A communist revolution in a socialist state

[Anti-Prophet]

Dialectical Materialism clearly states that change does not happen in a slow evolutionary way. Change happens in sudden leaps and bounds. This applies to chemistry, physics, and sociology as well. Capitalism cannot slowly evolve into socialism (or communism or whatever you believe will come after capitalism) and feudalism did not slowly evolve into capitalism. These changes happen in quick revolutions lasting no more than a few months or years. Therefor its hard to believe that socialism will evolve into communism and the socialist state will just slowly "wither away" without sudden change in the form of revolution. This is one contradiction i see in Marxism. How can Marx believe that social structures can only change threw revolutions but at the same time believe that the "lower phase" of communism (what i believe is socialism) will just peacefully evolve into the "higher phase" of communism? To me this could mean one of three things; 1)Marx was wrong about the withering away of the state, 2)there is something in Marxism that we are all overlooking and therefor we dont understand what he meant by "the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" and the "lower phase of communism". or 3)Marx was wrong and society needs a socialist revolution and only after that a communist revolution to overthrow the socialist state that was established by the socialist revolution (meaning a socialist revolution and a communist revolution is not the same revolution but need to be separate events at separate times).

The opinion that Marx was wrong about the withering away of the state seems to be a popular belief amongst the anarchists and anarcho-communists who argue that the state cant whither away on its own and should be destroyed as soon as possible during a revolution to overthrow capitalism. Im my opinion, no nation can go directly from a capitalist state to a stateless society in one generation simply because its masses have a capitalist mentality and this would contradict the basic values that anarchy depends on. Also im sure that the imperialists would not just stand by and watch this happen.

If there is something about Marxism that we are misunderstanding it could explain this contradiction but it seems very unlikely although its always possible.

I believe that Marx was wrong and society needs a socialist revolution before a communist revolution can be successful. A socialist revolution would not be as vulnerable to capitalist mentality and imperialism as anarchy or communism would be because it would be able to use the state to resist them. To me it seems that a leap from capitalism to socialism is not as difficult or as dangerous as a leap from capitalism to communism. A socialist society without the bourgeoisie and with workers democracy would be able to further develop the means of production and therefor make society more adaptable to communism. A socialist society would also be able to eliminate the capitalist mentality and imperialism create a class conscious and educated population. Although the state would still exist, it would be alot easier to overthrow than the capitalist state. When socialism becomes unable to improve on itself, the masses will begin to revolt against it and will overthrow it just like and other social system that is short of perfection. Socialism is basically communism with a state. We all know that the state wont go away without a fight so a communist revolution, to destroy the state and all of what remains of capitalism, would be needed. We have to remember that the Marxist ideology is not simply anti-capitalist and pro-communist, it is both those things, but more importantly it is progressive. We need to support any action that plays a progressive role in history. Socialism does play a progressive role, as did capitalism, feudalism and even slavery. I see socialism not as the solution to all our problems but a "necessary evil" on the road to communism. Even though we will have to one day fight against it (if we live that long... we probably wont).

What im saying is I agree with Marxism and Marxist-Leninism on the need for a state after the end of capitalism but i disagree with the belief that the state will "wither away" on its own. A violent revolution will be needed to force the state to wither away.

[redstar2000]

Marx was wrong and society needs a socialist revolution and only after that a communist revolution to overthrow the socialist state that was established by the socialist revolution (meaning a socialist revolution and a communist revolution is not the same revolution but need to be separate events at separate times).

An interesting "innovation" in Leninist theory. But there are problems...


In my opinion, no nation can go directly from a capitalist state to a stateless society in one generation simply because its masses have a capitalist mentality and this would contradict the basic values that anarchy depends on.

This assumes that the masses who would make a revolution have the same outlook on things generally that the masses do today.

Clearly, that cannot be case...as any kind of revolution would then be impossible.

What's key here is the "mentality" of the masses at the time of the revolution itself.

Why did they do it and what do they really want?

If they simply want a fresh set of more "benevolent" bosses, then they would acquiesce to some variant of Leninist despotism -- "socialism".

But if the masses were actually convinced of their own "fitness to rule", why then not proceed directly to communism?

