The Problem with the State

[Osman Ghazi]

One of the problems of capitalism is the way in which it chooses which company lives and which dies. Right-Wingers would like us to believe that the 'best' company is the one that survives and the 'worse' that dies. However, the real determinant is not who is best. People do not all get together and decide which company is the best. The real determinant is money. The ones who have it live on, the ones who don't, don't.

The state is very similar to this. Some Stalinists would like us to believe that there can be a 'good' state. However, this is not so. Because, like a company in a capitalist world, a state is in constant competition with its neighbours. The determinant of whether a state lives or dies is however, power, or rather its effective use. Without the effective use of power, a state will wither and die.

Now, don't get me wrong. A state can do good things. It can put people first. But so can a corporation. The problem is no matter what, as a corporation would put money first if its existence were threatened,a threatened state (even a socialist one) will stop putting people first and start putting power first. That is the main problem with the state.

What do you guys think?

[elijahcraig]

The state is very similar to this. Some Stalinists would like us to believe that there can be a 'good' state. However, this is not so. Because, like a company in a capitalist world, a state is in constant competition with its neighbours. The determinant of whether a state lives or dies is however, power, or rather its effective use. Without the effective use of power, a state will wither and die.

"Some Stalinists"? How about "EVERY Marxist"? since every Marxist from Marx, Engels, on down to Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin and Mao have ALL supported the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of a socialist state, rebuilt after the revolution.

Anarchists are the ideologues who say that a state cannot exist and have socialism, etc., at the same time. Marxists do not; it isn't the "crazy Stalinists" who believe this.

RedStar, I'm sure, we'll attempt to weasel a different, and as usual, quite dense reply on "why Marx was wrong" and "why real Marxists now support Anarchism", or the other kind of pseudo-revisionist nonsense he proposes. But, for every other Marxist, this is wrong, and the Socialist State as transition is to be supported and fought for.

[redstar2000]

RedStar, I'm sure, will attempt to weasel a different, and as usual, quite dense reply on "why Marx was wrong" and "why real Marxists now support Anarchism", or the other kind of pseudo-revisionist nonsense he proposes. But, for every other Marxist, this is wrong, and the Socialist State as transition is to be supported and fought for.

I'll try to make this as "dense" as possible so as not to disappoint you, Elijah.

What is the purpose of your "Socialist State"?

As you said yourself, it's purpose is transition.

Transition to what? Why, to communism, of course...a classless, stateless society or, for those who prefer a different terminology, an anarchist society.

Now, try and follow this carefully.

1. Is the working class of future proletarian revolutions going to be anything like the working class of Marx's Germany, Lenin's Russia, or Mao's China?

Is that a reasonable or an unreasonable question?

2. If it's a reasonable question, what's the answer? The working class in the advanced capitalist countries will of course be far more advanced than those early revolutionaries.

3. But if that is the case, then why shouldn't they be able to dispense with the "socialist state" altogether and proceed at once to the building of a communist (stateless!) society?

What was the material basis for the whole idea of a "transition state" in the first place? Backwardness!

Low production, primitive technology, a working class that was semi-literate at best, etc., etc., etc.

Like so many "old-fashioned" Leninists, you have not noticed that things have changed.

I sometimes wonder if you ever will.

:redstar2000:

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

[elijahcraig]

1. Is the working class of future proletarian revolutions going to be anything like the working class of Marx's Germany, Lenin's Russia, or Mao's China?

Is that a reasonable or an unreasonable question?

2. If it's a reasonable question, what's the answer? The working class in the advanced capitalist countries will of course be far more advanced than those early revolutionaries.

3. But if that is the case, then why shouldn't they be able to dispense with the "socialist state" altogether and proceed at once to the building of a communist (stateless!) society?

What was the material basis for the whole idea of a "transition state" in the first place? Backwardness!

Low production, primitive technology, a working class that was semi-literate at best, etc., etc., etc.

Like so many "old-fashioned" Leninists, you have not noticed that things have changed.

I sometimes wonder if you ever will.

I think we’ve debated this like five hundred times, so I’d be repeating my old arguments, as would you.

[elijahcraig]

But, to humor you, here are my answers….

[elijahcraig]

I'll try to make this as "dense" as possible so as not to disappoint you, Elijah.

You always do.


What is the purpose of your "Socialist State"?

As you said yourself, it's purpose is transition.

Transition to what? Why, to communism, of course...a classless, stateless society or, for those who prefer a different terminology, an anarchist society.

Yes, yes.


Now, try and follow this carefully.

1. Is the working class of future proletarian revolutions going to be anything like the working class of Marx's Germany, Lenin's Russia, or Mao's China?

It will be like in character, but different in detail, as they vary over geographical and technological areas. If a revolution were to occur in any third world nation, it would look like these listed.


Is that a reasonable or an unreasonable question?

Of course.


3. But if that is the case, then why shouldn't they be able to dispense with the "socialist state" altogether and proceed at once to the building of a communist (stateless!) society?

What was the material basis for the whole idea of a "transition state" in the first place? Backwardness!

In the US, 60% believe in strict creationism, the rest believe in the Christian God or some other variation; a minority are atheists/agnostics. This strikes me as backwardness.

Preparation for stateless communism would take a very long time; a period of transition in which the level of consciousness in man was risen to the points of independence of structure. At the present, a “stateless” society would fall in a week.


Low production, primitive technology, a working class that was semi-literate at best, etc., etc., etc.

I agree with all of this, but I also say that the working class is still semi-literate, etc., uneducated in an intellectual way, and would not be able to run a stateless society (an impossible transition as authority in some form would probably rise in any event, at least at the present or the near future).

[redstar2000]

But Elijah, we are not talking about the American working class as it is now but as it will be in 50 or 100 years. Do you really think that the recent "fad" for Christian fundamentalism will still be going on then?

Not to mention the working class in western Europe, where Christian fundamentalism is of no significance even now...much less several decades from now.

And, of course, material productivity is light-years ahead on both continents now from what it was in those old shitholes...where will it be by the time proletarian revolution is a realistic possibility?

As to "third world" revolutions, I have no interest in them except insofar as they serve to weaken the ruling classes in advanced capitalist countries...any "socialist state" that they set up will just devolve back to capitalism.

So I repeat...why is a direct transition to communism (without a "socialist state") not a realistic possibility?

:redstar2000:

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

[elijahcraig]

But Elijah, we are not talking about the American working class as it is now but as it will be in 50 or 100 years. Do you really think that the recent "fad" for Christian fundamentalism will still be going on then?

It’s been “going on” in its faddish way for the last few thousand years, not exactly a popular convention of the last few decades of American culture.


Not to mention the working class in western Europe, where Christian fundamentalism is of no significance even now...much less several decades from now.

And, of course, material productivity is light-years ahead on both continents now from what it was in those old shitholes...where will it be by the time proletarian revolution is a realistic possibility?

I really can’t answer these questions properly, because I have no idea what kind of “shithole” the US government will turn the rest of the world into by the next 100 years. We could even be looking at the end of the human race in the hegemony of the United States.


As to "third world" revolutions, I have no interest in them except insofar as they serve to weaken the ruling classes in advanced capitalist countries...any "socialist state" that they set up will just devolve back to capitalism.

