Class Struggle

[Hate Is Art]

I was thinking to myself what if we are in the transition to Communism already? Now hold on a second before you go crazy but think of it this way, it seems the Capitilist's have had their heydey in the industrial revolution.

We now have our distinct class systems in western culture, the poor are steadily getting poorer and the rich, getting much richer. How much longer can they continue this system.

If you asked a peasent maybe even 10 years before the start of the industrial revolution that within 50 years society would have changed from rural life to huge sprawling slums and citys they would have called you an idiot and a lunatic.

Well capitilism now has started to make resecsions to the workers in the western world to subdue them and keep them in there place. A sign possibly, of the weakening of their system?

Well if you asked some workers today of the huge transition to Communism they would call you an idiot and a lunatic. What i'm trying to say is, we could be closer to achieving our goals then we could have ever imagined. Capitilism can't support itself much longer and when it does we just have to be ready to seize power.

The only thing that stands in our way is the army and the police, who it seems, still pledge alliance to the state. As long as they do we will find it hard to secure power, but eventualy we can defeat them.

The main point of this is, don't lose hope, revolution could be around the corner and we should carry on preparing for it!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 14 2004, 10:14 PM
I was thinking to myself what if we are in the transition to Communism already?
In a classical sense the transition to communism doesn't really begin until the workers are engaged in a revolution.


Now hold on a second before you go crazy but think of it this way, it seems the Capitilist's have had their heydey in the industrial revolution.

I think your right, but capitalism is taking on a new dimension. Corporations have seen the benifit of buying each other out and forming giant conglomorates which have their fingers in everything. Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Nike, control so much. Coca-cola own several soft drinks, if not all the top brands, they control Columbia-Tristar productions. Capitalists aren't stupid.


If you asked a peasent maybe even 10 years before the start of the industrial revolution that within 50 years society would have changed from rural life to huge sprawling slums and citys they would have called you an idiot and a lunatic.

Idealism is not just a fantasy. These peasents must have thought it was pure idealism to think that one day they would be able to cook food in a microwave. Now look.


Capitilism can't support itself much longer and when it does we just have to be ready to seize power.

There are many movements which challange capitalism on a day to day basis. Sometimes not very blatant, such as the WTO demonstrations, but in other ways like creating forums. Felicia and her comrades in Canada are challaning capitalism every day by organising their group. Capitalism is being challanged by this very conversation. The problem is that isn't going to be enough.


The main point of this is, don't lose hope, revolution could be around the corner and we should carry on preparing for it!

I think that getting involved with different groups and movements and getting others to do the same is all we can do at the moment. Preparation can come in many different forms and there are many groups engaged in it.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Lenin, addressing students in 1916, thought that he wouldn't live to see a Bolshevik revolution in Russia. How wrong he was. However, I don't think that revolution is quite "around the corner" - not yet.



If you asked a peasent maybe even 10 years before the start of the industrial revolution that within 50 years society would have changed from rural life to huge sprawling slums and citys they would have called you an idiot and a lunatic.


Hmmm. Some academics might well call you "an idiot and a lunatic" for suggesting that the Industrial Revolution was a seemingly instantaneous event! I've been studying it this term. It transpires, in true Marxist fashion, that the event was the product of underlying socio-economic change - over a period of centuries. Urbanisation itself was gradual...



The only thing that stands in our way is the army and the police, who it seems, still pledge alliance to the state. As long as they do we will find it hard to secure power, but eventualy we can defeat them.


But even the army; even the police - they are workers. When they see class-consciousness developing amongst the workers, they will more than likely desert their masters; abandon the sinking ship of capitalism; join with the Proletariat and instigate a glorious revolution. :P Lenin himself initially received tremendous support from the soldiers - so let's not be too quick to portray them as enemies!



In a classical sense the transition to communism doesn't really begin until the workers are engaged in a revolution.


In a "classical sense"? This must be incorrect. The transition has already begun - it began when Marx wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Since then, co-ordinated class consciousness has been developing. And as more and more workers recognise their plight, the movement gathers strength. The revolution is the realisation of ideas that have been around for centuries; the dramatic seizure of power the last in a series of steps through history...

The transition to Communism - it's all around us! :ph34r:

[Hate Is Art]

Hmmm. Some academics might well call you "an idiot and a lunatic" for suggesting that the Industrial Revolution was a seemingly instantaneous event! I've been studying it this term. It transpires, in true Marxist fashion, that the event was the product of underlying socio-economic change - over a period of centuries. Urbanisation itself was gradual...


Did you read my post, I said over 50 years! Britain was industrialized much quicker then their continental counter-parts and over a space of 50-80 years the population has shifted from heavily rural to heavily urban with cities popping up almost everywhere in the north on England.


But even the army; even the police - they are workers. When they see class-consciousness developing amongst the workers, they will more than likely desert their masters; abandon the sinking ship of capitalism; join with the Proletariat and instigate a glorious revolution. Lenin himself initially received tremendous support from the soldiers - so let's not be too quick to portray them as enemies!

Historicaly once the army joins the revolution the revolutionaries suceed, but historicaly the army are the last class to become conscious and abandon their leaders. They often subdue many attempted revolutions before leaving the Bourgeouse.

[monkeydust]

I was thinking to myself what if we are in the transition to Communism already?

If such a thing is inevitable, as Marx described it, then I don't think we are, not at all.

If anything, the last 10 years have represented a hegemony of liberal democratic values on a scale previously unforseen. Many even claim the 'death of ideology', as free market policies are adopted on an ever wider scale.

Perhaps the time is merely a 'blip' on the longer path to an eventual revolution, we will have to wait and see.


it seems the Capitilist's have had their heydey in the industrial revolution

Certainly the years prior to the 20th century were marked by laws favourable to the development of the bourgeois classes. However, many capitalists are having quite a 'heyday' right now, with the expansion and development of a global market economy.



We now have our distinct class systems in western culture, the poor are steadily getting poorer and the rich, getting much richer.

I beg to differ.

I agree that the poor are, by and large, "getting poorer", however I disagree that this is taking place within "Western Culture". In part due to globalisation and the collapse of the Warsaw pact terrirories, ever more, the "working class" seems to represent large populations of third world nations.