For most people, the "capitalist mentality" would have already become an anachronism...and a disgusting one at that.


Also I'm sure that the imperialists would not just stand by and watch this happen.

The imperialist "bogey-man" is a stock villain in Leninist scenarios...until we have a modern proletarian revolution in one or more advanced capitalist countries, we have no idea what the imperialists will do to try and stop it...or even if they will be in any position to do more than wring their hands and gnash their teeth in frustration.


A socialist revolution would not be as vulnerable to capitalist mentality and imperialism as anarchy or communism would be because it would be able to use the state to resist them.

Unlikely, since it's precisely state-power that leads to the revival of capitalist mentality.

When your job is that of "boss", it doesn't take long for you to start thinking like a boss...and then "advancing" to the level of being a boss...and an owner.

At least, that's what's happened so far.


To me it seems that a leap from capitalism to socialism is not as difficult or as dangerous as a leap from capitalism to communism.

It might or might not be as "difficult"...there are a lot of variables to be considered. But remember that "socialism" is also a class society and generates most of the same "mentalities" as capitalism does.

The main one being: it is in your direct material interest to work as little as possible while obtaining as much money as possible. The more money you have, the better you will live.

All talk of "the new socialist man" to the contrary notwithstanding, people will most go back to behaving pretty much like they do now.

The "transition" from socialism back to capitalism is "easy"...like a rocket that fails to reach escape or even orbital velocity naturally falls back to the planetary surface of origin.

Trying for communism is trying to reach escape velocity from class society altogether.


A socialist society without the bourgeoisie and with workers' democracy would be able to further develop the means of production and therefor make society more adaptable to communism.

The workers' "democracy" of socialism, even at its best, would be a mirror of what we have now...creating a "class" of professional politicians who would rule for their own personal advantage.

Eventually, they'd become openly a new ruling class.


A socialist society would also be able to eliminate the capitalist mentality and imperialism [and] create a class conscious and educated population.

No. Capitalist mentality would quickly re-emerge in socialist society because (as noted above) material conditions would promote its growth.

Even imperialism is not out of the question. There are those who make a pretty convincing case that the USSR treated Cuba like a neo-colony...deliberately withholding the technology that Cuba needed (and still needs) to escape dependence on cash crops and tourism.

Socialist societies have done a better job at educating their citizens than their capitalist rivals...but it didn't help much in the end. As to "class consciousness", their record has been poor.


Although the state would still exist, it would be a lot easier to overthrow than the capitalist state.

Yes, that seems to be true. But what replaces those overthrown socialist states?

Capitalist states.


Socialism is basically communism with a state.

Quite the contrary, socialism is capitalism without individual capitalists.


We all know that the state won't go away without a fight so a communist revolution, to destroy the state and all of what remains of capitalism, would be needed.

It might be needed, but would it be possible?

Could communists organize people under socialism to struggle for communism?

I don't know the answer to that one.


We need to support any action that plays a progressive role in history.

A truism; the difficulty is always figuring out what's really progressive and what isn't.


I see socialism not as the solution to all our problems but a "necessary evil" on the road to communism.

As I've said before, suppose it's not necessary?

Then it's just evil.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Anti-Prophet]

An interesting "innovation" in Leninist theory

It is. but also in Marxism itself. From what i understand of Marxism, Marx also understood the need for a state in a post-capitalist world. Dont try to put a Leninist mask on a Marxist idea.


This assumes that the masses who would make a revolution have the same outlook on things generally that the masses do today.

Clearly, that cannot be case...as any kind of revolution would then be impossible.

The masses will always have a capitalist outlook on things in a capitalist society. We can spend the next hundred years trying to develop a working class with a communist outlook and i can assure you that we will experience every limited success. The proletariat class has its limits on how class conscious they can become in capitalism. Fight against all the bourgeois propaganda that the working class is exposed to on a daily basis is an uphill battle. Its been nearly 150 years since Marxists, anarchists, socialists, and other leftists started to create a class conscious working class and has it worked? I dont think so. If anything, the proletariat are less class conscious than they were 100 years ago. The only time class consciousness increases is during a revolution and a short period after that. Class consciousness increases when feudalism became capitalism, class consciousness would increase when capitalism becomes socialism. Class consciousness cant increase without a major event. We cant create a communist mentality in a capitalist world. Slave society had a slavery mentality, feudal society had a feudal mentality, capitalist society has capitalist mentality, socialist society has a socialist mentality and communist society has a communist mentality. The only reason one is able to develop into the other is because they are not directly opposite to the one that came before it (as communism is directly opposite to capitalism but socialism is not opposite of capitalism). A thesis cant become the synthesis without the antithesis.