It really doesn’t concern me whether they “interest” you or not—they are the ONLY significant revolutionary actions taken against the capitalist-imperialist world order.


So I repeat...why is a direct transition to communism (without a "socialist state") not a realistic possibility?

Ask Pol Pot.

I’ve already stated my position on the impossibility of “automatic communism”, or whatever you’d like to call it. I have no way of predicting the events of the next 100 years, and in doing so, would become more of an idealist than a materialist, so I attempt to avoid it, though I think it looks bleak.

[elijahcraig]

The determinant of whether a state lives or dies is however, power, or rather its effective use. Without the effective use of power, a state will wither and die.

Isn’t this a bit of a stating of the obvious? If the state, by definition, is an authority/power-structure based on the ruling of one class over another, then we should all gather that it’s “effective use of power” determines whether “a state will wither and die” or grow and become more powerful.


Now, don't get me wrong. A state can do good things. It can put people first. But so can a corporation. The problem is no matter what, as a corporation would put money first if its existence were threatened,a threatened state (even a socialist one) will stop putting people first and start putting power first. That is the main problem with the state.

What would be wrong with the utilization of power by a state in order to defend itself? I am speaking in terms only of the socialist state, obviously. And this would not mean it would “stop putting people first,” but as the dictatorship of the proletariat, would utilize its power in an attempt to do the exact opposite of the corporation, “put the people first.”

And I am not sure that a corporation could ever put the people first unless it occurred by accident and in some sort of freak occurrence.

[elijahcraig]

RedStar, I would also like to see what differences you see between your position on "straight to communism" and the Anarchist position on this subject.

Are you an Anarchist? and merely retaining the title "Communist" for looks? Or are there differences?

For example, do you support democracy in communist society, or believe it to be obsolete as it is a state function, do you support federalism, etc., on through anarchist/communist differences.

[redstar2000]

It’s been "going on" in its faddish way for the last few thousand years, not exactly a popular convention of the last few decades of American culture.

Completely a-historical...the fact of the matter is that more and more working people conduct their lives without regard to religious dogma, even when they still consider themselves "believers" or even "born-again".

There was (and perhaps still is) a campaign to get high-school "believers" to sign a pledge not to have sex before marriage; but a private survey revealed that they were "doing it" at just about the same rate as kids who never heard of the pledge.

Frankly, I think religious fundamentalism has already peaked in the U.S. and will be visibly declining before the end of this decade...though media attention may continue to build.


We could even be looking at the end of the human race in the hegemony of the United States.

You should have a chat with CorporationsRule; he thinks the "oil crisis" means the end of technological civilization.

But I'm curious: if "doom" is "at hand", why concern yourself with radical politics at all? What's the point?


Ask Pol Pot.

Difficult...as he's worm shit now. But what does a peasant revolution in Cambodia have to do with the transition to communism in an advanced capitalist country?


I have no way of predicting the events of the next 100 years, and in doing so, would become more of an idealist than a materialist, so I attempt to avoid it, though I think it looks bleak.

You could be right, of course...but is that a good reason to "throw in the towel"?

In this particular forum, the defenders of capitalism always tells us that "communism is impossible"...are there good reasons to believe them?

I mean, they might be right...so what?

If you want something that's really better than what we have now, is there any reason not to fight for that...win or lose?

If we don't fight, then we lose automatically. If we do fight, then we might win.


RedStar, I would also like to see what differences you see between your position on "straight to communism" and the Anarchist position on this subject.

I think the difference lies in the supporting reasoning, rather than the conclusion.

Traditional anarchist theory was not really materialist...its critique of the state as inherently repressive was a moral one.

What I argue is that things have changed so dramatically since the days of Marx and Lenin that the anarchist formula is acquiring a material basis.

A modern capitalist economy probably produces more in a week than the economy of Czarist Russia produced in a year! What does that imply for the practical implementation of "to each according to his need"?

Communism is becoming a practical proposition.

I think this is also reflected in the all-around cultural level of the proletariat in the advanced capitalist countries.

For example, the companies that manufacture "I.Q" tests have found it necessary to "up-date" those tests every 15 years or so in order to keep the scores "in line" with earlier versions of the tests. Are human brains getting "smarter", as "raw scores" would suggest?

Of course not. What's happening is that people know more.

The modern working class knows far more about the world than the workers of 1917 Petrograd or the peasants of 1949 China.

I see no reason why that trend should not continue...especially as internet usage grows among workers (which it is doing with great rapidity, of course).

In ten years or less, Che-Lives could have 50,000 members or more...most of them working-class teens. Or there could be a dozen such boards, or even hundreds!

All of which suggests, as I pointed out earlier, that the proletarian generation that actually makes revolution is going to be "light-years" ahead of 1917 or 1949.

The immediate transition to communism will, to them, be the obvious next step.


For example, do you support democracy in communist society, or believe it to be obsolete as it is a state function; do you support federalism, etc., on through anarchist/communist differences.

Actually, I support Demarchy (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083335872&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&).

It's a theory that provides for "the administration of things" through the establishment of "function groups" without creating a "political center of gravity" (state).

I think it far superior to traditional "democracy" -- for one thing, it essentially eliminates the career-choice of "politician".

Federalism seems to also be a useful "general principle". How it would be applied in practice would be up to the folks involved, of course.

I'm not sure what other "differences" you are speaking of.

In the end, communism and anarchism are two words that mean the same thing: a classless, stateless society without wage-labor, commodity production, money, armies, police, prisons, etc.

Something really worth fighting for!

Win or lose. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[elijahcraig]

Completely a-historical...the fact of the matter is that more and more working people conduct their lives without regard to religious dogma, even when they still consider themselves "believers" or even "born-again".

There was (and perhaps still is) a campaign to get high-school "believers" to sign a pledge not to have sex before marriage; but a private survey revealed that they were "doing it" at just about the same rate as kids who never heard of the pledge.

Frankly, I think religious fundamentalism has already peaked in the U.S. and will be visibly declining before the end of this decade...though media attention may continue to build.

I don’t agree it will completely, or even in a major way, decline. I think this sort of speculation is really undebatable as we both have no way of knowing the future actions of general populations.

I also don’t see the “sex test” as a sign of anything—people have been keeping up “poster child images” of themselves while doing the opposite for ages, under any form of religious or societal moralism; it’s human nature to want to have sex and disobey moralist doctrines which attempt to contain human nature.


You should have a chat with CorporationsRule; he thinks the "oil crisis" means the end of technological civilization.

But I'm curious: if "doom" is "at hand", why concern yourself with radical politics at all? What's the point?

I’m not talking about “oil crisis” really.

I concern myself with radical politics for the same reasons most do, and my view on “doom at hand” is not so “religious”, it is merely pessimisstic in my view of the possibility of survival.


Difficult...as he's worm shit now. But what does a peasant revolution in Cambodia have to do with the transition to communism in an advanced capitalist country?

Do worms shit?

Pol Pot is commonly attributed by Marxists with attempting to “go straight to Communism.” Which failed in a miserable manner.


You could be right, of course...but is that a good reason to "throw in the towel"?

In this particular forum, the defenders of capitalism always tells us that "communism is impossible"...are there good reasons to believe them?