I fundamentally disagree that our classes are "distinct" at the moment. I believe that there are a great number of poor people in Western states, yet, due to the fact that many work in tertiary industries (as opposed to manual labour) and the extensive welfare systems present in many Western (at least Western European) states, it would seem that many do not feel working class, certainly I do not see any kind of "class consciusness" right now, though this may change at some point.



How much longer can they continue this system.


That's a tough question.

I'm really not sure myself, I feel that Marx failed to anticipate capitalism's adaptability to changing circumstances. No other class sysytem has been able to work in such a manner.

Again, we'll have to wait and see.



If you asked a peasent maybe even 10 years before the start of the industrial revolution that within 50 years society would have changed from rural life to huge sprawling slums and citys they would have called you an idiot and a lunatic.


That's a very important point, that many who dismiss outright the prospect of any revolution neglect.

Right now, many woul claim that "communism is dead". And that "revolution is impossible".

They may well be right, but, if anything, history shown itself to be very unpredicatable. Predictions of the future are nearly always wrong, for example, in 1912, many believed that the world was entering into a time of continual prosperity, though the most grisly war ever occured only 2 years later.



Well capitilism now has started to make resecsions to the workers in the western world to subdue them and keep them in there place. A sign possibly, of the weakening of their system?


I don't know about that.

Of course capitalist nations, after the second world war especially, have extended their welfare schemes. Though if anything, it seems today that these welfare schemes are being ever more "cut back".


The main point of this is, don't lose hope, revolution could be around the corner and we should carry on preparing for it!

Well....I'd give it 62 years........ minimum.

I certainly won't be around to see it :P .

[Hate Is Art]

Good post Dust!


If such a thing is inevitable, as Marx described it, then I don't think we are, not at all.

If anything, the last 10 years have represented a hegemony of liberal democratic values on a scale previously unforseen. Many even claim the 'death of ideology', as free market policies are adopted on an ever wider scale.

Perhaps the time is merely a 'blip' on the longer path to an eventual revolution, we will have to wait and see.

The Point I was trying to make was that we can't say for sure that we aren't in this transitional peroid, capitilism had made way for huge corporations who own pretty much everything, one huge stock market crash could spell an end to them and put the western world in financial ruin like it did in '29.

Can they survive again though?


Certainly the years prior to the 20th century were marked by laws favourable to the development of the bourgeois classes. However, many capitalists are having quite a 'heyday' right now, with the expansion and development of a global market economy.

But hardly anyone makes it into these capitilist classes anymore, all money is inherited now, you have rich parents you get good school, good school = good job = good money. Good money then transfers into a good education for your children.

The cycle doesn't look it can be broken and the working classes can break out of it so what we will see is them becoming eventualy class-consious. I don't think we are far off this now!


fundamentally disagree that our classes are "distinct" at the moment. I believe that there are a great number of poor people in Western states, yet, due to the fact that many work in tertiary industries (as opposed to manual labour) and the extensive welfare systems present in many Western (at least Western European) states, it would seem that many do not feel working class, certainly I do not see any kind of "class consciusness" right now, though this may change at some point.

I didn't say that they had become class conscious yet, simply that they were now in these classes. Most people are, in relative terms, pretty poor. Yes the welfare state makes up for this, but it just takes one spark to light a fire. Revolution it appears is inevitable we just need to wait for the moment.


That's a tough question.

I'm really not sure myself, I feel that Marx failed to anticipate capitalism's adaptability to changing circumstances. No other class sysytem has been able to work in such a manner.

Again, we'll have to wait and see.


Personaly I would say this shows the huge flaw in the capitilist system, they have had to change to avoid being otherthrown, they can probably change again to avoid being overthrown. My theory was that they are moving away from their true system, like in Hungary in '56 and the Prague Spring, the workers were given an inch, they tried to take a mile though.

What i'm saying is, that the workers have been given a glimmer of hope through the welfare state and the small reforms, once they become concsious they will want to move on.

[monkeydust]

The Point I was trying to make was that we can't say for sure that we aren't in this transitional peroid.


Of course we can't be 100% sure that we're not in a 'transition', we can rarely be certain of such things. However, all of the signs at the moment seem to indicate that capitalism is thriving more now than ever before. For example, business still flourishes in the West, the global market economy is more pronounced than ever before and Capitalism has taken root in Asia (and to a lesser extent parts of Africa) quite successfully.

The 'progression' following the 'long boom' (after world war two) would have seemed much more of a 'transition' than what we're experiencing now, though that only amounted to the emergence of Neo-Liberalism and the "New Right".


one huge stock market crash could spell an end to them and put the western world in financial ruin like it did in '29.


The point about '29 is a valid one. Yet it has two major failings:

Firstly, a potential crash is an unlikely scenario at the moment (unless you believe the emerging oil crisis to be an ominous sign). Economists today, as opposed to the 1920's are very cautious, and are able to recognise the 'signs' of a possible depression and to rectify the situation accordingly. You could say that the capitalists have "learned their lesson" from the Wall street crash.

Secondly if a crash similar to that of 1929 was to occur then governments would be far more effective in combating it quickly. This is partially due to the emergence of Keynesian reflationary policies which were never really considered in earnest until the 1940's.



But hardly anyone makes it into these capitilist classes anymore, all money is inherited now, you have rich parents you get good school, good school = good job = good money. Good money then transfers into a good education for your children.


Ordinarily I would agree with this comment entirely. Yet the word in the first line, "anymore", does not seem appropriate to me.

I agree that, to some extent the bourgeois classes repopulate themselves, though if anything, they do so less today than ever before.

For example, prior to the 20th century, almost all education was private, and one had to be of a certain demeanour to be considered 'worthy' of a position in the rich classes. In short, one was 'born into wealth'.

In contrast, today, one can have a reasonable education for free and can, to some extent, go from "rags to riches", though this is still very unlikely.

I agree that classes are still very static, worrylinlgy so in fact, though the extent to which this is the case is less so now than it has been previously.



The cycle doesn't look it can be broken and the working classes can break out of it so what we will see is them becoming eventualy class-consious. I don't think we are far off this now!


I think we've got quite a long way to go yet.

