United Communism [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

27th April 2004, 10:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 01:56 PM
If Communism is to change our world for the better, it must be unified.

Here are a few suggestions for a united Communist idealogy
Communism is a non-governmental,stateless, classless, non-hierarchical theory of how society will look at the end of history. It is not a form of government which exists in a society which has a state, which would need to exist in order to enforce your laws, which ultimatly leads to hierarchy and class differences.

1. No vanguard - the people do not need it.

Of course they dont ever need a vangaurd, but what context are you talking about. The assertions that come after this one dont follow, or at least you do not attempt to show how they do. This point is a fundamental split on the revolutionary left. You are asking people to throw away entire aspects of theoretics which as you are aware from this website alone they are not prepared to do. From this, it is a non stater.

2. Nationalization of all companies and public services to help the people, instead of multinationals and fat cats.

What do you mean by nationalized? Government owned or worker owned? Communism advocates that the means of production be controlled and managed by collective of workers. "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." If you are talking about government ownership then you are talking about a state socialism, and not all people on the revolutionary left are state socialists.

3. Communism should adopt the idea that any crime which only affects one individual should be legalised.

I assume what you mean by this is that laws which restrict individual freedoms should not exist. I agree with you on this fundamentally, but then again laws are designed to protect private property and the rule of a ruling class. Laws are antithetical to a communist society as communism opposes both private property and a ruling class.

4. Equal wages for men and women for the same job.

What do you mean by jobs? Jobs usually exist for people to generate an income to survive. Society should simply be organized in a way that jobs which are socially necessary are divided between communities. This is what communism advocates and thus negates the need for wages, as this socially necessary work would be done so that food, shelter etc were provided to you.

5. Euthanasia should be legalised....6. Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered adoption and marriage should be legalized...9. Abortion must be fully legal for up to 20 weeks....10. Destruction of all existing nuclear weapons

It defies logic that these things are not. I fully agree on these principles. But again, many revolutionaries do not. Some are nationalists, christians or moralists.

7. Abolishment of any existing monarchy

All authority which can not justify itself should be abolished. Not just the authority of parliment, or patriarchy but also of a monarchy. Especially royal instituations because they are not only absurd and illogical, they legitimize inequality and the apparent right of one human above another. All things which oppose communism.

8. Tougher punishments for companies and individuals who pollute the enivironment. Same goes for discrimination.

But you advocated that all companies be nationalized, so it would be the government who is being repremanded...

Why do these companies exist? In what context are they being allowed to operate? I would say that companies should be abolished, because fundamentally they serve to generate cash for individuals, or in this case a government, which against is a concept antithetical to communism.

RedAnarchist

27th April 2004, 11:15

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Apr 27 2004, 10:58 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Apr 27 2004, 10:58 AM)
[email protected] 26 2004, 01:56 PM
If Communism is to change our world for the better, it must be unified.

Here are a few suggestions for a united Communist idealogy
Communism is a non-governmental,stateless, classless, non-hierarchical theory of how society will look at the end of history. It is not a form of government which exists in a society which has a state, which would need to exist in order to enforce your laws, which ultimatly leads to hierarchy and class differences.

1. No vanguard - the people do not need it.

Of course they dont ever need a vangaurd, but what context are you talking about. The assertions that come after this one dont follow, or at least you do not attempt to show how they do. This point is a fundamental split on the revolutionary left. You are asking people to throw away entire aspects of theoretics which as you are aware from this website alone they are not prepared to do. From this, it is a non stater.

Obviously its a fundamental split, but surely the Revolution does not need a small group of leaders?

2. Nationalization of all companies and public services to help the people, instead of multinationals and fat cats.

What do you mean by nationalized? Government owned or worker owned? Communism advocates that the means of production be controlled and managed by collective of workers. "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." If you are talking about government ownership then you are talking about a state socialism, and not all people on the revolutionary left are state socialists.

I'm talking about worker ownership.

3. Communism should adopt the idea that any crime which only affects one individual should be legalised.

I assume what you mean by this is that laws which restrict individual freedoms should not exist. I agree with you on this fundamentally, but then again laws are designed to protect private property and the rule of a ruling class. Laws are antithetical to a communist society as communism opposes both private property and a ruling class.

I oppose the ruling class and the ownership of private property. What i meant that in a society that is developing towards a stateless Communist utopia that there would be full freedom for the people, but not enough to commit crimes such as rape and murder.

4. Equal wages for men and women for the same job.

What do you mean by jobs? Jobs usually exist for people to generate an income to survive. Society should simply be organized in a way that jobs which are socially necessary are divided between communities. This is what communism advocates and thus negates the need for wages, as this socially necessary work would be done so that food, shelter etc were provided to you.

5. Euthanasia should be legalised....6. Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered adoption and marriage should be legalized...9. Abortion must be fully legal for up to 20 weeks....10. Destruction of all existing nuclear weapons

It defies logic that these things are not. I fully agree on these principles. But again, many revolutionaries do not. Some are nationalists, christians or moralists.

I am neither a nationalist, a christian or a moralist. Yes, some revolutionaries are, and thats fine. But we must ensure the safety of humanity and equality of all peoples.

7. Abolishment of any existing monarchy

All authority which can not justify itself should be abolished. Not just the authority of parliment, or patriarchy but also of a monarchy. Especially royal instituations because they are not only absurd and illogical, they legitimize inequality and the apparent right of one human above another. All things which oppose communism.