I mean, they might be right...so what?

If you want something that's really better than what we have now, is there any reason not to fight for that...win or lose?

If we don't fight, then we lose automatically. If we do fight, then we might win.

I agree with all of these, but avoid using the abstract “utopianizing” you seem to be caught up in. By that I mean your attempt to idealize a situation, then thrust ideal “systems of government,” ie no government, onto this idealized situation. You create a “future time” when this “straight to communism” revolution is going to occur, and then design all the great progress which will be made, etc. I find it horribly unrealistic and unrelated to the struggle of present day workers.


I think the difference lies in the supporting reasoning, rather than the conclusion.

Traditional anarchist theory was not really materialist...its critique of the state as inherently repressive was a moral one.

I agree here, a point rarely made on these boards.


What I argue is that things have changed so dramatically since the days of Marx and Lenin that the anarchist formula is acquiring a material basis.

A modern capitalist economy probably produces more in a week than the economy of Czarist Russia produced in a year! What does that imply for the practical implementation of "to each according to his need"?

Communism is becoming a practical proposition.

I think this is also reflected in the all-around cultural level of the proletariat in the advanced capitalist countries.

For example, the companies that manufacture "I.Q" tests have found it necessary to "up-date" those tests every 15 years or so in order to keep the scores "in line" with earlier versions of the tests. Are human brains getting "smarter", as "raw scores" would suggest?

Of course not. What's happening is that people know more.

I’m not sure IQ tests should be used to level human knowledge, as it can also be used to simply test the knowledge of people based on the “conventional wisdom” of any given society. But I get your point.


The modern working class knows far more about the world than the workers of 1917 Petrograd or the peasants of 1949 China.

About what? Do you ever talk to workers? Ever around them? They’re not exactly knowledgeable on capitalism, let alone socialism from my experience.


I see no reason why that trend should not continue...especially as internet usage grows among workers (which it is doing with great rapidity, of course).

In ten years or less, Che-Lives could have 50,000 members or more...most of them working-class teens. Or there could be a dozen such boards, or even hundreds!

Calm down old man, you’re getting excited!


All of which suggests, as I pointed out earlier, that the proletarian generation that actually makes revolution is going to be "light-years" ahead of 1917 or 1949.

The immediate transition to communism will, to them, be the obvious next step.

I don’t think it is as simple as this.

You’d have to put forth some analysis of power-structures, in terms of psychology, etc, and also have to analyze the circumstances in which a political system would operate in communism to see if it was even plausible, or at least plausible this quickly, or from capital to commune this fast.


Actually, I support Demarchy.


The radical right was very disillusioned by Ronald Reagan.

I was actually reading a book on Jesse Helms a few days ago, who very much would represent the (KKK-supporting) “disillusioned radical right.” Just a thought I had while reading.


The experiences of Eurosocialist parties elected to power in France, Greece and Spain in the 1980s have followed the same pattern. In all major areas -- the economy, the structure of state power, and foreign policy -- the Eurosocialist governments have retreated from their initial goals and become much more like traditional ruling parties [6].

I do not disagree with any of this as I am a revolutionary and do not support “elections” in order to change the system.


Ginsberg's basic thesis is that elections historically have enlarged the number of people who participate in 'politics,' but by turning this involvement into a routine activity (voting), elections have reduced the risk of more radical direct action.

Good line.

Could this me applied to McGovern from the anti-war movement? I think so, for one good example of channeling radicalism into reformism through politics.


First, implementation of decisions. Burnheim has rejected the state and bureaucracy, so there won't be any permanent staff to carry out decisions made by the demarchic groups. Burnheim says that the groups will carry out the decisions themselves. That sounds fine in theory, but what will it mean in practice?

Second, how will decisions be enforced? Remember, there is no state and hence no military. Essentially, decisions will be effective if people abide by them, and this depends on the overall legitimacy of the system. Actually, this isn't too different from many aspects of present society. Most people accept the need to act in a sensible manner towards babies, public parks and (for that matter) private property, even when the possibility of legal sanctions and apprehension by the police is remote. Force plays only a limited role in the routine operation of society. In a more participatory society, force could play an even more limited role. The corollary of this is that unpopular decisions by demarchic groups would simply lapse through non-observance. The groups would have to take into account the willingness of the population to accept their decisions.

Without the state, there would be no military. How would a community defend itself against external aggression? One possibility is arming the people [25]. However, the most participatory alternative to military defence is social defence, based on popular nonviolent resistance [26]. Demarchy and social defence have many compatible features [27].

This is where the system gets particularly utopian. I feel like I’m reading Alexander Berkman on Communist Anarchist “organization of society” again.


Third, a big unanswered question is the nature of the economic system associated with demarchy. In principle, a range of systems are compatible with demarchic decision-making. A group could make a contract for recycling services either with a privately owned company or with a self-managed collective. Demarchy, though, is not compatible with bureaucratically organised economic systems, either socialist or capitalist.

Burnheim argues for extension of the principles of demarchy to economics. For example, there would be demarchic groups to make decisions about particular areas of land. Rents could be charged for uses of the land, and the rents would take the place of taxation, since there is no state to collect taxes. This is an adaptation of Henry George's ideas. The random selection for groups making decisions over portions of land would prevent vested interests from gaining a stranglehold over the political-economic process. Burnheim would also extend this idea to control over labour and money as well as land. These ideas are in a very preliminary form.

This sounds something like Michael Albert’s system of PareCon, another utopian system, only more focused on reformism than the complete idealizing of situations as Demarcy seems to be.


I think that Martin's view is that for the most part people are willing to observe "reasonable" customs.

Most people do not run red traffic lights not because they fear the fine that could be imposed on them but because traffic lights "make sense".

Highly debatable; many people would run the red light every time if there were no consequences, or if there were no cars coming to hit them.

I also don’t know if should be considered “good” if people are “willing to observe” customs, which are at base moralisms of society based on control. In a society in which people were “conscious and free,” they could decide their own set of morality, their own set of law, etc., instead of adopting dogmatically those of the culture. If we are to idealize, we should do it right, damn it.


Pure speculation, of course. But suppose the 26th of July Movement had introduced demarchy in 1960 or 1961? Is there any reason to suppose that things there would have turned out worse than they did?

Kennedys would have been smoking cigars in Havana and setting up corporate lockups on all the workers, most likely.


It's a theory that provides for "the administration of things" through the establishment of "function groups" without creating a "political center of gravity" (state).

I think it far superior to traditional "democracy" -- for one thing, it essentially eliminates the career-choice of "politician".

Federalism seems to also be a useful "general principle". How it would be applied in practice would be up to the folks involved, of course.

I'm not sure what other "differences" you are speaking of.

In the end, communism and anarchism are two words that mean the same thing: a classless, stateless society without wage-labor, commodity production, money, armies, police, prisons, etc.

Something really worth fighting for!

I’m fairly sure, as you are 61, that you have read Marx’s critiques of federalism and such petite bourgeois systems, so I should like to see you oppose it. Along with PareCon, which is nearly identical in utopian character to Demarchy.

[redstar2000]

Pol Pot is commonly attributed by Marxists with attempting to "go straight to Communism." Which failed in a miserable manner.