Again, I must emphasise that in the 1920's, 30's, and to a lesser extent into the 1980's people were far more "class conscious" than they are today (or so it would seem). These years were witness to a number of classic "class conflicts", such as the British General strike of 1926, the French strike of 1968, the Spartacist uprisings in Germany 1919 and the Thatcher v Scargill confronatation of the 80's.

Yet no substantive revolution occurred, not even close.

If it didn't happen then, what makes you think it will happen soon?


I didn't say that they had become class conscious yet, simply that they were now in these classes. Most people are, in relative terms, pretty poor. Yes the welfare state makes up for this, but it just takes one spark to light a fire. Revolution it appears is inevitable we just need to wait for the moment.


I don't know about that. Classes are undoubtedly more fragmented today (at least in Britian) than ever beofore. Moreover, people in the West are generally "better off" than they were prior to the second world war.

Certainly a revolution may be an inevitability, though only in the long term (60 or 70 years at least).


Personaly I would say this shows the huge flaw in the capitilist system, they have had to change to avoid being otherthrown, they can probably change again to avoid being overthrown.


That's exactly my point.


What i'm saying is, that the workers have been given a glimmer of hope through the welfare state and the small reforms, once they become concsious they will want to move on.


Unlikely.

All of the evidence we have suggests that welfare schemes 'pacify' workers, rather than make them more annoyed.

For example, after the German 'revolutions' of 1918, the majority of workers were more than willing to support social-democracy, and, in many cases, actually opposed the Communists led by such figures as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.

[The Children of the Revolution]

But hardly anyone makes it into these capitilist classes anymore, all money is inherited now, you have rich parents you get good school, good school = good job = good money. Good money then transfers into a good education for your children.

The cycle doesn't look it can be broken and the working classes can break out of it so what we will see is them becoming eventualy class-consious. I don't think we are far off this now!


I'm not so sure. My parents are fairly well off. But I went to the local primary school, like any normal child. I took the 11+. And I "made it" into a grammar school which just so happened to be one of the top "state schools" in the country. This was not because my parents had the money to pay for it - my school, quite rightly, was free. Nor was it because I'd had a privileged background; like I said, I went to a normal primary school. And there were many students from "deprived" backgrounds - all you had to do to "get in" was pass a simple test. There ARE opportunities, but these are limited.



ersonaly I would say this shows the huge flaw in the capitilist system, they have had to change to avoid being otherthrown, they can probably change again to avoid being overthrown.


Nothing can remain static forever. Marx believed so himself. (Dialectics...) If anything, I think the ability of the capitalist system to adapt proves its strength. If things had not changed after the early years of organised capital - the notorious factories, for example, when workers toiled for 16 hours a day - revolution would have occured long, long ago.



I agree that classes are still very static, worrylinlgy so in fact, though the extent to which this is the case is less so now than it has been previously.


That class is static, from a Communist point of view, is wonderful news. If there were true and observable class mobility inherent in the system in which we lived, dreams and aspirations would flourish. Competition between members of the working classes would increase; unified action against big business would be nigh-on impossible to co-ordinate. It is precisely because "upward-social-mobility" is so rare that "we" stand a chance.



Again, I must emphasise that in the 1920's, 30's, and to a lesser extent into the 1980's people were far more "class conscious" than they are today (or so it would seem). These years were witness to a number of classic "class conflicts", such as the British General strike of 1926, the French strike of 1968, the Spartacist uprisings in Germany 1919 and the Thatcher v Scargill confronatation of the 80's.


Hmmm. You seem to suggest that the West is the only important area in the world, comrade! True, workers uprisings in "the West" have been relatively limited. But, in my opinion, this is because "the workers" are now largely situated abroad. Of course exploitation remains rife in Britain. However, it is not on the same scale as in Latin America - people in the UK, in general, AREN'T badly off. Now look at Argentina, Ecuador or Venezuala; the "revolution" is taking off and class-consciousness devloping THERE.

We have quite a way to go. But let us not underestimate our strength either! :ph34r:

[monkeydust]

Hmmm. You seem to suggest that the West is the only important area in the world, comrade!

That's not the point I was making at all.

I merely pointing out to DN that "revolutionary situations" (such as the ones I listed) rarely lead to actual revolutions. Thus the prospect of any revolution being "around the corner" in our current situation seems somewhat far-fetched.

That I used Western examples is merely incidental. It's a fact that for the majority of the 20th century the urbanised working classes resided in the West, if only because the West was the only urbanised place there was.


True, workers uprisings in "the West" have been relatively limited. But, in my opinion, this is because "the workers" are now largely situated abroad.

I agree as I made the point earlier, though I do not see how the fact that uprisings in the west failed in the past is a result of workers being abroad today. Please explain.


Of course exploitation remains rife in Britain. However, it is not on the same scale as in Latin America - people in the UK, in general, AREN'T badly off.

To a considerable extent, I agree.


the "revolution" is taking off and class-consciousness devloping THERE.


Arguably yes.

Though I've yet to see any substantive uprisings in the developing world which are comparable to those we saw in the West in the Early 20th century.

[Raisa]

Damn Digital, That was a great point, and it made my day. Thank you.

[Hate Is Art]

cheers darling, anytime :)


That's not the point I was making at all.

I merely pointing out to DN that "revolutionary situations" (such as the ones I listed) rarely lead to actual revolutions. Thus the prospect of any revolution being "around the corner" in our current situation seems somewhat far-fetched.

That I used Western examples is merely incidental. It's a fact that for the majority of the 20th century the urbanised working classes resided in the West, if only because the West was the only urbanised place there was.


If you remember Marx said the world progessed in this order;

Fuedalism -> Capitilism -> Socialism -> Communism

And it was an historic inevitability(sp?) to progress from each stage to the next. Now revolution in country's such as China and Russia failed on account of trying to skip the capitilist stage.

China and Russia were hugely backwards in many respects and hadn't the infa-structure to support a Socialist revolution, especialy in the horrible climate of Russia and having lost some of it's best farm land and huge ammounts of her raw materials to Germany in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk at the end of the war.

Also with 84% of it's citizens as peasentry still running under a basic fuedilist system it was in no place to have a revolution of a Socialist nature.

We in the west have progressed to Capitilism and you could argue both ways that Capitilist society is fizziling out and can't last much longer or it is on the rise and we haven't seen even half of the destruction it is capable but!