True. I used monarchy as an example, as it is the most archaic form of unjustified authority.

8. Tougher punishments for companies and individuals who pollute the enivironment. Same goes for discrimination.

But you advocated that all companies be nationalized, so it would be the government who is being repremanded...

Why do these companies exist? In what context are they being allowed to operate? I would say that companies should be abolished, because fundamentally they serve to generate cash for individuals, or in this case a government, which against is a concept antithetical to communism.

Anyone who discriminates or pollutes the Earth should be rightly punished. [/b]
I diid write them when i was half-asleep you know, so they arent perfect.

The Feral Underclass

27th April 2004, 11:50

Originally posted by X[email protected] 27 2004, 01:15 PM
Obviously its a fundamental split, but surely the Revolution does not need a small group of leaders?
It doesn't.

I'm talking about worker ownership.

Fine.

I oppose the ruling class and the ownership of private property. What i meant that in a society that is developing towards a stateless Communist utopia that there would be full freedom for the people, but not enough to commit crimes such as rape and murder.

How, in your opinion, should we develop towards a "stateless communist utopia"?

Anyone who discriminates or pollutes the Earth should be rightly punished.

What do you mean by punished?

RedAnarchist

27th April 2004, 11:56

I oppose the ruling class and the ownership of private property. What i meant that in a society that is developing towards a stateless Communist utopia that there would be full freedom for the people, but not enough to commit crimes such as rape and murder.

How, in your opinion, should we develop towards a "stateless communist utopia"?

By following Communist principles without allowing any type of capitalism, right-wing idealogy, hierarchy or dictatorship.

Anyone who discriminates or pollutes the Earth should be rightly punished.

What do you mean by punished?

Jail? I dunno. But the environment does not exist for us to abuse, and discrimination is a backwards act of rascism.

The Feral Underclass

27th April 2004, 12:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:56 PM

I oppose the ruling class and the ownership of private property. What i meant that in a society that is developing towards a stateless Communist utopia that there would be full freedom for the people, but not enough to commit crimes such as rape and murder.

How, in your opinion, should we develop towards a "stateless communist utopia"?

By following Communist principles without allowing any type of capitalism, right-wing idealogy, hierarchy or dictatorship.

Anyone who discriminates or pollutes the Earth should be rightly punished.

What do you mean by punished?

Jail? I dunno. But the environment does not exist for us to abuse, and discrimination is a backwards act of rascism.
Why dont you change your avator...

Here's a good start... (http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Anarchy)

RedAnarchist

27th April 2004, 12:29

As far as i know, i'm not an Anarchist.

The Feral Underclass

27th April 2004, 12:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 02:29 PM
As far as i know, i'm not an Anarchist.
Why not?

The jail thing is a bit dodgy, but we can work on that... :P

RedAnarchist

27th April 2004, 12:45

Would you consider my views Anarchist, Communist or neither?

Economic Left/Right: -8.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00 - is this a Communist's or an Anarchit's political compass result, in your own opinion?

The Feral Underclass

27th April 2004, 12:50

It would suggest an anarchist. But remember, anarchists are communists, or at least anarcho-communists are. Ultiamtly anarchists want communism.

Also, political compess is not how we should define our politics. Do you have any specific reasons why you think you are not an anarchist?

RedAnarchist

27th April 2004, 12:59

No, i've always considered myself a Communist

The Feral Underclass

27th April 2004, 13:09

But a communist is principly an anarchist. And as you oppose the concept of the state and of the vangaurd, then you are pretty much an anarchist......

RedAnarchist

27th April 2004, 13:55

I've changed my avatar.

The Feral Underclass

27th April 2004, 14:01

Do you not want to answer the question, or can you not answer the question?

RedAnarchist

27th April 2004, 14:04

What question?

The Feral Underclass

27th April 2004, 14:08

Do you have any specific reasons why you think you are not an anarchist?

RedAnarchist

27th April 2004, 14:09

No, not really

James

27th April 2004, 16:45

Okay - how would you abolish the monarchy? What you replace it with?
Now remember, we are talking about the UK here - i don't want any wimpy "oh the revolution comes..." answers. I want real, logical, REALISTIC arguments.

RedAnarchist

27th April 2004, 16:47

We could pressure the government to take away the few reamining powers of the monarch, abolish the house of lords, abolish any extra rights the monarch as, and finally remove them from all the palaces. Then a Republic can be set up, with a Premier and a President.

The Feral Underclass

27th April 2004, 16:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 06:45 PM
Okay - how would you abolish the monarchy? What you replace it with?
Now remember, we are talking about the UK here - i don't want any wimpy "oh the revolution comes..." answers. I want real, logical, REALISTIC arguments.
You dont need to replace them with anything. They dont do anything that is worthy of being replaced.

And you get rid of them by forcing them out of their positions of heridatery wealth. By any means. By force if necessary

BOZG

27th April 2004, 17:02

Why would you need to replace the monarchy? They're a non-necessity and have no purpose whatsoever. Why would you even want to keep the remnants of slavery?

Also XPhile, don't base your political stance in any way whatsoever on the Political Compass. For starters the questions are extremely rigid and it's incredibly biased towards the left.

James

27th April 2004, 17:06

We could pressure the government

Michael Jacobs, general secretary of the fabian society, is a republican - but he argues that "whatever republican advocates would like to believe, abolition is not on the agenda. No party leadership has the stomach for it, and there is still neither the depth nor breadth of support for it in the country".
The government isn't going to do a thing.

to take away the few reamining powers of the monarch,

And give them to who or what?