Well, of course it did! Why would any sane person suggest a "transition to communism" for a society which was, if anything, pre-feudal?

Good grief!

The example of Cambodia is clearly irrelevant to this discussion.


You create a "future time" when this "straight to communism" revolution is going to occur, and then design all the great progress which will be made, etc. I find it horribly unrealistic and unrelated to the struggle of present day workers.

I can only suggest that you at least consider the possibility that things will be different tomorrow than they are today.

Perhaps this is indeed a product of the difference in our respective ages; I have lived long enough to actually see how much change takes place over decades of time...and how the pace has accelerated.

For that matter, I'm not so sure that "my picture" of communism is all that much "unrelated" to the struggle of present-day workers.

From my observation of workers in struggle, a key element seems to me to be the struggle for dignity and respect...both for one another and in the eyes of others.

Yet no matter how "dignified" or "respected", a wage-slave is still a wage-slave. Real respect, in capitalist society, is granted only to capitalists...those who need not work at all except at what they wish to, on their own terms. Only they are truly free and thus truly worthy of respect.

So there is a connection...though, I'll grant you, a rather distant one.


About what? Do you ever talk to workers? Ever around them? They’re not exactly knowledgeable on capitalism, let alone socialism, from my experience.

Of course they're not...for a whole variety of reasons with which I'm sure you're familiar.

But ask them more general and "down-to-earth" questions about social reality. Do the "rich" care about ordinary people? Can politicians be trusted to do the right thing? Is the media honest? Are criminal trials really fair? Do corporations really "serve their customers"? Did America fight for "freedom" in Iraq?

See what I mean? They lack a sophisticated knowledge of concepts like capitalism, socialism, etc. (not true, by the way, of the western European prolatariat...who already do know a lot of this stuff). But they've acquired considerable practical knowledge of how capitalism works...more and more, they (correctly) assume the worst.

They will inevitably learn a lot more as time passes.

As to demarchy, I should make it clear that I'm in favor of it as a method of running a communist society -- the possible reformist applications are of no interest to me.

And I have no interest at all in Parecon crapola...which frankly I think is ridiculous even in its own terms. Here's a thread on it...

PARECON--Welcome Back to Class Society, A Good Critique of a BAD idea. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20990&hl=parecon)


I’m fairly sure, as you are 61, that you have read Marx’s critiques of federalism and such petite bourgeois systems, so I should like to see you oppose it.

Why is federalism "petite bourgeois"?

In any event, the First International was a federation...and Marx seemed comfortable enough with that!

You have to remember that Marx lived in an era when "centralization" was seen by nearly everyone as "progressive", the "wave of the future", etc. One reason that many dismissed the anarchists of that era as "reactionary" is that anarchists were opposed to what nearly everyone else thought was "inevitable". (And, in fact, given the technology of that era, centralization did seem to actually be "inevitable".)

You know as well as I that this is no longer the case. There is now a whole panoply of "de-centralized technological alternatives" available and there will be plenty more to choose from in the future.

Much of the pro-centralization bias of Marx and Engels thus comes from the technology of their era and is not really inherent in the totality of their outlook.

Nowadays, I don't think they'd have any problem with federations at all...as long as the working class actually ran them.

:redstar2000:

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

[Osman Ghazi]

What would be wrong with the utilization of power by a state in order to defend itself? I am speaking in terms only of the socialist state, obviously.



Well, I would have thought it was obvious but okay:
A state has a finite resource and these can be allocated to different sources. If the government decides to spend more of its resources to defend itself, it will oviously have to reduce the amount of resources spent on its citizens.

Now, a state must always allocate a certain portion of its resources to the maintainance of its power, either through appeasement, military etc. If a state becomes threatened however, it will allocate more of its resources to protecting its power because, for a state the most important thing is the maintainance of its power and it can never be anything else.

Personnally, I think people should be more important than power in our society.


And I am not sure that a corporation could ever put the people first unless it occurred by accident and in some sort of freak occurrence.

Well, Robert Owen for example owned a factory and paid his workers substantially more than most other people. Actually, it is from Owen that we draw the myth about how paying people more makes them work harder.

Its irrelevant of course, the point is that although a corporation may seem like it is putting people first, money will inevitably be more important because it determines survival and through application of Darwin's principles, the ones that make the best use of their money will survive. The state is the same way.

In a state, although it may put people first, its priority will always be maintainance of its power. The states that most effectively wield power (something a truly free society is not good at) are the ones that will survive, as they will destroy the others. Therefore, a state that is actually socialist (weak at wielding power) will be destroyed by the other states.

That is why no hope lies in a partial socialist victory.

[Mike Fakelastname]

More and more I think that a self-guided proletarian revolution without a vanguard party is a realistic possibility in the foreseeable future. I have been talking to factory workers lately, and I'm seeing more and more social consciousness amongst them.

[elijahcraig]

Well, of course it did! Why would any sane person suggest a "transition to communism" for a society which was, if anything, pre-feudal?

Good grief!

The example of Cambodia is clearly irrelevant to this discussion.

You really need to grasp my concept of sarcasm if we are to continue.


I can only suggest that you at least consider the possibility that things will be different tomorrow than they are today.

Perhaps this is indeed a product of the difference in our respective ages; I have lived long enough to actually see how much change takes place over decades of time...and how the pace has accelerated.

For that matter, I'm not so sure that "my picture" of communism is all that much "unrelated" to the struggle of present-day workers.

From my observation of workers in struggle, a key element seems to me to be the struggle for dignity and respect...both for one another and in the eyes of others.

Yet no matter how "dignified" or "respected", a wage-slave is still a wage-slave. Real respect, in capitalist society, is granted only to capitalists...those who need not work at all except at what they wish to, on their own terms. Only they are truly free and thus truly worthy of respect.

So there is a connection...though, I'll grant you, a rather distant one.

You may be right, you may be wrong; I know where you stand, and we disagree about fundamental things, so we needn’t continue on a repetitious path of debate.


Of course they're not...for a whole variety of reasons with which I'm sure you're familiar.

But ask them more general and "down-to-earth" questions about social reality. Do the "rich" care about ordinary people? Can politicians be trusted to do the right thing? Is the media honest? Are criminal trials really fair? Do corporations really "serve their customers"? Did America fight for "freedom" in Iraq?

I’ve never gone up to someone and said, “Explain to be the system of capitalism”—of course I talk about these things, notably to my father who is a registered republican, but has mixed opinions on almost everything.


See what I mean? They lack a sophisticated knowledge of concepts like capitalism, socialism, etc. (not true, by the way, of the western European prolatariat...who already do know a lot of this stuff). But they've acquired considerable practical knowledge of how capitalism works...more and more, they (correctly) assume the worst.

This is sometimes the case, other times not; it depends on who you talk to.


They will inevitably learn a lot more as time passes.

Fact. Yet I’m not one prepared to tell the entire world communist movement (third world especially which you have stated you have no interest in) to “wait another 100 years until the entire proletariat is ready.”


As to demarchy, I should make it clear that I'm in favor of it as a method of running a communist society -- the possible reformist applications are of no interest to me.

And I have no interest at all in Parecon crapola...which frankly I think is ridiculous even in its own terms. Here's a thread on it...