We can't predict what will happen tomorow, least of all what short term causes will effect the struggle over the next decade or so. I was saying we have some of the basic material conditions for revolution and we are progressing steadily nearer to the day, we just require that extra push.

Now the point about us not being exploited as much as say Latin America or Africa is interesting, I never said we had it bad, cos we have it good compared to some people. What do have is the infar-structure for a revolution to succeed and from that to spread to continental Europe. (note I was mainly reffering to the UK in my post)

After the frenc revolution it had the whole of every ruling class in Europe shooken, they were worried that this revolutionary mindset would spread to their countrys and threaten them as well. This is what I see happening and what Truman (I think) first reffering to as the Communist Dominoe Effect.

Don't lose hope, I was simply stating the optimism I have for our movement. We need to be ready because the revolution could happen at any time.

[cubist]

i believe we are DN,

i believe we are far from achieving the GOAL but more and more people are becoming socially aware, look at the gay rights movenment in the last 10 years, and the animals rights *shudders* and the anti war marches this whole place is evolving slowly so in a sense yes the revolution has begun it began when marx manifested the communist manefesto,

society is still too materialistic to handle full revolution Capitalism still has a firm grip on the world Else Tony Blair wouldn't have gone to war against the will of the public

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 19 2004, 05:33 PM
If you remember Marx said the world progessed in this order;

Fuedalism -> Capitilism -> Socialism -> Communism
Marx was wrong.


And it was an historic inevitability(sp?) to progress from each stage to the next.

Socialism is the flaw. It has been proven over and over that this "tranisitional" stage can never become anything else. There can never be a progression from socialism to communism.

Had Marx lived through the catastrophies of Russia, China, Vietnam and Cuba he would have seriously reconsidered his position. I believe the state was Marx achilies heel. Bakunin pointed out very aptly that Marx came from a country where the state was something to be admired and worshipped. He was a Young Hegelian for one, and although he appears to reject Hegel in some areas, he continued to share Hegels lust for the state.

I think also that the period of time Marx was alive, the state seemed extremly logical, and although the Bakuninists attempted to identify the real nature of it, the Marxists rejected that analysis. Even now, when it is clear that Bakunins predictions were right, the Marxists fail to see what that real nature is. It cannot wither away. The very being of the state renders that ideal impossible. Marx would have, begrudgingly i'm sure, have said the same, had he lived through the twentieth century.

[gaf]

well if somes think it is getting better i do have doubt about it
if i look to proletariat as it is in europa it's only a bunch of people who will only fight fortheir petty portemonnaie.they won't do anything to help others (and surely spit on you if you ask something,treating you as parasites).the (almost)only proletarian people in europa are imigrated people from other parts of the 3rd world seeking a better life here.but they are now chase away and seen as potential danger.
marx was wrong no doubt of it ,but the reaction is strong now ,dividing people in a lot of ways(politics religious,and economics).we are living in dangerous times .and how i see it nobody and no ideas will never do it,like it is.realizing yourself understanding and respect could give us a chance but for it .we have to begin from scratch.........

[Hate Is Art]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree Joe, we can't just go straight from Capitilism to Communism, that would require a world wide revolution all at the same time. There would be somekind of war and we'd wouldn't be assured victory.

We might not even be able to control more then one country in our next revolution and what do we implement then? Complete self suffiecency over a very short period of time? Because that is the only choice I can see.

We would have millions of people to feed and care for whilst still securing the revolution. England doesn't have the means nessescary to become self sufficient for the large number of people living here. We are over crowded and haven't got to much land ideal for farming. If there was a trade blockade we would be fucked.

So a Socialist transitionary phase were we have control and are not rushed so quickly into handing all power over we can make descisions to secure the revolution so the people we would ultimatly fighting for aren't left fighting for their lives against famine, you're trying to run before you can walk and it won't work, you'll just fall flat on your face.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 19 2004, 08:38 PM
we can't just go straight from Capitilism to Communis,
I agree.


that would require a world wide revolution all at the same time.

A revolution of this kind will most likely have a knock on effect in the western world. Unless it is an opportunist revolution, in which case we'll get Stalin or some such all over again.


We would have millions of people to feed and care for whilst still securing the revolution.

And the state is an efficient way to deal with that problem, but it will not lead to communism. There are other ways of organising this transitional period. The state will not wither away.


If there was a trade blockade we would be fucked.

Regardless of whether there was a state or not.


So a Socialist transitionary phase were we have control and are not rushed so quickly into handing all power over we can make descisions to secure the revolution so the people we would ultimatly fighting for aren't left fighting for their lives against famine, you're trying to run before you can walk and it won't work, you'll just fall flat on your face.

The state cannot wither away. No matter how much you want it to. The very point of a state is to perpetuate itself. In order to secure this revolution the way you envisage it will lead you to have to increase the state and decrease workers power. how can you increase the state while decreasing it at the same time? How can you decrease workers power while attempting to increase it? The state contradicts the purpose of the revolution. The state, by its very being, is designed to defend itself. That's the nature of the state.

Imagine trying to clean your clothes with dirt...It's the same as trying to create communism with a state.

[Hate Is Art]

A revolution of thids kind will most likely have a knock on effect in the western world. Unless it is an opportunist revolution, in which case we'll get Stalin or some such all over again.

But it is the very nature of the revolution to be oppurtunist?

We have to take advantage of others (the ruling classes) mistakes for our own gain to make progress. Would you class this as opportunist?

The inherent flaws in the Capitilist system will eventualy destroy it, I'm sure we can both agree on that, so we should simply take all opportunitys to speed the process up? Should we not present the mistakes of Capitilism in order to highlight it's failings?


And the state is an efficient way to deal with that problem, but it will not lead to communism. There are other ways of organising this transitional period. The state will not wither away.

Suggest one mon Ami?

And if there is a trade blockade we will need some kind of order, some kind of non-heirachl(sp?) state (in the very broadest sense) to organise ourselves and distriute food, good, maintain our sanitary conditions etc

Now thats leads to me this, why would this State have to stay aftr it's purpose had become redundant? It could quite easily be used to help the workers, to increase democracy and to sort out any problems that arise whilst we secure the revolution and set up our new system.

