condition of the universal proletariat is a PRE-REQUISITE to Communist ideology or any possibility of "firm principles". Class antagonism precedes ideology.

What some of our resident 'Marxist' philistines fail to understand is that the notion of class struggle is not some kind of relative ideological truth, rather it is an absolute truth - a conclusion drawn from the sum total of relative truths. Class struggle is real, its truth is not dependent on a Marxist understanding of it - it exists independently of our consciousness of it. These real fundamental social relations of power and the struggles characterized by their antagonistic interaction is what gives rise to the notion of Communism. To be clear: this is a truth which is accessible to anyone ideologically. The point is that the conclusions drawn from such truth can only ever be articulated ideologically - no one could come to the conclusion that Communism is true from a neutral basis, but certainly historical materialism and class struggle are not ideological and can be recognized by anyone. Case in point, Bernstein's Marxism did not equip him with dedication to the Communist struggle. The Communist struggle is not reducible, or explicable solely by an articulation of scientific truth but in a practical vitality in relation to power. The petty pseudo-Marxists of our day attempt to emulate firm principles in the spirit of Lenin. What they fail to understand is that Lenin was not some kind of theoretical-conservative attacking the revisionists who deviated as a result of new conditions. Lenin's theoretical conservatism was not grounded in some kind of righteous resistance to making Marxism applicable to new conditions, but an attack on deviations which were formed not a result of a revolutionary elaboration or articulation of new circumstances, but a fundamental shift in class allegiance. This shift in class allegiance, this betrayal was only justified or veiled by the notion of "changing circumstances" a la Bernstein. Any idiot can recognize that the real revolutionizing of Communism or Marxism only occurred THROUGH Lenin - Lenin transformed and re-vitalized Marxism not through some kind of petty-dogmatic defense of principles for no reason, but their relationship not only to objective truth but to the class struggle. It was Kautsky and the revisionists which lagged behind prevailing conditions by surrendering the struggle to the ever-transformative ruling ideology.

The point is that firm principles are pointless if they do not have their basis in legitimate truth or circumstances. Firm principles are groundless if they are not derived from a potentially present context of class struggle. The nature of our movement, even the nature of our understanding of a post-capitalist society must necessarily derive from present circumstances of potential struggle. Evidently, many Marxists have proven incapable of doing this - instead they re-hash sophisticated analysis of previous conditions of capitalism and conform our present world to its mold. We're not talking about Trotskyists - recall the Left Communist pamphlets regarding the Yugoslav war, attempting to re-emulate the revolutionary sentiments of WWI.

[Rafiq]

To briefly summarize if you don't have time for any of that: Communism is impossible today. It is utopian. However, it can become possible through the course of the elaborations of a class struggle derived from present circumstances.

[Rafiq]

Not in the Žižekian "ooh lokkit me I talk about terror my dick is very hard" sense, but in the sense of something unpleasant that we need to get done so we can

What is Zizek's position on terror, if not the fact that it is absolutely necessary, "no matter how unpleasant" - as consequential of radical egalitarian social upheavals? Your understanding is lazy anyway. Perhaps I am confused? Please elaborate on this alleged dichotomy between the practical use of terror and the "Zizekian violence fetishism". If terror cannot properly be ideologically articulated in the power of the revolution, if it is treated as just some dog shit we have to clean up - the revolution could not survive a day. Something as immensely powerful as terror is inevitably integral to the character of the revolution itself - a revolution is itself by nature an act which violently disrupts relations of power. A revolution is not a means to an ends - it is the ends itself.

And finally, terror is not "willed" with such precision. It becomes an inevitable necessity beyond complete control.

[RedKobra]

What is Zizek's position on terror, if not the fact that it is absolutely necessary, "no matter how unpleasant" - as consequential of radical egalitarian social upheavals? Your understanding is lazy anyway. Perhaps I am confused? Please elaborate on this alleged dichotomy between the practical use of terror and the "Zizekian violence fetishism". If terror cannot properly be ideologically articulated in the power of the revolution, if it is treated as just some dog shit we have to clean up - the revolution could not survive a day. Something as immensely powerful as terror is inevitably integral to the character of the revolution itself - a revolution is itself by nature an act which violently disrupts relations of power. A revolution is not a means to an ends - it is the ends itself.

And finally, terror is not "willed" with such precision. It becomes an inevitable necessity beyond complete control.

...and rather neatly you have segued into my new thread, "On The Question of Violence (http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-violence-t192005/index.html?t=192005)"

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The proletarian dictatorship, on behalf of the proletariat organised as the ruling class.