Then a Republic can be set up, with a Premier and a President.

I'm not sure the British people would want a premier and president... but anyway - so you suggest we have an elected head of state. How would they be elected?

_______

You dont need to replace them with anything. They dont do anything that is worthy of being replaced.

Oh how origional! Raise your fist an resist my boy...
No - the monarch does have political power, political respoonsibility, and is politically important.
Also, the monarch is the head of state. Do you propose that we have a Prime Minister alone? Don't you think that is concentrating a bit too much power there?

And you get rid of them by forcing them out of their positions of heridatery wealth. By any means. By force if necessary

So you and your other anarchist friend here, are going to storm the palace, defeat the guards (who are vicious killers you know - they arn't just for show); and gain public support for doing so?

DaCuBaN

27th April 2004, 20:48

Why would you need to replace the monarchy? They're a non-necessity and have no purpose whatsoever. Why would you even want to keep the remnants of slavery?

Well to be honest, I've never understood why everyone is so desperate to oust them - I'm by no means a monarchist but what would be achieved? Over the last 300 years the power of the ruling monarch in the UK has dwindled - and if I remember rightly they don't receive and money from our income tax. They're also damn good diplomats, already have their own diplomatic residences and show the UK as being stable in my eyes.

If a socialist regime was to NOT drive out the monarchy, I believe it would also stand a far greater chance of success as it's one concession to imperialism I don't mind making - in all honesty are they doing any real harm?

the monarch does have political power, political respoonsibility, and is politically important

I'm really not sure what powers our monarch wields these days - but I was under the impression that the monarch is nowadays more of a puppet to keep the nationalists from rising against the civilian parliament and that although politically important for this reason and as a diplomat doesn't actually wield any power.

The Feral Underclass

27th April 2004, 21:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:06 PM
Michael Jacobs, general secretary of the fabian society, is a republican - but he argues that "whatever republican advocates would like to believe, abolition is not on the agenda. No party leadership has the stomach for it, and there is still neither the depth nor breadth of support for it in the country".
The government isn't going to do a thing.
Yes, of course, no bourgeois government would want to do what was not popular. That does not prove the validity of the royal family, or give a reason for what it should exist.

And give them to who or what?

The point is to organize to dismantle forms of authority which are unjustifiable and replace them with forms which are. The royal family, the state the props it up, the governments that support it, or any government for that matter, and capitalism are forms of authority which can not be justified. Therefore they should be dismantled. In my opinion by rank and file democratic federations of [conscious] workers.

I'm not sure the British people would want a premier and president... but anyway - so you suggest we have an elected head of state. How would they be elected?

The British people are largly unaware of the situation of the world. And indeed have little interest in the political system in general. Although the question isnt directed at me, I will answer it. I do not agree that three should be a head of state, or even a state, and therefore it is important to build a movement which challanges those concepts, in order to move towards destroying them.

Oh how origional! Raise your fist an resist my boy...

Thank you, I will.

No - the monarch does have political power, political respoonsibility, and is politically important.

Political power, responsability and importance for who? Certainly not for the exploited or oppressed. They have these things to serve their own agenda and the agenda of a ruling class. Their power is the power which is not rightfully theirs, they have responsability to their class interests only, and importance to members or the ruling class and people who have no other real choice or perspective on society. In real terms, they serve no purpose, and have no power which is of benifit to anyone.

Also, the monarch is the head of state. Do you propose that we have a Prime Minister alone? Don't you think that is concentrating a bit too much power there?

I propose that the role of head of state and in fact the state be destroyed because hierarchy and the state are what create conditions of oppression and exploitation in the first place. I propose to have a society where people govern their own lives based on democracy, freedom and mutual co-operation.

When you say concentrating power, you make it sounds as if the system is worth protecting. It isnt. The system would still function the way it functions regardless of whether the Queen ruled the country of a President etc. The same agenda would be perpetrated and the same people would suffer the consequences.

So you and your other anarchist friend here, are going to storm the palace, defeat the guards (who are vicious killers you know - they arn't just for show); and gain public support for doing so?

What other anarchist? No. I personally would not want to storm the palace walls alone. Although it is a historical inevitability that working class action will sweep away these insitutions and replace them with communism. These viscious killers are just as used by the system their boss represents as the factory workers, and one day, they too will be storming the palace gates. Just like the soldiers who stormed the Winter Palace in St Petersburg 1917.

MiniOswald

27th April 2004, 21:26

ay ay ay what is the point in the british monarchy who needs them, they've got kein power, the queens just trying to outlive her mother, philips just un-P.C, charles, well we all know what charles is like, william and harry are foppish dandys and prince andrew probably wouldnt notice if you took away his power. anyways think of all the lovely things you could do with that palace and huzzah no speech at christmas 'i would like to thank all the members of the commo....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz'

RedOcotber1917

27th April 2004, 21:30

But a communist is principly an anarchist.

This is the stupidest statement. the closet thing a marxist or communist is to an anarchist is council communism. but both have very different philosphies.

for the anarchist, everything is about the utmost liberty possible and bowing down to no authority of any kind. the communists generally recognize the fact that there is going to still be authority, though greatly reduced from the present system.