PARECON--Welcome Back to Class Society, A Good Critique of a BAD idea.

I’m pretty well-versed in the errors of this system so I’m not going to read that. I’ve actually debated Michael Albert over email who uses typical Chomskyan-anarchist techniques of debate which attempt to evade questions about present day reality, etc etc etc.


Why is federalism "petite bourgeois"?

You haven’t read Marx on Federalism then?


In any event, the First International was a federation...and Marx seemed comfortable enough with that!

?


You have to remember that Marx lived in an era when "centralization" was seen by nearly everyone as "progressive", the "wave of the future", etc. One reason that many dismissed the anarchists of that era as "reactionary" is that anarchists were opposed to what nearly everyone else thought was "inevitable". (And, in fact, given the technology of that era, centralization did seem to actually be "inevitable".)

You know as well as I that this is no longer the case. There is now a whole panoply of "de-centralized technological alternatives" available and there will be plenty more to choose from in the future.

Much of the pro-centralization bias of Marx and Engels thus comes from the technology of their era and is not really inherent in the totality of their outlook.

Nowadays, I don't think they'd have any problem with federations at all...as long as the working class actually ran them.

I could go on about centralization…but seeing as we disagree, again, fundamentally on the nature of the state after a revolution…it’s a little cold and pointless, eh?


Well, I would have thought it was obvious but okay:
A state has a finite resource and these can be allocated to different sources. If the government decides to spend more of its resources to defend itself, it will oviously have to reduce the amount of resources spent on its citizens.

Now, a state must always allocate a certain portion of its resources to the maintainance of its power, either through appeasement, military etc. If a state becomes threatened however, it will allocate more of its resources to protecting its power because, for a state the most important thing is the maintainance of its power and it can never be anything else.

Personnally, I think people should be more important than power in our society.

THAT is obvious, but what you are not addressing is how to defend a revolution while at the same time feeding the population. If you were invaded by Imperialists, as Russia was, while civil war ensued…would you defend the revolution and cause famine while at the same time fighting that famine, or just…let the state go back to the hands of the enemy? POWER in this case is more important, and from a Foucaultian stance, it is ALL that is important, at least unconsciously.


Well, Robert Owen for example owned a factory and paid his workers substantially more than most other people. Actually, it is from Owen that we draw the myth about how paying people more makes them work harder.

OK.


In a state, although it may put people first, its priority will always be maintainance of its power. The states that most effectively wield power (something a truly free society is not good at) are the ones that will survive, as they will destroy the others. Therefore, a state that is actually socialist (weak at wielding power) will be destroyed by the other states.

That is why no hope lies in a partial socialist victory.

What do you mean “something a truly free society is not good at [wielding power]”? Why? Power is not something to be afraid of, it is to be embraced and used against the enemy. Power is what the working class needs, and state power in order to defend a revolution.

[FuckWar]

I think it is important to remember that socialism in transition to communism is favorable compared to capitalism killing off any more humans. Trying to rush into communism could be hazardous- just think of the middle class and aristocracy- an entire generation of humans motivated by the urge to consume and above all- the urge to be really friggin cool. These are not exactly our model communists- the realization of real human interaction over the abstract barriers the aristocracy surround themselves with will have to be learned as capitalism and any impulses to subjugate humans are eradicated through education as well as many other means. This learning phase, where we shed our capitalist tendencies to exploit the earth and each other, could be called the socialist transition. This transition is what makes communism possible and the dissolving of the state possible. Also, as people were introduced to the ideas of returning to a state of equilibrium with each other and not seek to gain power over one another, the idea of a power vacuum in the absence of a state is not much of an issue. People know enough - thanks to the foundation that socialism gave us- not to be gulled into electoral politics. This communism is stateless and classless- anarchy, if you will.
So while socialism is necesaary in transistion, this merely enables anarchy tobe the ultimate end of the transistion through communism.

[elijahcraig]

I think it is important to remember that socialism in transition to communism is favorable compared to capitalism killing off any more humans. Trying to rush into communism could be hazardous- just think of the middle class and aristocracy- an entire generation of humans motivated by the urge to consume and above all- the urge to be really friggin cool. These are not exactly our model communists- the realization of real human interaction over the abstract barriers the aristocracy surround themselves with will have to be learned as capitalism and any impulses to subjugate humans are eradicated through education as well as many other means. This learning phase, where we shed our capitalist tendencies to exploit the earth and each other, could be called the socialist transition. This transition is what makes communism possible and the dissolving of the state possible. Also, as people were introduced to the ideas of returning to a state of equilibrium with each other and not seek to gain power over one another, the idea of a power vacuum in the absence of a state is not much of an issue. People know enough - thanks to the foundation that socialism gave us- not to be gulled into electoral politics. This communism is stateless and classless- anarchy, if you will.
So while socialism is necesaary in transistion, this merely enables anarchy tobe the ultimate end of the transistion through communism.


I don’t see why you used the word “anarchy” here, as you support a transition.

I think that the idea that the socialist transition is unnecessary requires a lot of “faith” in “common people”, which I don’t necessarily have. You have to, as Pessoa said, replace “one god with another.”

[redstar2000]

Why is federalism "petite bourgeois"?

You haven’t read Marx on Federalism then?

I have no memory of anything he may have said on the subject; in any event, why do you think federalism is "petite bourgeois"?

And even if it were, so what? A useful idea is a useful idea no matter what its origins, right?

Lenin was "minor-league" nobility...does that mean that anything he ever said should just be dismissed on that basis alone? Bakunin was actually a prince...were his ideas therefore "aristocratic"?


Yet I’m not one prepared to tell the entire world communist movement (third world especially which you have stated you have no interest in) to "wait another 100 years until the entire proletariat is ready."

It's not a matter of you or me or anybody "telling them to wait"...it's a matter of what objective reality will permit.

The material conditions required for a communist society are far beyond what any "third world" country can be reasonably expected to acquire in much less than a century or two...whatever they do, it won't be communist because it can't be.

The Leninist conceit is that by "force of will" or "correct line", material conditions can be "over-leaped".

Marx said no way!

He was right.


I think that the idea that the socialist transition is unnecessary requires a lot of "faith" in "common people", which I don’t necessarily have. You have to, as Pessoa said, replace "one god with another."

I take it that you're dropping the name of the poet (Fernando) and not the jockey (Rodrigo).

Why either would have anything of relevance to say on this subject is something that I do not comprehend.

The hypothesis that "common people" "must" have a "god" of one kind or another is belied on this board. While there are some well-informed members, I have yet to see any trace of genius here...yet at least half are atheists and whenever someone suggests a reverent attitude towards some "revolutionary icon", they are generally met with scorn and derision.

If we can overcome that sort of degrading servility, I don't see why anyone can't do it.

:redstar2000:

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

[elijahcraig]

I have no memory of anything he may have said on the subject; in any event, why do you think federalism is "petite bourgeois"?