Now I do not mean that this state is a kind of respressive organism like the one in existance at the moment, but a non-heirarchal organisation set out to help.

Would this kind of Socialist transition which would secure our revolution and defend it from the counter insurgents be so bad?

[monkeydust]

If you remember Marx said the world progessed in this order;

Fuedalism -> Capitilism -> Socialism -> Communism


That's a simplification, but yes, he did.

But then again, Marx predicted that revolutions would first occur in Western European states, Germany, for example, seemed 'ripe' for revolution, for many years. Yet the first substantive revolution (ignoring comparatively minor events such as the 1871 commune) was in Russia, subsequent revolutions occurred primarily in developing states also.

Marx doesn't necessarily equal right. He was a clever bloke, but we still have to look at his works critically: to take what's good and forget the crap.

Personally, I do not believe in any transition through socialism, in fact, I believe that Socialism will inevitably either revert to capitalism, or remain the same for a long time.



We in the west have progressed to Capitilism and you could argue both ways that Capitilist society is fizziling out and can't last much longer or it is on the rise and we haven't seen even half of the destruction it is capable but!


Yes but we haven't just progressed to capitalism. In Britian capitalism has been around for a long time.

Capitalism survived a number of possible threats prior to WWII. After the war, a number of 'mainstream' politicians were quite receptive to progressive ideals.

But now, capitalism seems to have more of a hegemony than ever before, especially with the collapse of Socialist states eksewhere and the emergence of Capitalism as the only dominant ideology.

My question is: Why would a revolution happen now, when it didn't happen before?

I still think we have about 50 years at least; minimum.


Don't lose hope, I was simply stating the optimism I have for our movement. We need to be ready because the revolution could happen at any time.


Optimisms all well and good, though personally I find it more productive to try and spread our ideas as well as we can, without sitting around, relying on 'inevitablity'.



we can't just go straight from Capitilism to Communism, that would require a world wide revolution all at the same time. There would be somekind of war and we'd wouldn't be assured victory.



No one said anything about going "straight from Capitalism to Communism. It is probably the case that a "transition" will be necessary.

But in order for it to succeed, a transition must be undertaken by the workers themselves, and the material conditions which give rise to capitalism must be removed.

Thus we fundamentally cannot allow the state, or oligarchical rule to remain through any transition whatsoever.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 19 2004, 09:10 PM
We have to take advantage of others (the ruling classes) mistakes for our own gain to make progress. Would you class this as opportunist?
It isn't just a question of taking advantage of capitalisms mistakes. If you want to have a meaningful change of power the working class, or at least the majority of them are going to have to know what it is your trying to change, and to what you want to change it to.

When I say opportunism, I mean a group of people, ie the vanguard, forcing change because it's possible. Regardless of the situation within the working class.


Should we not present the mistakes of Capitilism in order to highlight it's failings?

Yes of course, but that shouldn't be the sole purpose of revolutionary change.


Suggest one mon Ami?

Workers collectives. Organised and controlled by the workers.


some kind of non-heirachl(sp?) state (in the very broadest sense) to organise ourselves and distriute food, good, maintain our sanitary conditions etc

You cannot have a non-hierarchical state. The nature of the state creates hierarchy.


why would this State have to stay aftr it's purpose had become redundant?

The state has to exist in a real form. In order for it to exist it must create real situations. In order for the state to exist it must increase itself in size. In order for the state to exist it must consolidate power into its hands. In order for the state to exist in the form you want it to exist, it must remove power from other people, regardless of who they are.

Now look at the so called objective of perpetuating this state. You are wanting, by the use of this state, to create a society where the state doesn't exist. Where the state has no power and where people can freely reject the state if they don't agree. You want to create a society where people have the power and not the state. How can you do these two opposite things at the same time?


Now I do not mean that this state is a kind of respressive organism like the one in existance at the moment

A state is oppressive by its very nature.


Would this kind of Socialist transition which would secure our revolution and defend it from the counter insurgents be so bad?

Yes! We don't want to create that kind of society. We have to look at the best possible way to create communism. Not socialism. And using the state is not going to achieve that. It's impossible.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Just quickly, chaps...



The state cannot wither away. No matter how much you want it to. The very point of a state is to perpetuate itself. In order to secure this revolution the way you envisage it will lead you to have to increase the state and decrease workers power. how can you increase the state while decreasing it at the same time? How can you decrease workers power while attempting to increase it? The state contradicts the purpose of the revolution. The state, by its very being, is designed to defend itself. That's the nature of the state.


The state does not defend itself - it defends the interests of the ruling class. If that ruling class is, in fact, the Proletariat... The state will exist to support and uphold the interests of the workers. This was Lenin's theory - and it stands. Place "class-conscious" workers at the head of this "state" and if material conditions are suitable, the state will indeed wither away. When the ruling class is the ONLY class in society... What possible function could a state ever have?

Enjoy! :P

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 19 2004, 11:43 PM
If that ruling class is, in fact, the Proletariat...
The ruling class is not the proletariat, it is a group of intellectuals working in their behalf.


The state will exist to support and uphold the interests of the workers.

This is the theory, but the actual reality is that the state must assert itself as the controlling force within society. It has to centralise power, it must control every aspect of society in order for it to "work in their interests." In reality, in order for the state to do what you want it to do, it must increase its power, increase its control and decrease the powers and control of everyone else. If it didn't do that, how could it survive?

What happens if the "interests" of the workers changes, and they oppose the will of the intellectuals? What happens if the workers want to create workers collectives, independent of the state?


This was Lenin's theory - and it stands.

How in the great expanse of the universe can you assert this? Not once has the theory worked.


Place "class-conscious" workers at the head of this "state" and if material conditions are suitable, the state will indeed wither away.

The perpetuation cannot create these material conditions. The opposite effect happens. My perpetrating the state the material conditions become that of a state nation. The nature of the state will make that happen. The state, by its very existence, will rest itself in complete control, and the only way to change it, will be to overthrow it.


What possible function could a state ever have?

The functions it's existence has created.

[chebol]

We are *not* in a *transition* phase to communism, unless you regard all historical change to take place in a predetermined way (the 'determinist' approach). This attitude towards revolution is a dangerous one because it gives rise to the temptation to just sit back and let 'someone else' conduct the revolution.
There are no 'someones else'. Socialism (nor communism) are attained by osmosis or benevolent gratuity- they must be fought for, worked for, struggled for; often every waking moment.