And as you oppose the concept of the state and of the vangaurd, then you are pretty much an anarchist......

but communists and anarchists do agree on one thing. the destruction of the current state, unless your a social democrat then you want to keep the state as is, but we can all agree that idealogy is rather stupid. for the communists, the destruction of the current state is imparitive. there would be a setting up of a new state, the state as we know it would be completly transformed. Marx and Engels both never liked the usage of the word state and wanted the use of words such as "commune" and some other german word meaning community.

there are also many communists who disagree with a vanguard party, such as social democrats and council communists. the vanguard party is a leninist concept.

shyguywannadie

27th April 2004, 21:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 11:56 AM
If Communism is to change our world for the better, it must be unified.

Here are a few suggestions for a united Communist idealogy -

1. No vanguard - the people do not need it.

2. Nationalization of all companies and public services to help the people, instead of multinationals and fat cats.

3. Communism should adopt the idea that any crime which only affects one individual should be legalised.

4. Equal wages for men and women for the same job.

5. Euthanasia should be legalised.

6. Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered adoption and marriage should be legalized

7. Abolishment of any existing monarchy

8. Tougher punishments for companies and individuals who pollute the enivironment. Same goes for discrimination.

9. Abortion must be fully legal for up to 20 weeks.

10. Destruction of all existing nuclear weapons

Theres a lot more that could be suggested, but these 10 will do for now
Is this part of a comic sketch? :lol:

But seriously, your talking about communism, you know what it is?

In communism, money doesnt exist, so as for equal wage, thats an odd thing for you to say.

Allowing people to commit crimes against other people?

Your post better be a joke :ph34r:

James

27th April 2004, 21:40

They're also damn good diplomats, already have their own diplomatic residences and show the UK as being stable in my eyes.

Damn straight.

“The Queen’s appearances abroad do more in a day to gain goodwill for Britain than all the politicians and diplomats lumped together could achieve in years”.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Prime Minister 1963-64).

Charles' recent visit to Tehran is an example of this active function of the monarchy.

I'm really not sure what powers our monarch wields these days - but I was under the impression that the monarch is nowadays more of a puppet to keep the nationalists from rising against the civilian parliament and that although politically important for this reason and as a diplomat doesn't actually wield any power.

There are the reserve powers; granting of an election, and appointing a PM. Usually there isn't a problem, and its a clear result - the Queen comes into her own in the event of a hung parliament. Of course we could give these powers to the speaker (as in Sweden i believe) - but is the speaker as politically wise and neutral? I think the speaker has enough on his/her plate.

Then there is her other power - her "influence". This is VERY effective when she implements it, but this is only on occassions. She prefers consensus politics - she hated Thatcher. In fact, Thatcher said on more than one occassion "the Queen won't like that, so we can't do it".
I think thats terribly good!

______

Yes, of course, no bourgeois government would want to do what was not popular. That does not prove the validity of the royal family, or give a reason for what it should exist.

As i said - i wanted real argument. Not wishy washy hypothetical situations.
The situation is that all 3 main parties support and defend the monarchy. There is no other way into British politics.

Thus you'd have to use force - and you don't enjoy popular force. So thats not an option. Nor is it at all reasonable.

The point is to organize to dismantle forms of authority which are unjustifiable and replace them with forms which are. The royal family, the state the props it up, the governments that support it, or any government for that matter, and capitalism are forms of authority which can not be justified. Therefore they should be dismantled. In my opinion by rank and file democratic federations of [conscious] workers.

I see. So you mean you can only propose a hypothetical anarchist paradise.

If you can't argue properly, please don't bother trying...

The British people are largly unaware of the situation of the world. And indeed have little interest in the political system in general. Although the question isnt directed at me, I will answer it. I do not agree that three should be a head of state, or even a state, and therefore it is important to build a movement which challanges those concepts, in order to move towards destroying them.

Unlike you, you mean?
Well as a British Subject, i will act as representative. Ask me a question relating to the situation of the world, and i will answer.
There are numerous other parties and sects which enjoy stronger support than any party you would join in the UK.

And the rest... well... its that hypothetical situation again.

Please! supply some steps to reaching this goal - and i mean more than just airy fairy comments such as "building a movement".

Political power, responsability and importance for who?

The british people, and the system they live under. Name a better system that has worked as well old boy.

Certainly not for the exploited or oppressed.

Actually, this is deemed one of the functions of the British (and Irish i noticed) head of state.

They have these things to serve their own agenda and the agenda of a ruling class. Their power is the power which is not rightfully theirs, they have responsability to their class interests only, and importance to members or the ruling class and people who have no other real choice or perspective on society. In real terms, they serve no purpose, and have no power which is of benifit to anyone.

Please give an example of this claim.

When you say concentrating power, you make it sounds as if the system is worth protecting. It isnt. The system would still function the way it functions regardless of whether the Queen ruled the country of a President etc. The same agenda would be perpetrated and the same people would suffer the consequences.

I didn't mean to - well, i do think its worth protecting, but it wasn't what i meant.
The seperation of powers is a democratic principle.
I was suggesting that the removal of the monarch would hand even more power to the British Prime Minister, who as it is, has more power than the US president. This is politically dangerous (arguably such a concentration in the US president made vietnam possible - thus prompting the 1973 War Powers act to curb the presidents power).
So no, the system would not function the same at all.

What other anarchist?