I’ll quote Lenin, who I agree with on this question,

“There is not a trace of federalism in Marx’s above-quoted observation on the experience of the Commune. Marx agreed with Proudhon on the very point that the opportunist Bernstein did not see. Marx disagreed with Proudhon on the very point on which Bernstein found a similarity between them.
“Marx agreed with Proudhon in that they both stood for the ‘smashing’ of the modern state machine. Neither the opportunists nor the Kautskyites wish to see the similarity of views on this point between Marxism and anarchism (both Proudhon and Bakunin) because this is where they have departed from Marxism.
“Marx disagreed both with Proudhon and Bakunin precisely on the question of federalism (not to mention the dictatorship of the proletariat). Federalism as a principle follows logically from the petty-bourgeois view of anarchism. Marx was a centralist. There is no departure whatever from centralism in his observations just quoted. Only those who are imbued with the philistine ‘superstitious belief’ in the state can mistake the destruction of the bourgeois state machine for the destruction of centralism!”

Now, I know you are not going to accept this…mostly because you have very anti-Leninist, anti-Marxist beliefs on centralization, and would rather discuss revolution in 100 years than in the present or near future.


And even if it were, so what? A useful idea is a useful idea no matter what its origins, right?

I would say it is useful to an extent, but as Marx and Lenin both agreed it is not to be used in a revolution.


Lenin was "minor-league" nobility...does that mean that anything he ever said should just be dismissed on that basis alone? Bakunin was actually a prince...were his ideas therefore "aristocratic"?

Obviously not, and I think it is only TAT who has ever brought this up in reference to Nelson Mandela. God and the State is one of my favorite books.


It's not a matter of you or me or anybody "telling them to wait"...it's a matter of what objective reality will permit.

The material conditions required for a communist society are far beyond what any "third world" country can be reasonably expected to acquire in much less than a century or two...whatever they do, it won't be communist because it can't be.

The Leninist conceit is that by "force of will" or "correct line", material conditions can be "over-leaped".

Marx said no way!

He was right.

I’m speaking of socialism, not “communist society.”

And you are wrong that we aren’t “telling them to wait” by not aiding them in their fights against reactionary governments, and globalization which renders their nations completely fucked for decades or possibly centuries.


I take it that you're dropping the name of the poet (Fernando) and not the jockey (Rodrigo).

You are correct; though I don’t consider it “dropping”, it is the book I’ve just read, had it on my mind in reference to this.


Why either would have anything of relevance to say on this subject is something that I do not comprehend.

The hypothesis that "common people" "must" have a "god" of one kind or another is belied on this board. While there are some well-informed members, I have yet to see any trace of genius here...yet at least half are atheists and whenever someone suggests a reverent attitude towards some "revolutionary icon", they are generally met with scorn and derision.

I’m not talking about the “common people” having a “god”, I was critiquing people who consider the step to communism without socialism possible as having a “god” in the “common people,” as if you check Kim Sung Il’s remarks you may find him considering his people “his only god.”

[redstar2000]

Federalism as a principle follows logically from the petty-bourgeois view of anarchism.

Lenin's observation just makes things worse. Federalism is "petty-bourgeois" "because" it follows logically from "petty-bourgeois" anarchism.

Modern federalism as a form of political organization dates from Switzerland in what, around 1500 or 1600 or thereabouts. It was adopted by the United States in 1776...though abandoned rather quickly. In neither case could anarchists have had any role...they didn't exist at that point.

I don't know if Proudhon was a petty-bourgeois or not, but, as you agreed, Bakunin wasn't.

The connection between anarchism and the petty-bourgeoisie looks pretty tenuous to me. But the connection between the origins of federalism and the petty-bourgeoisie (or anarchism) look to be non-existent.

If you want to make a real class analysis of anarchism, I think you should look to the countries where it became a significant political current...namely Spain, Italy, and, to a lesser extent, France. In all three of those places, anarchism's main appeal was to the working class.

On the other hand, fascism does appeal strongly to the petty-bourgeoisie...so if you wanted to call fascism a petty-bourgeois ideology, there's sound historical justification for that.

So, disagreeing with Lenin as usual (:lol:), I think designating a certain ideology as corresponding with a certain class has to be in line with its actual appeal to that class.

You can't just call something "petty-bourgeois" simply because you don't like it and want to make it "look bad".


I’m speaking of socialism, not "communist society."

Well, I'm not telling the "third world" to "wait for socialism" either. Their "socialist states" will devolve back to capitalism regardless of what I or you or anyone says.


And you are wrong that we aren’t "telling them to wait" by not aiding them in their fights against reactionary governments, and globalization which renders their nations completely fucked for decades or possibly centuries.

Are you pitching for a donation here? Or do you think that revolutionaries in the advanced capitalist countries should "volunteer" to fight in third-world revolutions?

What does it mean to "support" third-world struggles if not to fight against "our own" imperialism? And don't we do that already?

If by "aid", you mean you want us to issue them a "certificate of communist authenticity", forget it. They don't deserve it and it wouldn't help them a bit even if we offered it.


I was critiquing people who consider the step to communism without socialism possible as having a "god" in the "common people"...

Seems a bit of a "stretch" to me; the "common people" do not need to possess "divine powers" in order to build a communist society...they just need to learn a good deal more than they know now.

Given that they have been learning more for the last couple of centuries, I see no arbitrary limit on that process.

Why shouldn't it continue?

:redstar2000:

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

[elijahcraig]

Lenin's observation just makes things worse. Federalism is "petty-bourgeois" "because" it follows logically from "petty-bourgeois" anarchism.

Modern federalism as a form of political organization dates from Switzerland in what, around 1500 or 1600 or thereabouts. It was adopted by the United States in 1776...though abandoned rather quickly. In neither case could anarchists have had any role...they didn't exist at that point.

I don't know if Proudhon was a petty-bourgeois or not, but, as you agreed, Bakunin wasn't.

I didn’t agree that he was not petty-bourgeois, I agreed that I don’t discriminate based on his social origin.


The connection between anarchism and the petty-bourgeoisie looks pretty tenuous to me. But the connection between the origins of federalism and the petty-bourgeoisie (or anarchism) look to be non-existent.

[QUOTE]You can't just call something "petty-bourgeois" simply because you don't like it and want to make it "look bad".

His basis for calling federalism petty-bourgeois is in Marx’s Poverty of Philosophy, and numerous times in Das Kapital in which Marx outright calls Proudhon’s federalism “petit bourgeois” thinking.


Well, I'm not telling the "third world" to "wait for socialism" either. Their "socialist states" will devolve back to capitalism regardless of what I or you or anyone says.

Maybe maybe not.


Are you pitching for a donation here? Or do you think that revolutionaries in the advanced capitalist countries should "volunteer" to fight in third-world revolutions?

What does it mean to "support" third-world struggles if not to fight against "our own" imperialism? And don't we do that already?

If by "aid", you mean you want us to issue them a "certificate of communist authenticity", forget it. They don't deserve it and it wouldn't help them a bit even if we offered it.

I am speaking in the form of communist party support, rallies, protests against aid given to kings to kill peasants, etc. I certainly don’t beg for a 61 year old’s “moral support” on a message board.


Seems a bit of a "stretch" to me; the "common people" do not need to possess "divine powers" in order to build a communist society...they just need to learn a good deal more than they know now.

I am speaking of the act of irrational faith without evidence, historical or otherwise, to support your ideas of communist society being found without the prerequisite of socialist transition and the education of a society to form for communism, not the minute particulars of the “divine powers” of anything, as an imaginary idea has no powers either, but are believed to. You have faith in a thing, as religious people have faith in a thing—neither rational beliefs in my view.