Several years ago, there was a debate in an organisation in my area about whether 'globalisation' was a new, fifth stage of capitalism, succeeding Imperialism. This view is understandable, as the immense scale of capitalistic exploitation and organisation worldwide presents a daunting and often confusing kaleidescope of images and data. This idea was lost, and the outcome was a reinforcement of the argument that we exist in an imperialist age, in fact, in an age where the tentacles of the capitalistic octupus have reached even deeper into the everyday life of workers and the global economy. Imperialism is very much alive, and has outlasted the first major attempt at creating socialist revolution worldwide. We may take from this the (guarded) assurance that the Socialist Revolution is NOT inevitable (although other, lesser, ones are). Socialism must be fought for to have any chance.

Which brings me to my next point, about the "withering away of the state". The Social Democrats of the Second International, not to mention Kautsky (Lenin's punching bag ) :D , made the mistake of thinking that the state will just 'wither away', rather than needing to be "withered". This interpretation contraicts the very idea ofrevolution, and is just apologism for reformism. It also makes the mistake of distorting the 'state' into an abstract form, divorced from, and somehow separate to, reality.

The state is a repressive force, used by and composed of the ruling class (our current minority bourgeoisie) to maintain current power relations. But, when ''state power" is taken by the proletariat, the majority, to make use of for the benefit of that class, the state then ceases to be a "state", as it is now a "proletarian state", that is, one dedicated to the gradual dissolution of 'state' powers and structures (as opposed to the bourgeois state mentioned above). As the proletariat becomes thorough in it's dictatorship of the means of social relations and production, there will cease to be other 'classes', making the bourgeois state, and eventually it's proletarian shade, an historical irrelevance. This will not happen, however, in a peaceful, pathetic manner. Rather, (and here is the point of a Revolution) it is necessary for the proletariat to "put an end to" their state forcefully, piece by piece, as historically possible.

That is, while the current state is a repressive force in the interests of the bourgeoisie, the "proletarian state" is a progressive and revolutionary force, which dedicates itself to repressing the bourgeoisie and their state, and to transforming the economic and social conditions in the interests of the now empowered majority.

Oh, and many 'hola's to you all. (I'm new here)
chau

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 10:14 AM
But, when ''state power" is taken by the proletariat,


The proletariat is an entire class of people, in the UK probably about 13 million people.


the majority, to make use of for the benefit of that class, the state then ceases to be a "state",

So you are saying that 13 million people will all control this state?


As the proletariat becomes thorough in it's dictatorship of the means of social relations and production, there will cease to be other 'classes'

Wrong. The 13 million working class people in the UK can not become heads of the state. That is why the theory of tyhe vangaurd was created. The most "conscious" of the working class, who assert themselves as a new ruling class and guide the working class by the use of state powers.


making the bourgeois state, and eventually it's proletarian shade, an historical irrelevance.

The state cannot suddenly wither away after you have created these material conditions. The state has to exist in a real form. In order for it to exist it must create real situations. In order for the state to exist it must increase itself in size. In order for the state to exist it must consolidate power into its hands. In order for the state to exist in the form you want it to exist, it must remove power from other people, regardless of who they are.

Now look at the so called objective of perpetuating this state. You are wanting, by the use of this state, to create a society where the state doesn't exist. Where the state has no power and where people can freely reject the state if they don't agree. You want to create a society where people have the power and not the state. How can you do these two opposite things at the same time?


The "proletarian state" is a progressive and revolutionary force, which dedicates itself to repressing the bourgeoisie and their state,

Wrong! The "proletarian" state represses anyone and anything which gets in its way. If it didn't do that, how could it exist?

[The Children of the Revolution]

We've been over all this before, of course... I'll just pick up on one point...



This is the theory, but the actual reality is that the state must assert itself as the controlling force within society. It has to centralise power, it must control every aspect of society in order for it to "work in their interests." In reality, in order for the state to do what you want it to do, it must increase its power, increase its control and decrease the powers and control of everyone else. If it didn't do that, how could it survive?


Why? WHY? I don't understand! You refer to the state as if it NEEDS to survive! The whole point is... It doesn't! It withers away! It stays just long enough to remove the counter-revolutionary elements from society... And for this, it needs no increased powers whatsoever! Look at the current "state"apparatus. It exists to maintain order and control over 90% of the population. A huge number of people.

Come the revolution; come the seizure of power by the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' - the state, if acting in the interests of the workers, will need only to "persecute" the lingering 10%. The previous ruling classes. So power DOES NOT need to be increased - indeed, most of the state apparatus can be removed instantly.

When the "ruling classes" are vanquished... The state has no function. It ceases to exist. :)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 20 2004, 08:05 PM
You refer to the state as if it NEEDS to survive! The whole point is... It doesn't!
Of course it does. Otherwise how could the vangaurd do the things they "need" to do?


come the seizure of power by the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'

The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is not infact the proletariat. It is a group of intellectuals, "acting in the interests of the workers." These new rulers who may or may not be elected from within the party must isolate themselves from the rest of the working class in order to assert themselves as head of this state. If they don't do that, they cannot be in control. They may not intentionally want to do this, but becoming the leader of a nation, who controls a country as a ruler, who must make executive orders as a ruler, is no longer a member of the proletariat, but a ruler.




It withers away! It stays just long enough to remove the counter-revolutionary elements from society... And for this, it needs no increased powers whatsoever!...So power DOES NOT need to be increased - indeed, most of the state apparatus can be removed instantly.

The state must assert itself in a far more dictatorial role than the present day state. You will be at war, with a well organised counter-revolutionary force. There must still remain a devout security force, including secret police, special armed forces, loyal to the party, which is what happened in Russia. There essentially becomes a one party dictatorship because all opposition must be outlawed in order for the state, or the vangaurd to be secure in its dealings within society. The vanguard, state or whatever, must suppress any opposition to its control. This includes executions, censorship and imprisonment.