I don't mind really, take any. Take a few if you can find them (although my experiance teaches me leftists typically can't agree on most issues, other than "establish a mass movement")

No. I personally would not want to storm the palace walls alone. Although it is a historical inevitability that working class action will sweep away these insitutions and replace them with communism.

haha, nothing is inevitable in history. NOTHING.
If it is, then one could argue, stating several examples, that communism comes, and then communism fails, and then communism is replaced by even more aggresive capitalism. Nice.

These viscious killers are just as used by the system their boss represents as the factory workers, and one day, they too will be storming the palace gates. Just like the soldiers who stormed the Winter Palace in St Petersburg 1917.

lol, nice comparrison. I was merely pointing out that if you tried, you'd be dead before you'd raised your fist.

Rasta Sapian

28th April 2004, 05:20

james, in response to your debate on the british monarchy, I do have some positive and negitive comments to add.

first of all that god for the the monarchy and british parlimentary system of politics, I live in canada where we have a template of the british parlimentary system in place, with a speaker, governor general who does alot of great humanitarian and nation building work abroad! and yes, we to have a prime minister and remain quite liberal to today, and our tea is always hot :)

But lets face the facts, the monarch and queens power only streches as far as our 20 daller bill, although Canada remains a colony we find ourselves more closely related to our American brothers and sisters, and to me the only thing that keeps the monarchy hanging on is age old impirialism and a parlimentary system which like I said above, thank God for!

In the new socialist age of equality there unfortunatly will not be a need for age old impirialism and blood lines, divine or not!

And with a new system of politics and economic reasoning the monarch will only be that of the past........................ie. do you remember Lois the 16th?

DaCuBaN

28th April 2004, 05:30

And with a new system of politics and economic reasoning the monarch will only be that of the past........................ie. do you remember Lois the 16th?

Well no... he was removed in bloody revolution - I can't see that happening in the UK within my lifetime - and that's another 40 years by the book!

Sabocat

28th April 2004, 11:13

Okay - how would you abolish the monarchy?

Just like the French did....chop, chop, ....done. :lol:

What you replace it with?

Nothing. Turn all the palaces into housing for the poor.

Funky Monk

28th April 2004, 13:56

I have to admit, i love this "When the Revolution comes" attitude

Hands up all those who think there can can or will be a revolution in the western world?

What is the point of arguing what system will replace the current one, a society of self governance or a fair and just new state?

The queen has an important purpose to play and to be honest i think removing her would cause more trouble than its worth. Sure, i think we should cut down the royal list and you will never catch me bowing to anyone but still, there is nothing useful to be dont by abolishing the monarchy.

Admittedly the 19th Century turned the monarchy from the controller of government to a willing aide in Liberal upheaval but that makes it even less important to remove them.

And look at all the good things the monarch has done for the country:
1832 Reform Act
1867 Reform Act
1911 Parliament Act
Repression of Thatcher

James

28th April 2004, 16:52

Rasta,
I agree, regarding Canada most of the time the "queens power only streches as far as our 20 daller bill". Of course there are issues regarding the governor general, The Queen does not play as large a role over there, as she does over here. But then again, don't go to the other extreme and start to think that the Queen ignores Canada. She's extremely well read on all the nations she has a duty to, and keeps up to date with current affairs.
But yes, i think the monarchy argument isn't as strong re: canada.

we find ourselves more closely related to our American brothers and sisters

Actually, the canadian monarchy group argue that that is one argument for keeping the queen - you only know too well what the alternative is. i.e. a president who's elected. The credentials? Lots of money, friends in high places, plausable TV appearence, debts blah blah blah.
I think the role of Head of State is safer in the hands of the Queen, than in the hands of a Bush, or Thatcher.

______

Just like the French did....chop, chop, ....done

We did that before them!
But after a few years of republic, Britain became a monarchy again.

Nothing.

So not a republic, with an elected head of state?

______

Well said monk.

Raisa

29th April 2004, 01:19

Don't Change Your Name

29th April 2004, 04:13

After checking out some of the replies to this thread, it's very easy to see why such a thing as a "united communism" doesn't exist.

If you really want to bring change the only thing you can do is make all the leftist movements create some kind of "platform" styled text where the main shared principles are and a mixed leftist system (I mean a non-authoritarian government, slow transition, innovating plans to reorganize the economy, creating of different new democratic organizations and such things).

Still it will be useless. Such a state will still have a lot of power and such a "party" will hardly have chances to "change things", it doesnt matter how many votes it gets in an election or how many guerrilla fighters it has in a revolution. It should be just there to "spread the word".

The Feral Underclass

29th April 2004, 11:42

In order to unite the left, at some time, people will have to compromise their positions on crucial theoretical and tactical issues.

Hands up all those who think there can can or will be a revolution in the western world?

There certainly can be a revolution, and their inevitably will. Obviously I am bias because I am a class struggle anarchist, but if you actually look at history, change is a certainty regardless of your political beliefs.

History is not static. It moves and it progresses, it changes direction ever day, every second. Ideas, conditions, beliefs, realities shift into new relms. During feudelism these shifts happened. New techonoligies, new ideas, new conditions in society stirred something inside people who saw that they had a greater stake in the running of society, and that the present system was illogical, and was stopping that from happening. People began to call feudelism barbaric, autocratic, illogical, etc etc and people move~d to change it. A new ruling class emerged from the intellectual middle class. Leaders of the french revolution or the reformist movements in England and indeed all across Europe began removing power from the monarchs and centralizing it into new instutions of authority. Parliments, Prime Ministers, leaders who were not members of the royal family and whom were elected by the people began to be the normal way to govern our affairs. And thus the period of liberal democracy was born.