Given that they have been learning more for the last couple of centuries, I see no arbitrary limit on that process.

They have been programmed into a system of thought. If we were to have a communist society, we would have to teach people to “be individuals,” not “know facts about the universe.”

[DaCuBaN]

In neither case could anarchists have had any role...they didn't exist at that point.


So there was no such thing as a communist back then? People were still people, still had the limitless imagination we all do... Simply because Marx and Engels hadn't yet written their manifesto doesn't mean that noone had ever thought about it before.

Communism isn't defined by marx and engels: it's chained by it.


They have been programmed into a system of thought. If we were to have a communist society, we would have to teach people to “be individuals,” not “know facts about the universe.”

Surely it is the questioning mind that teaches an individual to act like one? Surely by showing what is accepted as true to be false can kick this off?

[elijahcraig]

I'm not aware of any way to teach people to be individuals, which is why i find communist society as a possibility somewhat utopian.

[redstar2000]

His basis for calling federalism petty-bourgeois is in Marx’s Poverty of Philosophy, and numerous times in Das Kapital in which Marx outright calls Proudhon’s federalism "petite bourgeois" thinking.

Well, I guess that settles the matter...if Marx said it, "it must be true".

Do you realize what an un-Marxist thing that is to say?

I suggested, at some length, that if you or even Marx is going to do a class analysis of an ideology, the obvious place to begin is with the class to which that ideology most strongly appeals.

This you deemed unworthy of comment, preferring to "quote scripture".

Not good...and not a Marxist approach at all.


I am speaking in the form of communist party support, rallies, protests against aid given to kings to kill peasants, etc.

You must be talking about Nepal, right? Well, I'm all in favor of the Maoists in Nepal winning their war and removing the king's head...that's nearly the "signature" of the first stage of a bourgeois revolution.

Right now, the "flashpoint" of anti-imperialist struggle in the U.S. and the U.K. is obviously Iraq (and to a considerably lesser extent, Afghanistan). Nepal is "way down the list"...for pretty obvious reasons.

The Maoists here (RCP and MIM) both think that a Maoist win in Nepal is going to have some kind of "world-historic impact". Maybe, but I'm pretty skeptical. It's very small, very distant, and very backward...altogether inauspicious grounds for "capturing the world's imagination".


I am speaking of the act of irrational faith without evidence, historical or otherwise, to support your ideas of communist society being found without the prerequisite of socialist transition...

No, there is evidence...it's just very fragmentary at this point. There have been very brief periods when "common people" ran the show; those periods just haven't lasted very long.

Whether one argues that they would have lasted longer had they not succumbed to overwhelming reactionary military force or whether one argues that the "common people" were not as yet really "capable" of self-government is secondary.


You have faith in a thing, as religious people have faith in a thing-neither rational beliefs in my view.

Nonsense...though I congratulate you on devising an "acceptable" insult.


They have been programmed into a system of thought. If we were to have a communist society, we would have to teach people to "be individuals," not "know facts about the universe."

A small step away from the Leninist-Maoist paradigm (which despises individuality) is always to be welcomed.

The next and somewhat larger step is to realize that only "individuals" can make a real proletarian revolution (not just an insurrection). People incapable of thinking for themselves will be suckers for the first glib "revolutionary" despot-wannabe that comes along. Look at the kind of crap that some of Avakian's groupies post!

I think the modern proletariat already "thinks for itself" to a limited degree...and that ability will grow over the coming decades.

In fact, I don't see anything that can really stop that from happening.


...I find communist society as a possibility somewhat utopian.

So does every Leninist...when they're really being honest.


So there was no such thing as a communist back then?

In the 16th and 17th centuries? Well, there were protestant sects that embraced the "communalism" of the Acts of the Apostles...but their last "big rebellion" was in, I think, 1536, when they seized and occupied a small German city for a year or so. Their leader became (what else?) a despot who, among other things, had one of his 12 wives publicly executed for disobedience.

Cromwell's "new model army" (mid-17th century) had a "left-wing" faction that wished to wipe out the nobility altogether.

And there were "proto-communist" currents in the far left in France, both during and after 1789.


Communism isn't defined by Marx and Engels: it's chained by it.

Nice quip! But if you think that will serve to dispel the weight of all the stuff those guys wrote, you are mistaken.

Sure, they were wrong, even profoundly wrong, about some things. But the only way the "chains" of their outlook will be "broken" is when and only when someone comes up with an even better paradigm...a framework that is clearly superior in every way for both explaining the social world and changing it.

Good luck with that one!

No one, by the way, "demands" that you call yourself "a Marxist"...least of all Marx himself.

But you ignore his ideas at your peril.

:redstar2000:

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

[Osman Ghazi]

THAT is obvious, but what you are not addressing is how to defend a revolution while at the same time feeding the population.

Quite simply really. You simply arm the people. Then to keep major imperialist powers occupied, you arm their people too. ;) In all seriousness though, the revolution in one country must act as a catalyst in 20 more. One people alone cannot defeat imperialism. I think that is the whole point of the slogan "Workers of the world unite!"


What do you mean “something a truly free society is not good at [wielding power]”? Why?

Well first we must ask ourselves, what is power? To me, it is the ability to make decisions and to influence events. In a truly free socity, the people are given all the power to make decisions and influence events. How can it be called freedom if the people cannot even choose their own destiny? The more power the people ahve, the less power the state has. That is why truly free societies (I should have said states actually) are not good at wielding power.


Power is what the working class needs, and state power in order to defend a revolution.


The state is body that is independant of the people. Either the state has the power or the people do.

[elijahcraig]

Well, I guess that settles the matter...if Marx said it, "it must be true".

Marx explained why by showing the true nature of capitalist systems, he didn’t just command us to believe this in the way you are asserting.

And there are many things Marx disagreed with which I believe in.


You must be talking about Nepal, right? Well, I'm all in favor of the Maoists in Nepal winning their war and removing the king's head...that's nearly the "signature" of the first stage of a bourgeois revolution.

Right now, the "flashpoint" of anti-imperialist struggle in the U.S. and the U.K. is obviously Iraq (and to a considerably lesser extent, Afghanistan). Nepal is "way down the list"...for pretty obvious reasons.

The Maoists here (RCP and MIM) both think that a Maoist win in Nepal is going to have some kind of "world-historic impact". Maybe, but I'm pretty skeptical. It's very small, very distant, and very backward...altogether inauspicious grounds for "capturing the world's imagination".

Time will tell.


No, there is evidence...it's just very fragmentary at this point. There have been very brief periods when "common people" ran the show; those periods just haven't lasted very long.

Whether one argues that they would have lasted longer had they not succumbed to overwhelming reactionary military force or whether one argues that the "common people" were not as yet really "capable" of self-government is secondary.

There is no historical evidence I am aware of to support the claim that mass consciousness in the way you are speaking of will ever occur.


Nonsense...though I congratulate you on devising an "acceptable" insult.

When I tell Christians the truth about their faith they say the same thing, though less elegantly.


A small step away from the Leninist-Maoist paradigm (which despises individuality) is always to be welcomed.