But remember that "socialism" is also a class society and generates most of the same "mentalities" as capitalism does.

I agree. That is exactly what makes socialism possible and even probable. There is a reason why the parties/organizations who advocate socialism are always larger than the parties/organizations who want to go directly into anarchy/communism. Socialism doesnt seem as much of a pipe dream as communism/anarchy does.

Its a mistake however to think that socialism would be a exactly like capitalism. Even if a new class of politicians emerge, the gap between the rich and the poor would surely be thinner than it is in capitalism. The masses have reached the point where they understand that the more they control the government and economy, the less oppressed they are and the better there standard of living is. therefor the new ruling class would be very weak in socialism. If the ruling class becomes to powerful then it is true that capitalism will reappear but if the masses are as class conscious as they are today (i mean the European masses, the north American masses and the masses in peasant nations still need improvement), they have the ability to keep that ruling class in check.


Could communists organize people under socialism to struggle for communism?

I think so. By this time the people would be communists. It would take an extremely oppressive regime to be able to stop the masses.

[redstar2000]

From what I understand of Marxism, Marx also understood the need for a state in a post-capitalist world. Don't try to put a Leninist mask on a Marxist idea.

Was the Paris Commune a "state" in the Leninist sense? Engels specifically cited the Paris Commune as "the dictatorship of the proletariat".

Had the Paris Commune survived and spread throughout France and even Europe, would you posit the need for a "second communist revolution" against such a formation?


The masses will always have a capitalist outlook on things in a capitalist society.

That's what Lenin and his heirs have always asserted as "an article of faith".

Is it true?


We can spend the next hundred years trying to develop a working class with a communist outlook and I can assure you that we will experience very limited success.

Unfortunately, your "assurance" is simply no more than a guess. You may be right; you may be wrong.

My guess is that you will turn out to be wrong.


The only time class consciousness increases is during a revolution and a short period after that.

But how is it then that revolution is possible at all? Surely you don't think that people just wake up one morning and say to themselves, "Fuck going to work; today I'll make revolution."? :lol:

The "revolutionary process" in Russia ran from 1896 to 1917; in Spain it lasted more than 30 years; in China from the mid-1920s to 1949; and so on.

Granted that the 1968 French General Strike was an exception to this -- it came as a lightning bolt from a clear sky and has never been explained in a satisfactory way.

If future proletarian revolutions take the form of May 1968, then your hypothesis about class consciousness (rising quickly but briefly) might turn out to be true.

We'll see.


Class consciousness can't increase without a major event.

Yes, I agree with you here...in fact, I think it takes a series of dramatic shocks to "wake people up" to the fact that the old order is no longer viable and must be replaced.


The only reason one is able to develop into the other is because they are not directly opposite to the one that came before it (as communism is directly opposite to capitalism but socialism is not opposite of capitalism). A thesis can't become the synthesis without the antithesis.

This is far too mystical for my taste; social change cannot be fitted into a vague formula like thesis-antithesis-synthesis except in hindsight.

The changes from slavery to feudalism to capitalism originated in changes in the means of production (technology)...not from Hegelian abstractions.

"Dialectics" is something Marx really was wrong about.


There is a reason why the parties/organizations who advocate socialism are always larger than the parties/organizations who want to go directly into anarchy/communism. Socialism doesn't seem as much of a pipe dream as communism/anarchy does.

But that was not the historical case in Spain. The anarchists were very large. Millions of workers didn't seem bothered by the "pipe dream" at all.

Today, in the "west", it's quite possible that "anarchists" and "ultra-left communists" of various kinds actually outnumber all the Leninist groups put together.


It's a mistake however to think that socialism would be a exactly like capitalism.