Liberal democracy is neither desribale to the human population generally, nor is it a logical way to govern our existence. There is a far easier way to organize ourselves which is not only desirable, it is what we all want. Just like the intellectual middle classes realised there was a better way for them to exact power, the working class will eventualy do the same. There are no other oppressed classes. The feudel ruling class controlled everything and oppressed the intellectual middle class and the working class. The middle class understood that and moved to change it. They are no longer the oppressed class. They elivated themselves to the position of ruling class while the feudel class, the royal families continued to exist in some countries, independent of the political process or were removed altogether. It is now the working class who are the solely oppressed, and they will realise it eventually. Just as the bourgeois realised it. The time of kings went centuries ago, and the time of liberal democracy will also go the same way eventually.

Just like the light bulb, just like the bourgeois revolutions, the working class revolution will come. It is historically inevtibale. Whether you believe it or not is inconsequential. It will happen nontheless.

James

29th April 2004, 12:22

Just like the light bulb, just like the bourgeois revolutions, the working class revolution will come. It is historically inevtibale. Whether you believe it or not is inconsequential. It will happen nontheless.

But the major criticism with saying its historically inevtiable, well... Russia shows that communism then has a backlash in the form of an even more aggresive capitalism.
Nothing is inevitable.

The History of England shows that the english have never been good at revolution; they have however been good at gradual change.

RedAnarchist

29th April 2004, 13:06

That is history though. How do we know that we are still bad at revolutions? Unless we try, we will never know for sure.

Funky Monk

29th April 2004, 13:11

Revolutions are generally precipitated by severe economic hardship, we have the "let them eat cake" situation in France, rapid change resulted from the majority of people suffering severe personal hardship, lack of food, lack of shelter, dramatic oppression. Even under these situations you have to rely on a situation where the people's desire to revolt is large and where the government lacks the sources and organisation to meet the threat with stronger force.

A number of these points will not be met in the Western World;

First we have the food situation. Don't give me crap about a philosophical desire for equality, the majority of people will not want change unless they themselves are suffering sever hardships due to the oppressive policies of the ones in charge. Lets look at England in the 19th Century (sorry, but its one of my most knowledgable areas). Protest only occurred on a large scale when economic hardship forced them to. The people of France were starving whilst the aristocrats were gorging themselves. It is highly unlikely barring a monumental crisis that this will happen in the Western World, large scale famine is unlikely and even less likely to be due to the oppressive nature of the government.

Another feature of Western Democracies is the domination of the Middle Class. These are people that are unikely to revolt, who search for furtherment within the provisions of society. This is a reason why there is unlikely to be large scale revolt.

Last, even if we did find ourselves within a mass revolt do you think that hte government wouldnt be able to respond? Good communication and a well organised response force found in the army and the police force would mean that any potential revolution would find itself quashed before it got started.

The Feral Underclass

29th April 2004, 13:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:22 PM
But the major criticism with saying its historically inevtiable, well... Russia shows that communism then has a backlash in the form of an even more aggresive capitalism.
That wasnt because of history, that was because of a flaw in Leninist theory. Luckily for us, we have ability to recognize those flaws and make sure they are corrected. We can only learn through doing. We are only human after all.

Nothing is inevitable.

Change is inevitable. The only logical change that can be forseen is a working class revolution. People who are content do not wish to change, as FM pointed out. But capitalism can not sustain itself, and the people who will suffer from that are the people it uses. Working people. When it collapses, and it will, working class people will move to change it. To a system which is fair and logical for them, and will ultimatly make them content for enternaty. Communism.

The History of England shows that the english have never been good at revolution; they have however been good at gradual change.

As Stephen said, this does not have to be the case forever. We can learn, we can organize and we can change society.

RedAnarchist

29th April 2004, 13:20

That is true.

We could try to get a true leftist party into Government, hopefully via a landslide or other majority, and change the country through state socialism. Then we could attempt to begin the process of Communization.

James

29th April 2004, 13:21

There simply arn't the same working conditions as there were then - the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Social Chapter/Charter (?), signed by Blair, and the TUC will mean it is very unlikely such a situation will arise again, in the forseeable future.
People's anger are voiced in the UK, through many mediums. As such they are diluted - you would need all;
the labour partys;
the CPGB, CPB, Socialist Alliance, Socialist Party, SWP etc etc
the TU's,
the systems of grieviances (ombudsmen),
MPs etc etc:
the press

All to collapse, so revolution would be the only option left.

I agree with Monk - hunger is the major factor. Same was true with the peasents revolt.

If a revolution came now, it would be an english nationalist revolution. Is that what you want? I suppose you could arm them, so they could kill every non-white; and because you have abolished the monarchy, over all power is in the hands of whoever bought the election. BNP maybe?

No i don't think the above will happen - but it has more of a chance, than a communist revolution.

Funky Monk

29th April 2004, 13:23

We could try to get a true leftist party into Government, hopefully via a landslide or other majority,

Aint going to happen mate.

RedAnarchist

29th April 2004, 13:24

An English nationalist revoltion would be worse than a Tory government.

But if we helped one along, we could counter-revolt and have the support of the ethnic minorities, the left-wingers, the Scottish, the Welsh and maybe partisans from other countries could aid us.