The next and somewhat larger step is to realize that only "individuals" can make a real proletarian revolution (not just an insurrection). People incapable of thinking for themselves will be suckers for the first glib "revolutionary" despot-wannabe that comes along. Look at the kind of crap that some of Avakian's groupies post!

I think the modern proletariat already "thinks for itself" to a limited degree...and that ability will grow over the coming decades.

In fact, I don't see anything that can really stop that from happening.

I disagree horribly that modern day workers think for themselves. I agree on Avakian and on individuality as relates to Leninism/Maoism (I think some of their followers are more of cultish characters than people who took up a political position).


So does every Leninist...when they're really being honest.

I’m speaking as a realist here.


Quite simply really. You simply arm the people. Then to keep major imperialist powers occupied, you arm their people too. In all seriousness though, the revolution in one country must act as a catalyst in 20 more. One people alone cannot defeat imperialism. I think that is the whole point of the slogan "Workers of the world unite!"

This is very utopian and has never been successfully utilized. The idea of a revolution occuring in 20 countries is ridiculous (at least in the way you assert it would).


Well first we must ask ourselves, what is power? To me, it is the ability to make decisions and to influence events. In a truly free socity, the people are given all the power to make decisions and influence events. How can it be called freedom if the people cannot even choose their own destiny? The more power the people ahve, the less power the state has. That is why truly free societies (I should have said states actually) are not good at wielding power.

OK, though I don’t agree on your definition of power.


The state is body that is independant of the people. Either the state has the power or the people do.

Nonsense. The state alone cannot exist, those who control it decide it’s effect on the society. There is a state only in human authority.

[Deathb4Dishonor]

you say that the "best" company dosnt necesarly survive but rather the one with the most money? well wouldnt that be the best company! having it the most money it must of done somthing better then its competitors to get this money. i dont see where your argument is sorry

[elijahcraig]

^ :lol: ^

[Osman Ghazi]

you say that the "best" company dosnt necesarly survive but rather the one with the most money? well wouldnt that be the best company! having it the most money it must of done somthing better then its competitors to get this money. i dont see where your argument is sorry

I could rob a bank and it would give me a lot of money but I don't think that it would make me any better than anyone else. Unless of course the ability to rob a bank is a plus.


This is very utopian and has never been successfully utilized.

So is communism but you and I haven't given up yet and I don't intend to. Is it so unrealistic that several countries could be at the same stage of material developement? I don't think so. And if people in one country revolt, the idea will spread. Especially if the revolution is successful, they can help in other countries.


OK, though I don’t agree on your definition of power.


What is your definition of power then?


Nonsense. The state alone cannot exist, those who control it decide it’s effect on the society. There is a state only in human authority.


The state cannot exist alone, that is true, but nether can it exist without the subjugation of one class by another. It has no function otherwise.

[elijahcraig]

So is communism but you and I haven't given up yet and I don't intend to. Is it so unrealistic that several countries could be at the same stage of material developement? I don't think so. And if people in one country revolt, the idea will spread. Especially if the revolution is successful, they can help in other countries.

THis sort of "let's keep going" talk doesn't work on me.


What is your definition of power then?

I'm not sure I could give you a simple definition. I think Foucault answered that way when he was asked this somewhat ambiguous question.


The state cannot exist alone, that is true, but nether can it exist without the subjugation of one class by another. It has no function otherwise.

I don't disagree with this, which is why I disagreed with your original argument.

[Osman Ghazi]

THis sort of "let's keep going" talk doesn't work on me.


Then why are you still here? Why haven't you given up yet? How can one people stand alone against all the imperialists of the world?


I'm not sure I could give you a simple definition. I think Foucault answered that way when he was asked this somewhat ambiguous question.


Well alright then but that doesn't really help either of us does it?


I don't disagree with this, which is why I disagreed with your original argument.


What? Then you agree that the state has no function other than class/class oppression? So why do you want one so badly?

[elijahcraig]

Then why are you still here? Why haven't you given up yet? How can one people stand alone against all the imperialists of the world?/QUOTE]

I am a Leninist because I find that path realistic. I don’t know what you mean by “why are you still here?” I do not engage in the utopian fantasies you and RS seem to love to theorize about.

And the Pep Talk Johnson stuff doesn’t do much for me.

[QUOTE] Well alright then but that doesn't really help either of us does it?

If you had knowledge of Foucault it would.

Power has many different definitions and functions in society, some good, some bad.

What? Then you agree that the state has no function other than class/class oppression? So why do you want one so badly?

I don’t “want one so badly”, smartass. I believe it realistic to think that there will never be a time when “everyone” will magically turn to communism and start a classless society. This is why a state for the proletariat after a revolution must be built, in order to defend the revolution, and to OPPRESS the bourgeois elements of society.

[DaCuBaN]

Nice quip! But if you think that will serve to dispel the weight of all the stuff those guys wrote, you are mistaken.

This was not my intention...


Sure, they were wrong, even profoundly wrong, about some things. But the only way the "chains" of their outlook will be "broken" is when and only when someone comes up with an even better paradigm...a framework that is clearly superior in every way for both explaining the social world and changing it.

I'm not asserting that we all confrom blindly to marxist theory, and in fact the moment I find someone calling themselves a 'marxist' I have a habit of switching off, just as I do with all idol-worship (I know there is a difference, but I believe that unquestioning belief in an ideology is just as bad as unquestioning faith in an individual).

Indeed, as you said after this it is the best we have so far as to how this could be arranged... With this in mind I may have to start a critique thread of the manifesto... see if we can do some 'improving' there.

After all, I'm sure noone would like to see their ideas die: something that given time is inevitable if they are not advanced upon.

[Osman Ghazi]

I am a Leninist because I find that path realistic. I don’t know what you mean by “why are you still here?” I do not engage in the utopian fantasies you and RS seem to love to theorize about.


I think its utopian to believe that one state could stand alone against all the other states.

I asked 'why are you still here?' because I don't see how communism is possible without multiple revolutions in multiple countries.


I don’t “want one so badly”, smartass. I believe it realistic to think that there will never be a time when “everyone” will magically turn to communism and start a classless society.

Just like it would be unrealistic for 'everyone' to stop believing that slavery is right? Oh, wait, that already happened. Who is to say that it can't happen again?


This is why a state for the proletariat after a revolution must be built, in order to defend the revolution, and to OPPRESS the bourgeois elements of society.


Your entitled to your opinion, but history has shown that if this proletarian state lasts for more than a couple of decades, it will turn corrupt. So always keep one eye on the clock.

[elijahcraig]

I think its utopian to believe that one state could stand alone against all the other states.

I asked 'why are you still here?' because I don't see how communism is possible without multiple revolutions in multiple countries.

I agree with both of these statements, as I am a Marxist.


Just like it would be unrealistic for 'everyone' to stop believing that slavery is right? Oh, wait, that already happened. Who is to say that it can't happen again?

Not the same thing. People didn't form a stateless society based on the idea of slavery being bad, they merely changed their opinions, mostly due to the fact that those in power taught them different things in school.


Your entitled to your opinion, but history has shown that if this proletarian state lasts for more than a couple of decades, it will turn corrupt. So always keep one eye on the clock.

Thanks for the warning.