I didn't say it would be "exactly" like capitalism. What's crucial here is that it would be a class society...with wage-labor, money, commodity circulation, inequality of wealth, etc.

The chances are that it would also drag along with it much of the cultural trappings of class society; patriarchy and parental authority, traditional education, superstition, nationalism, militarism, perhaps even racism, etc.

It's no surprise in these circumstances that the class consciousness and militancy of the working class sharply declines after the revolution; all their efforts went for naught.

When you "risk everything" for "a new world" and end up with mostly the same old shit...well, it's discouraging, to say the least.


The masses have reached the point where they understand that the more they control the government and economy, the less oppressed they are and the better their standard of living is. Therefore, the new ruling class would be very weak in socialism.

Well, you're guessing again...and you might be right.

But if you're wrong, the consequences are catastrophic!

We get capitalism again.


It would take an extremely oppressive regime to be able to stop the masses.

The Leninists have been pretty good at that.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Anti-Prophet]

Was the Paris Commune a "state" in the Leninist sense? Engels specifically cited the Paris Commune as "the dictatorship of the proletariat".

"Had the Paris Commune survived and spread throughout France and even Europe, would you posit the need for a "second communist revolution" against such a formation?

I dont know alot about the history of the Paris commune so i cant really comment on it.

Marx and Engles wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible." p.58

It is true that we cant completely rule out the possibility a successful transition from capitalism directly to communism. After all, "History knows transformations of all sorts." (Lenin). I would think a socialist revolution is more likely to happen. I do hope im wrong.


That's what Lenin and his heirs have always asserted as "an article of faith".

Is it true?

I think it is true. Go talk to the first ten people you meet when walking down the street, ask them what they think of a statless communist society and no matter what city you live in you'll be lucky to find even one person who doesnt answer with the usual capitalist bullshit like "communism goes against human nature", "communism doesnt work, the Soviet Union failed" or "communism works on paper but doesnt work in practice".
Why is that? Because no matter how many newspapers, documentary films, books, web sites and intellectuals are on our side, the bourgeoisie will always be able to buy a hundred times more.


Unfortunately, your "assurance" is simply no more than a guess. You may be right; you may be wrong.

My guess is that you will turn out to be wrong.

I wouldnt say its a guess. I mentioned how the level of class consciousness has changed very little for the past 100 years. From what i observed in the west there are no more Marxist or anarchists than there was 100 years ago and the trade unions and governments havent moved to the left at all. What else can we do that hasnt been done in the past? I think we cant do anymore and now the only thing we can do is hope that eventually something will happen to "wake people up". I believe that will happen in the near future but with the level of class consciousness that people have today i dont think the masses can do any better than socialism.


This is far too mystical for my taste; social change cannot be fitted into a vague formula like thesis-antithesis-synthesis except in hindsight.

Your right. My argument was a little too theoretical... and weak. “all theory is grey, my friend, but green is the tree of life.”(Goethe)
For reasons i mentioned above i still believe the masses are not ready for communism and probably never will be as long as capitalism exists.


Dialectics" is something Marx really was wrong about.

I disagree... for several reasons. I recently finished a book on the subject called Reason in Revolt (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.aso). Although both writers were Trotskyite, not alot of it is about politics so you dont have to be a Trotskyite to enjoy it.


Today, in the "west", it's quite possible that "anarchists" and "ultra-left communists" of various kinds actually outnumber all the Leninist groups put together.

True but i mean all the parties that advocate socialism. Not only Leninist parties but reform socialists, revolutionary socialists, and green parties.


I didn't say it would be "exactly" like capitalism. What's crucial here is that it would be a class society...with wage-labor, money, commodity circulation, inequality of wealth, etc.

That doesnt mean it cant be progressive.


The chances are that it would also drag along with it much of the cultural trappings of class society; patriarchy and parental authority, traditional education, superstition, nationalism, militarism, perhaps even racism, etc.

Yes all those things would probably still exist but it certainly wouldnt be as wide spread as it is today. Today some of those things are widely accepted and not even criticized. I doubt thing would be the same in socialism.


When you "risk everything" for "a new world" and end up with mostly the same old shit...well, it's discouraging, to say the least.