James

29th April 2004, 13:26

That wasnt because of history, that was because of a flaw in Leninist theory. Luckily for us, we have ability to recognize those flaws and make sure they are corrected. We can only learn through doing. We are only human after all.

What?!?!?!
Its using the same bloody principles!
Individualism breads communitarianism - then a reverse.

You can't say history is inevitable, and then pick and choose consequences you like.

Change is inevitable.

yes,,, but thats not quite the same is it.

The only logical change that can be forseen is a working class revolution.

Thats bullshit. Only people who are leftists think so. And not even all leftists argue this!
See my alternative revolution in the above post.

To a system which is fair and logical for them, and will ultimatly make them content for enternaty. Communism.

Or they will get fed up with all the internationalist, wishy washy politicians, and vote for an extremist. e.g. Hitler's rise to power.
There is more evidence to support this alternative "inevitability", than your one. Look at the BNP's gains.

As Stephen said, this does not have to be the case forever. We can learn, we can organize and we can change society.

uh hu

______

We could try to get a true leftist party into Government, hopefully via a landslide or other majority, and change the country through state socialism.
lol!
Read up on the Labour party's defeat in the 1980s.

The Feral Underclass

29th April 2004, 13:44

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 29 2004, 03:11 PM
First we have the food situation. Don't give me crap about a philosophical desire for equality, the majority of people will not want change unless they themselves are suffering sever hardships due to the oppressive policies of the ones in charge. Lets look at England in the 19th Century (sorry, but its one of my most knowledgable areas). Protest only occurred on a large scale when economic hardship forced them to. The people of France were starving whilst the aristocrats were gorging themselves. It is highly unlikely barring a monumental crisis that this will happen in the Western World, large scale famine is unlikely and even less likely to be due to the oppressive nature of the government.
Go out onto any working class street and speak to any working class person, or an unemployed person and they will tell you that they are angry and fed up with the government. They are angry and fed up with the system. People want things to be different. People want communism. Speak to anyone about it, and many people will say "it's a great idea, but it will never happen."

Capitalism is already starting to fail, and it is not simply about the ecobomic situation at the time, its the size of the movement. Economic recession and hard times come about a lot, but many times the movement has had neither the momentum nor the tactics to see it through to its conclusion. Capitalism can not sustain itself forever. Eventually markets will run out, things we rely on such as natural resources will disappear. The enviroment will get more and more damaged. Globalization will begin to have far reaching consequences when economic power and this political power begins to be concentrated into the hands of one or two or three major companies. Unemployment, wars, Argentinas, walls street crashes, economic recession will always happen. It is the nature of capitalism. Look at the 80's and 70's, look at the 20's. Things are ok now, but how long will that last.

Providing there is a movement large enough and strong enough in ideology and in tactics to provide an alternative which is not only politically sound but also practically consistent, when these things happen we will fill the void. We will seize the moment. And if it dosnt happen that time, it will happen the next, or the next or the next, until eventually the movment is big enough to pre-empt change, or that capitalism has got into a recession it isnt going to get out off, we can fundamentally change society.

Another feature of Western Democracies is the domination of the Middle Class. These are people that are unikely to revolt, who search for furtherment within the provisions of society. This is a reason why there is unlikely to be large scale revolt.

Lawyers, Consultants, business people. Inconsequential to the bigger picture. I'm not interested in the middle classes. Only those who are exploited. The world belongs to them. Not to the comfortable or to the petty rich of the world. They can join us, they can ignore us, or they can fight us.

Anyway, when economic hardship does come, the middle classes wont be middle class very much longer.

Last, even if we did find ourselves within a mass revolt do you think that hte government wouldnt be able to respond? Good communication and a well organised response force found in the army and the police force would mean that any potential revolution would find itself quashed before it got started.

Indonesia, Serbia, Tianoman Square, Russia. When the shit really hits the fan, the soldiers always join the other side. Remember, many soliders and police officers are also working class. They are equally as used and exploited by the ruling class as a person in a factory. They maybe more integrated into the system and they maybe more indoctrinated but their families arent. When consciousness sweeps the nation to get to a point where revolution is possible, many of the families of these soldiers and policement will be the ones setting up the barricades. These people are only human. They are equally as suseptable to the idea of change as anyone.

Of course there will be die hard soliders and policemen, I would say definatly the cops, who will fight to the death. Including fascists and normal people who do not want to accept the alternative who try and fight us. This is why we need toi build a movement. Although revolution will be sudden, the movement will have to be big enough in the first place, and will be able to pre empt any action and organize it accordingly. Of course we can not forsee everything, but we can plan some things a head of schedule. When revolution does come, if we have done our job right, we will be ready to defend ourselves.

In 1917 Russia, many soldiers turned against their officers and seized control of barracks. On the downfall of Suharto in Indonesia the police and army refused to fire on demonstrators and instead put flowers in the end of their rifles. IN Tinoman square, some of the soldiers in the Tanks refused to use violence and in fact got out of the tanks and joined the demonstration. In the serbianm revoltion to oust Milosovic, the people of Serbia stormed the houses of Parliment, along with the police sent there to defend it.

Instituations exist, but for how long can they exist. When change comes. Change will come, and there will be nothing the ruling class can do to stop it. They can try, but just like the feudel kings, they will fail.

The Feral Underclass

29th April 2004, 13:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:20 PM
That is true.

We could try to get a true leftist party into Government, hopefully via a landslide or other majority, and change the country through state socialism. Then we could attempt to begin the process of Communization.
We can not effect fundamental change and certainly not communism through the present day political system. It is run by the ruling class for the purpose of maintaining their agenda.

Have you seen that film with the guy who plays Jim from 'The Royal Family' in it. He plays a Socialist Prime Minister who is elected into power and tries to change society but then he is ousted by the civil servanmts and business men. You can only achieve communism by smashing the ruling class and their instituations. There is no other way. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact.

Funky Monk

29th April 2004, 13:56

Lawyers, Consultants, business people. Inconsequential to the bigger picture. I'm not interested in the middle classes. Only those who are exploited. The world belongs to them. Not to the comfortable or to the petty rich of the world. They can join us, they can ignore us, or they can fight us.

The problem is that they form the majority. Short of a serious depression the middle class will oppose any revolt by the working class and they will win.

I can understand your argument about economic recession causing revolution buti still doubt the effect on Western political thinking. Sure Germany was a toss up between the Communists and Nazis for a while but i argue that this was only the case due to First World War reparations and the failure of the Dawes plan in the face of the Wall Street Plan. Look at Britain in that period. The US was terribly badly hit in the aftermath of the wall Street crash but they still went with one of the two major parties who although pursueing some policies which were arguable socialist was still a capitalist.

Indonesia, Serbia, Tianoman Square, Russia.

Responses to government oppression. This isnt going to happen in the Western World mainly due to checks upon eachother and the history of democracy. I think it would be exceedingly hard for a government to retain the power needed to start a just protest to the extent where the police refuse to do their jobs.

Look at England. Miner's protesting by the thousands. Did the police join their working class brothers in a fight against Tyranny? Did they balls!

EDIT:

Just talked to a working class mate. He didn't really give a fuck about the government.

In my opinion Working Class radicalism in Britain is close to dead.

The Feral Underclass

29th April 2004, 13:59

Thanks for your reply James. I think the difference here is that you do not see communism as an historical inevitabilty because you believe that society can not progress towards that. YOu believe the conditions to achieve such a society are just impossible to create at any time in the future.

I disagree. As did Marx, who created the theory of Historical Materialism and Dialectics. I think the science is very logical, and indeed, I do believe that communism is inevitable. When, I dont know. Maybe not in the next 100 years, maybe not in the next 500 years but as long as their is an exploited class, it will happen.

In reference to the flaw in Leninism. The Leninist hypothesis is that the state can be maintained post revolution to defend and organize a working class, who predominantly are not conscious. Handing over power to "intellectuals" who organize the revolution "on your behalf" uysing the same system of governance which is the cause of your oppression, can not, and has not led to a communist society. It's a bit like trying to water flowers by taking water out of them. The state will always corrupt because of what it is designed to be. It can not be used to achieve working class liberation, it can only be used to perpetrate the rule of a ruling elite.

That is why I am anarchist. Not by choice. Because Leninism is illogical, and liberal democracy is detestable.

The Feral Underclass

29th April 2004, 14:12

FM. I understand what you are saying, but I am of the firm belief that everything is possible. I know what is right. So to dismiss it because it may seem difficult is cowardly.

Communism is logical, and if there is the slightest possibility that we can live in a world like that, I am going to fight for it. Regardless of the problems, or the hurdles or the apparent impossibilities. It is not the worlds situation which makes it impossible. It is the unwillingness to try which makes it not possible.

Malatesta said "Not that we achieve anarchism today, tomorrow or in a ten centuries. But that we move towards anarchism, today, tomorrow and always" I tend to agree.

Funky Monk

29th April 2004, 14:20

Thats a nice way of thinking although one which i am unfortunately unable to subscribe to. My mentaility is to do what you can at the present moment for the good of the people.

James

29th April 2004, 16:32

We can not effect fundamental change and certainly not communism through the present day political system. It is run by the ruling class for the purpose of maintaining their agenda.

No, that is simply NOT true. The argument was that a large amount of change can happen through the British political system.
Nationalisation for example.
If you can't get a big enough majority to do something as basic as that, then the truth of the matter is that there is no hope for any form of socialism - no matter how diluted.

This is a classic example of theory bluring the actual reality.

Look at England. Miner's protesting by the thousands. Did the police join their working class brothers in a fight against Tyranny? Did they balls!

A most excellent point.

The anti war protest - saw the largest peace time protests ever - yet the army, nor police didn't rebel.

I think the difference here is that you do not see communism as an historical inevitabilty because you believe that society can not progress towards that. YOu believe the conditions to achieve such a society are just impossible to create at any time in the future.

The difference between me and you on this point, is that you believe that the only possible conclusion, is communism.
Also, you argue that dialects shows communism must come about - but howcome thats then, the end of dialects? I remember thinking this when reading the manifesto - Marx obviously wasn't sure because he simply said "and here history will begin".
Russia shows that the dialects carried on; and there was a reaction to the collectivism. i.e. individualism. Communism to capitalism. Its the same argument as why capitalism must result in communism. It works both ways. You can't just say that change will come to its conclusion with communism. It defies logic, and your actual previous argument.

Monk is bang on when he says, "My mentaility is to do what you can at the present moment for the good of the people.".
Who did more for the working class population in the late C19th? Disraeli and his public health, and trade union legislation - or - an idealist who simply argued that in the end, when all is said and done, the people will spontaniously arise, and establish eutopia?

I know which i think did more...