Not only this, but the state must control every aspect of economic life, including deciding working hours, production, where the food must go etc. The state becomes the boss, the trade union and in order for the state to get to a point where it can wither away, it may be necessary at some point to force the workers into certain areas of labour, regardless of their will. Now, it doesn't matter whether the workers should do what is necessary, the point is that the state is creating material conditions, social and pyschological conditions, which contradict the withering away theory. You are essentially forcing people against they're will to accept the authority of the state, which is a one party dictatorship, and if they disagree, they must be "dealt" with as counter-revolutionaries. If you don't do that, how can the state exist in order to suppress the bourgeoisie and then witheraway?

The purpose of the state, in your theory, is to create a stateless society. In order for society to become stateless, the powers [i]have to be handed over to the working class. There has to be a process or transition of power at some point. How can this tranistion, or change over of power happen when the state needs to control security, the military and the economics of society, which at times may result in the working class being forced to accept their rule, against there will. You have isolated yourself as a ruling class, while at the same time consolidating every aspect of power within soceity into your hands. How then can it wither away? How can you do this, while at the same time transfering power over to the workers? You cannot do both things at the same time, which will lead to the state continuing to exist. The power structure that is created by the existence of this state will become what it starts out as. A dictatorship of a party over a country.

What happens if the revolution isn't international, the state must exist until the rest of the world "falls in line," this could take decades. The state is existing for decades, controlling society. Old leaders die, new leaders, opportunist and not as ideologically sound as their predecessors take control and this dictatorship begins to benifit this new ruling class. This is what happened in Russia after Lenins death, it has happened in China and Vietnam, and when Castro dies, it will happen there too. All of these countries have ended up becoming capitalist nations or on the transition to. When Castro dies, Cuba will become a capitalist nation. 40 years past the revolution, the vangaurd who control the state have long been replaced with people who have forgotton what communism is, the state has become an entity of control for a ruling elite who now have no intention of transfering power.

The only way to safe gaurd a revolution is to destroy the state from the beginning and consolidate power into the hands of the workers, from the beginning, without leaders, or rulers, or vangaurds "acting in their interest." The revolution must be of the workers, for the workers and by the workers. No one else can liberate them on their behalf.


When the "ruling classes" are vanquished... The state has no function.

You cannot just assert that as soon as the bourgeoisie are defeated the state will mysteriously just vanish. In the period of time it is doing all this, it must also exist, and it exists by asserting its control over everything. While it's doing this it creates material conditions which contradict the idea that it will suddenly not exist.

[The Children of the Revolution]

These new rulers who may or may not be elected from within the party must isolate themselves from the rest of the working class in order to assert themselves as head of this state. If they don't do that, they cannot be in control.


I don't quite see what the problem is. The workers have NEVER had "control" of the state, or any measure of "control" over society - they are the oppressed. Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat this changes; as you say, the new leaders are "acting in the interests of the workers." It is a transitory phase.



There must still remain a devout security force, including secret police, special armed forces, loyal to the party, which is what happened in Russia.


Stop using Russia as an example! I advocate "Leninsm" (or Vanguardism) as a means to an end - when the "material conditions" suitable for revolution have been met. In Russia, 80% of the population were reactionary peasants! Of course drastic action was taken; of course tragedies and atrocities were committed in the name of the revolution... But "material conditions" were working against Lenin. When my party (yes, I will rule the world one day) "takes over", they will support the revolution.



Not only this, but the state must control every aspect of economic life, including deciding working hours, production, where the food must go etc.


In times of War, this is BY FAR the most efficient (and thereby necessary) means of defending the interests of "the state". If, as you suggest, there is to be a struggle - such measures are absolutely critical. No doubt your response will be along the lines of: "The workers can organise all this themselves..." To which I respond: In that case, why will they object to being relocated or working extra hours? To ensure the survival of the revolution, this efficiency and focus is absolutely justified.



You have isolated yourself as a ruling class, while at the same time consolidating every aspect of power within soceity into your hands. How then can it wither away? How can you do this, while at the same time transfering power over to the workers?


Every aspect of power is already consolidated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; this power is used against the proletariat. The revolution turns things around - "the power" now rests in the hands of those who would use it against their former "masters". It must decrease. And after the "War" you speak of, and the defeat of the counter-revolutionary elements, it must decrease further.

Your point concerning the nature of the revolution is interesting...



What happens if the revolution isn't international, the state must exist until the rest of the world "falls in line," this could take decades.


Why is it necessary for the state to exist in this context? Unless you admit that the state is paramount to the defence of a "national" revolution... It isn't! It can wither away and decay; this does not matter. Again, you take examples from History and extrapolate - the wrong idea. If, however, you wish to suggest that a state IS necessary in order to defend an isolated revolution... What is your solution? Simultaneous revolution in THE ENTIRE WORLD? And if not - why, how can you claim that the state must be maintained?



The only way to safegaurd a revolution is to destroy the state from the beginning and consolidate power into the hands of the workers


Ok... How will War against counter-revolutionary elements be won? A workers-secret-police force? This creates power structures... Do explain, comrade.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 24 2004, 06:38 PM
Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat this changes; as you say, the new leaders are "acting in the interests of the workers." It is a transitory phase
The point is that it cannot be a transitional stage and that these people cannot work in the workers interest.


To ensure the survival of the revolution, this efficiency and focus is absolutely justified.

It doesnt work.


It must decrease. And after the "War" you speak of, and the defeat of the counter-revolutionary elements, it must decrease further.

You have not answered my points, which answer this assertion.


The state must assert itself in a far more dictatorial role than the present day state. You will be at war, with a well organised counter-revolutionary force. There must still remain a devout security force, including secret police, special armed forces, loyal to the party, which is what happened in Russia. There essentially becomes a one party dictatorship because all opposition must be outlawed in order for the state, or the vangaurd to be secure in its dealings within society. The vanguard, state or whatever, must suppress any opposition to its control. This includes executions, censorship and imprisonment.

Not only this, but the state must control every aspect of economic life, including deciding working hours, production, where the food must go etc. The state becomes the boss, the trade union and in order for the state to get to a point where it can wither away, it may be necessary at some point to force the workers into certain areas of labour, regardless of their will. Now, it doesn't matter whether the workers should do what is necessary, the point is that the state is creating material conditions, social and pyschological conditions, which contradict the withering away theory. You are essentially forcing people against they're will to accept the authority of the state, which is a one party dictatorship, and if they disagree, they must be "dealt" with as counter-revolutionaries. If you don't do that, how can the state exist in order to suppress the bourgeoisie and then witheraway?