It is discouraging if your expectations are too high. If you expect communism and get socialism its discouraging but the masses wont be fighting for communism, they will be fighting for socialism.


Well, you're guessing again...and you might be right.

But if you're wrong, the consequences are catastrophic!

We get capitalism again.

Its an educated guess... if that means anything.
The consequences would be catastrophic but not catastrophic with an exclamation point. If we end up at the starting point we just have to regroup, rewrite the battle planes and try again in another five decades.


The Leninists have been pretty good at that.

Not really, how many Leninist states are there today when compared to 20 years ago?

[redstar2000]

It is true that we can't completely rule out the possibility a successful transition from capitalism directly to communism.

If that's the case, then why not try for what we really want?

Why deliberately try to set up a "new and improved" version of class society?

We'll know, after all, within days or at the most weeks after a proletarian revolution whether or not the working class is "ready" to rule on its own behalf.

If they're not, then they'll turn their power over to some vanguard party...or sit by quietly and acquiesce to a vanguard party's coup.

But I see no reason at all why any communist should seek to assist that process.

On the other hand, if we've spent decades in propagandizing for communist ideas, then why shouldn't the masses adopt those ideas for their own and seek explicitly to retain power in their own hands?

You can't say it's because they're "too backward" right now...we don't know what their level of consciousness will be when they make revolution, except that it will be very high.

My view is that we should let those who want a "new and improved" version of class society go their separate way...let them attempt to convince the masses that they will be "kind, compassionate" bosses.

We communists should be saying, over and over again, ALL BOSSES ARE BAD! DOWN WITH ALL BOSSES!

And people will either listen and respond or they won't.

Here's my case against "dialectics", by the way...

On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts (May 8, 2003) (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082735164&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

The anarchists were very large. Millions of workers didn't seem bothered by the "pipe dream" at all.

Millions of workers also believe in Chistianity, it don’t make much difference to the actual world events though.


If that's the case, then why not try for what we really want?

Because Pol Pot did that. Didn’t work so well.


We communists should be saying, over and over again, ALL BOSSES ARE BAD! DOWN WITH ALL BOSSES!

Are you with the PLP now?


Here's my case against "dialectics", by the way...

On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts (May 8, 2003)

Does ANYONE in the Marxist realm reject Dialectics besides yourself?

[Anti-Prophet]

If that's the case, then why not try for what we really want?

Why deliberately try to set up a "new and improved" version of class society?

If a workers revolution were to take place tomorrow i would probably be on your side, fighting against the state but im 80%-90% sure the masses will not be on our side until they learn threw experience that socialism has its flaws (although its much better than capitalism) and communism is much more desirable. But that doesnt bother me one bit that we not only have to overthrow capitalism but also socialism until we reach communism. From what Ive seen the masses are not ready for communism yet but they know enough to not let history repeat itself and not let another Soviet Union or DPRK come into existence after the revolution.

I guess well just have to agree to disagree on wether the masses are ready or will be for communism after capitalism.

Heres my question to you: Do you think it would be easier to overthrow the state and capitalism( or what remains of capitalism) in a socialist society or capitalist society)?

[redstar2000]

Because Pol Pot did that. Didn’t work so well.

Why would you expect communism to "work" in a peasant economy?

Particularly Pol Pot's version...which postulated that all city-dwellers were "the class enemy".

Pol Pot was a nutball...and obviously has no relevance to the transition from modern capitalism to communism.


Are you with the PLP now?

Nope. The Progressive Labor Party's version of "communism" is to substitute the party apparatus for the state apparatus.

Everyone would be a member of the party and under party discipline; the leaders of the party would be appointed for life; etc.

They are also rather notoriously sexist and homophobic; women would be "sent back to the kitchen and the nursery" and homosexuality would probably be criminalized.

Their rhetoric -- "Fight for Communism" -- is unfortunate; they only serve to further give communism "a bad name".


Does ANYONE in the Marxist realm reject dialectics besides yourself?

Beats me. But they will.

Reason always defeats nonsense in the end.


Do you think it would be easier to overthrow the state and capitalism (or what remains of capitalism) in a socialist society or [a] capitalist society?

I have no idea...there are simply too many variables and we are talking about a period still far in the future.