Well, no, that would only be the case if you believe in some kind of "peaceful coexistence" nonsense, and think a revolutionary area can outcompete capitalism in commodity production (if it can, that's several kinds of sad and disturbing). But the thing is, no single area has all of the goods and materials that are necessary for the continued functioning of the revolutionary dictatorship, as well as minor things like the workers not dying of starvation. So foreign trade is an unfortunate necessity.



In what way? Again, it seems as though you think commodity production can be abolished by willpower alone, but the only way that would work is if the revolutionary area is capable of complete autarky. And that is a pipe dream with modern, objectively socialised, global industrial production.



What does that mean?



And how are you going to defend yourself? That's the issue - how are you going to get the war materiel? Where are you going to get food for the cities and the armies? "Direct coordination and distribution" can be organised, but the problem lies in the area of production, not distribution.



Good for you? I don't like the state either, I'm not some kind of maniac. But it is a necessity.

Whatever production is available in a liberated area, is going to be all that is available in that area until it is expanded, the same with war material. The vietcong bled the US dry with homemade guns and small trade shops dug underground, nothing has changed. NATO-styled armies still have an over-reliance on technology and tactics dictated by market needs rather than reality. You kind of open right into the main issue when you say "on behalf of", that's exactly the kind of false representation that I'm talking about. The bourgeois state also claims to function on our behalf and probably with more credibility at this point. In spite of intention I'm sure, the old leninist conception of revolution is still too mechanistic, too controlled. Revolution won't unfold the way we want and as a result has to be allowed to unfold organically from below, not from a managerial class/committee/whatever. The dictatorship should be expected as a chaotic body, almost ad hoc with only a clear purpose uniting it, not as something that can be pre-planned with one department for this another for that, etc. This has turned into an old argument without my noticing.

Re: starvation, can we imagine a global war, civil or otherwise, without this feature? The revolutionaries will have to be clever if they want to survive.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Whatever production is available in a liberated area, is going to be all that is available in that area until it is expanded, the same with war material. The vietcong bled the US dry with homemade guns and small trade shops dug underground, nothing has changed.

On their own, Viet Cong would have lost, and in all probability lost badly. It was the PAVN offensive that broke the American forces, and even that would have been questionable were it not for the political defeat of American imperialism. This despite the fact that America blundered into Vietnam relatively unprepared (removing canons from fighter aircraft, for example, on the assumption that they weren't necessary, and deploying a stupid number of tank destroyers despite the PAVN not having a significant tank force, and so on).

I think the historical record on this is clear. Asymmetrical warfare with one side having a significant technological advantage doesn't bode well for the less advanced side, unless some significant non-military factors are in play.

As for production, it would be beyond ridiculous to try and predict for how long the revolution would last. Your attitude seems to be "if the stocks hold, great, if not, life's not fair". And, well, politically I don't see anything questionable about people committing suicide, even in the most outrageous ways. But these kinds of "death or glory" insurrections, in addition to usually being steeped in the most ridiculous form of machismo, have cost the proletariat dearly, particularly in Germany.

Not to mention that if the industrial, large-scale, objectively socialised production shuts down, then the objective conditions for the socialist revolution are in jeopardy. The collapse of industry, a return to barter etc. - this is not the road to socialism but barbarism.


NATO-styled armies still have an over-reliance on technology and tactics dictated by market needs rather than reality.

Yes, the proletarian militia probably doesn't need some kind of Next Generation Full Spectrum Warrior (TM) program. On the other hand, it would need munitions, rifles, grenades, aircraft and artillery from splitting the imperialist forces, and so on. If we're standing around waving pointed sticks, we're going to get bombed.


You kind of open right into the main issue when you say "on behalf of", that's exactly the kind of false representation that I'm talking about. The bourgeois state also claims to function on our behalf and probably with more credibility at this point.

I would say the historical record tells another story. In Russia and Hungary there existed dictatorships of the proletariat, revolutionary authorities who acted in the interest of the proletariat even if they did not always respect the sacred rules of democracy. I suppose you would disagree, as I think our conceptions of what the proletarian interest is are entirely different.


In spite of intention I'm sure, the old leninist conception of revolution is still too mechanistic, too controlled. Revolution won't unfold the way we want and as a result has to be allowed to unfold organically from below, not from a managerial class/committee/whatever. The dictatorship should be expected as a chaotic body, almost ad hoc with only a clear purpose uniting it, not as something that can be pre-planned with one department for this another for that, etc. This has turned into an old argument without my noticing.

Of course it's controlled. What is the dictatorship of the proletariat. The rule of a class, as a class, as a group, not the rule of this or that group of proletarians in their own petty fiefdoms. To talk about a chaotic and ad hoc dictatorship is to talk about chaotic rule, about organised violence without organisation. To me, it's nonsense.

Which brings me to, I guess, my main point: I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Generally, I don't think me and people who support "communisation" in any form are talking about the same thing. When I talk about post-capitalist relations of production, I mean (I can only mean) socially planned production for need. I don't think it's possible to introduce such relations until capitalism has croaked globally, and certainly not during the initial insurrection.


Re: starvation, can we imagine a global war, civil or otherwise, without this feature? The revolutionaries will have to be clever if they want to survive.

No, we can't. That's why securing food is a priority, and not something that can be ignored.

[John Nada]

On their own, Viet Cong would have lost, and in all probability lost badly. It was the PAVN offensive that broke the American forces, and even that would have been questionable were it not for the political defeat of American imperialism. This despite the fact that America blundered into Vietnam relatively unprepared (removing canons from fighter aircraft, for example, on the assumption that they weren't necessary, and deploying a stupid number of tank destroyers despite the PAVN not having a significant tank force, and so on).Yes. However, saying the Vietcong would've lost without the PAVN is a bit like saying the army would've lost without the marines. Each had a different role that complemented each other. Also, nether the Afghan nor the Iraqi insurgency(till recently) had anywhere near the conventional capacities of north Vietnam.
I think the historical record on this is clear. Asymmetrical warfare with one side having a significant technological advantage doesn't bode well for the less advanced side, unless some significant non-military factors are in play.War is a continuation of politics by another means. The non-military factors can be more important than directly quantitative military factors. There's many instances of an advance side in a conventional war losing, and they're many revolutionary/liberation wars won by asymmetrical warfare(which can grow into a conventional one).
As for production, it would be beyond ridiculous to try and predict for how long the revolution would last. Your attitude seems to be "if the stocks hold, great, if not, life's not fair. And, well, politically I don't see anything questionable about people committing suicide, even in the most outrageous ways. But these kinds of "death or glory" insurrections, in addition to usually being steeped in the most ridiculous form of machismo, have cost the proletariat dearly, particularly in Germany.A revolution might happen quickly, or it might take decades(and still be sooner than most's timetable). One doesn't have to win every battle to win a war.

Either of the two insurrections(or attempts at it) that I can think of in Germany were horribly executed, and should serve more as a warning than something to emulate.
Not to mention that if the industrial, large-scale, objectively socialised production shuts down, then the objective conditions for the socialist revolution are in jeopardy. The collapse of industry, a return to barter etc. - this is not the road to socialism but barbarism.Lenin said the conditions for a revolution are that not only that the proletariat and oppressed people don't want to remain in the old order, but that the bourgeoisie must also not be able to rule as before during the crises. If the collapse is reversible, than there's still a chance.
Yes, the proletarian militia probably doesn't need some kind of Next Generation Full Spectrum Warrior (TM) program. On the other hand, it would need munitions, rifles, grenades, aircraft and artillery from splitting the imperialist forces, and so on. If we're standing around waving pointed sticks, we're going to get bombed.Munitions can be acquired or even made. Shit, the PLA was fighting the Japanese fascists, their puppets, warlords, and the ROC with old handguns and spears! Many were not armed. Of course this was until enough resources were acquired for a more conventional war.
I would say the historical record tells another story. In Russia and Hungary there existed dictatorships of the proletariat, revolutionary authorities who acted in the interest of the proletariat even if they did not always respect the sacred rules of democracy. I suppose you would disagree, as I think our conceptions of what the proletarian interest is are entirely different.Mine's probably in between both of yours'. The DotP will be from the proletariat, who will presumably be part of the proletariat, and act with them.
Of course it's controlled. What is the dictatorship of the proletariat. The rule of a class, as a class, as a group, not the rule of this or that group of proletarians in their own petty fiefdoms. To talk about a chaotic and ad hoc dictatorship is to talk about chaotic rule, about organised violence without organisation. To me, it's nonsense.I agree. There need to be some planing, work and organizing. Otherwise it'll just be a small riot or limited insurrection at best.
Which brings me to, I guess, my main point: I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Generally, I don't think me and people who support "communisation" in any form are talking about the same thing. When I talk about post-capitalist relations of production, I mean (I can only mean) socially planned production for need. I don't think it's possible to introduce such relations until capitalism has croaked globally, and certainly not during the initial insurrection.I think you all have different theories on how to wage a rebellion.

There has to be some progressive action taken during the rebellion, like dual power and the starting foundation of socialist construction. It'll give the people a reason to fight.
No, we can't. That's why securing food is a priority, and not something that can be ignored.Yeah, we don't need more pictures of starving kids that "prove communism doesn't work" in bourgeois propaganda. And I'd like not to have me and/or my friends and family starve to death. Food should be priority number one.