The purpose of the state, in your theory, is to create a stateless society. In order for society to become stateless, the powers have to be handed over to the working class. There has to be a process or transition of power at some point. How can this tranistion, or change over of power happen when the state needs to control security, the military and the economics of society, which at times may result in the working class being forced to accept their rule, against there will. You have isolated yourself as a ruling class, while at the same time consolidating every aspect of power within soceity into your hands. How then can it wither away? How can you do this, while at the same time transfering power over to the workers? You cannot do both things at the same time, which will lead to the state continuing to exist. The power structure that is created by the existence of this state will become what it starts out as. A dictatorship of a party over a country.

What happens if the revolution isn't international, the state must exist until the rest of the world "falls in line," this could take decades. The state is existing for decades, controlling society. Old leaders die, new leaders, opportunist and not as ideologically sound as their predecessors take control and this dictatorship begins to benifit this new ruling class. This is what happened in Russia after Lenins death, it has happened in China and Vietnam, and when Castro dies, it will happen there too. All of these countries have ended up becoming capitalist nations or on the transition to. When Castro dies, Cuba will become a capitalist nation. 40 years past the revolution, the vangaurd who control the state have long been replaced with people who have forgotton what communism is, the state has become an entity of control for a ruling elite who now have no intention of transfering power


Why is it necessary for the state to exist in this context? Unless you admit that the state is paramount to the defence of a "national" revolution... It isn't!

Well ok then.


Ok... How will War against counter-revolutionary elements be won?

Through organisation and fighting.

[elijahcraig]

The point is that it cannot be a transitional stage and that these people cannot work in the workers interest.

Ever tire of debating the same thing in like 500 threads?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:44 PM

Ever tire of debating the same thing in like 500 threads?
Not really...someone has to believe me at some point.

[The Children of the Revolution]

"The point is that it cannot be a transitional stage and that these people cannot work in the workers interest."

"It doesnt work."

"Well ok then."

"Not really...someone has to believe me at some point."


You sound increasingly desperate, comrade!

Plus... Belief... That's what you do when you can't prove something, right? :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Riddle me this, Leninists: why is it that every Leninist Revolution so far has either become a despotism or devolved back/into capitalism?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 25 2004, 03:18 PM

You sound increasingly desperate, comrade!

Plus... Belief... That's what you do when you can't prove something, right? :P
Wait a minute??? I answered your point in essay length response which you have not answered?

I am not desperate, im just waiting.

[Daymare17]

I will say it again: Everybody here is arguing based on bourgeois and Stalinist falsifications of the history of Bolshevism not to mention of Marxist theory.

Anyone interested in learning about the real history of Bolshevism and the reasons for the degeneration of the Soviet state (or if you don't believe it, another side of the story) should read this (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/part1.html) (don't be put off by the statistics in the first section)

[The Children of the Revolution]

Wait a minute??? I answered your point in essay length response which you have not answered?


Essay length? Huh? You wrote five lines!



Riddle me this, Leninists: why is it that every Leninist Revolution so far has either become a despotism or devolved back/into capitalism?


For the same reason that there hasn't yet been a "spontaneous workers uprising" leading to a revolution - because material conditions favourable to the formation of a Communist "state" have not yet been observed.

I might remind you that the Soviet Union advanced dramatically under this "despotism" - and the Communist Party in Russia is still popular even after their "failures". Plus... Witness the situation in Cuba. Not a traditionally Marxist revolution, no. But look at the triumph of Socialism; even after being economically cut off from the rest of the world for decades...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 25 2004, 06:46 PM
Essay length? Huh? You wrote five lines!

Ok, so it wasn't exactly essay length, but it certainly wasn't five lines...I've highlighted the important parts.


The state must assert itself in a far more dictatorial role than the present day state. You will be at war, with a well organised counter-revolutionary force. There must still remain a devout security force, including secret police, special armed forces, loyal to the party, which is what happened in Russia. There essentially becomes a one party dictatorship because all opposition must be outlawed in order for the state, or the vangaurd to be secure in its dealings within society. The vanguard, state or whatever, must suppress any opposition to its control. This includes executions, censorship and imprisonment.

Not only this, but the state must control every aspect of economic life, including deciding working hours, production, where the food must go etc. The state becomes the boss, the trade union and in order for the state to get to a point where it can wither away, it may be necessary at some point to force the workers into certain areas of labour, regardless of their will. Now, it doesn't matter whether the workers should do what is necessary, the point is that the state is creating material conditions, social and pyschological conditions, which contradict the withering away theory. You are essentially forcing people against they're will to accept the authority of the state, which is a one party dictatorship, and if they disagree, they must be "dealt" with as counter-revolutionaries. If you don't do that, how can the state exist in order to suppress the bourgeoisie and then witheraway?

The purpose of the state, in your theory, is to create a stateless society. In order for society to become stateless, the powers have to be handed over to the working class. There has to be a process or transition of power at some point. How can this tranistion, or change over of power happen when the state needs to control security, the military and the economics of society, which at times may result in the working class being forced to accept their rule, against there will. You have isolated yourself as a ruling class, while at the same time consolidating every aspect of power within soceity into your hands. How then can it wither away? How can you do this, while at the same time transfering power over to the workers? You cannot do both things at the same time, which will lead to the state continuing to exist. The power structure that is created by the existence of this state will become what it starts out as. A dictatorship of a party over a country.

What happens if the revolution isn't international, the state must exist until the rest of the world "falls in line," this could take decades. The state is existing for decades, controlling society. Old leaders die, new leaders, opportunist and not as ideologically sound as their predecessors take control and this dictatorship begins to benifit this new ruling class. This is what happened in Russia after Lenins death, it has happened in China and Vietnam, and when Castro dies, it will happen there too. All of these countries have ended up becoming capitalist nations or on the transition to. When Castro dies, Cuba will become a capitalist nation. 40 years past the revolution, the vangaurd who control the state have long been replaced with people who have forgotton what communism is, the state has become an entity of control for a ruling elite who now have no intention of transfering power