Experience suggests that the "socialist" society will rather easily devolve back into capitalism (over a couple of generations at most).

"Socialist" states do not like "ultra-leftists"...they see real communists as "intolerable competitors". (See Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin vs. the Workers' Opposition, 10th Party Congress, March 1921.)

Thus while they tolerate the re-emergence of capitalist ideology, they turn their wrath towards real communists and anarchists. They don't want to hear any criticisms "from the left"...it's too embarrassing for them. The gap between their "revolutionary" rhetoric and the actual nature of the society they've created is not anything they want any public attention directed towards.

My guess is that either form of class society would be equally difficult to overthrow...from the communist standpoint.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Morpheus]

The only reason one is able to develop into the other is because they are not directly opposite to the one that came before it (as communism is directly opposite to capitalism but socialism is not opposite of capitalism). A thesis can't become the synthesis without the antithesis.

The thesis is the capitalist class, antithesis working class, synthesis communism.


There is a reason why the parties/organizations who advocate socialism are always larger than the parties/organizations who want to go directly into anarchy/communism. Socialism doesn't seem as much of a pipe dream as communism/anarchy does.

Utterly false. Prior to 1917 anarchist movements outside the west utterly dwarfed marxist movements. In some places there was no marxist movement. See non-western anarchisms (http://www.geocities.com/ringfingers/nonwesternweb.html).


If a workers revolution were to take place tomorrow i would probably be on your side, fighting against the state but im 80%-90% sure the masses will not be on our side until they learn threw experience that socialism has its flaws (although its much better than capitalism) and communism is much more desirable.

History has seen many workers revolutions: Russia, Spain, Iran and many others. So far these have all been defeated by people like you: who maintained that some non-communist system (not necessarily socialism) was necessary and then proceeded to suppress the workers revolution.

Redstar, the workers opposition weren't really Communists. They supported the one-party state, the suppression of Kronstadt and a host of other repressive measures. They just wanted to give the trade unions more power. In the context of Bolshevik Russia, they were reformists.

[Anti-Prophet]

Experience suggests that the "socialist" society will rather easily devolve back into capitalism (over a couple of generations at most).

Has there ever been a socialist state that was established in a non-feudal nation where the peasants did form the majority? None that i know of. I dont think experience says anything about a socialist state other than something Engels already said. Socialism can only be successful in industrialized nations with a proletariat majority.


It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.

Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.-Engels, Principles of Communism.


My guess is that either form of class society would be equally difficult to overthrow...from the communist standpoint.

What this suggests is that no society with a state and a division of classes can be any more free, more capable of developing class consciousness, more able to give the communists/anarchists a louder voice, or have a weaker ruling class, than the capitalist society we currently live in. Current events in Venezuela would suggest otherwise. The socialist revolution taking place there (although its not yet complete) has made the masses more class conscious and the Marxists have a louder voice than they did before April 2002.

[redstar2000]

The socialist revolution taking place there (although it's not yet complete) has made the masses more class conscious and the Marxists have a louder voice than they did before April 2002.

I'm not at all convinced that Venezuela is undergoing a "socialist revolution" or anything even close to that. Chavez appears to me to be a populist reformer and has not, to my knowledge, even suggested any fundamental change in the class nature of Venezuela.

The hysterical opposition to Chavez by the traditional Venezuelan elite suggests to me that they fear being supplanted by a new elite...something that does take place from time to time in class societies.

If you are going to speak of "socialist revolution" in some particular place, the first thing you have to look for is the existence of "soviets"...of organs of power created by the working class.


What this suggests is that no society with a state and a division of classes can be any more free, more capable of developing class consciousness, more able to give the communists/anarchists a louder voice, or have a weaker ruling class, than the capitalist society we currently live in.

Yes...always keeping in mind that times change. The seemingly "all-powerful" ruling class of today will not be that way on the eve of proletarian revolution.

Quite the contrary, they will be weak, demoralized, bitterly divided among themselves, ineffective, etc. They will likely offer "sweeping concessions" to the masses while committing grotesque repressive atrocities...in their last desperate attempts to retain power.

The really smart ones will already have moved their families and liquid assets out of the country.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas