Question About Post-Revolutionary Society

[Abadali_the_Scholar]

Greetings

I'm Confused about one thing about communism.

I see communism in idea a great thing, and i also lean towards marxism. you truly need one leader to defend you. if any country were to follow anarchism and go straight towards communism, then they would be crushed by themselves and by other countries.

is that the view of marxism? that the dictatorship is there to protect the (forgot the name :ph34r: ) class?

and thats not the true question i wanted to ask.

ok, when the "stages" are done and the dictatorship has dissolved, what happens? the people rule themselves?

can people truly rule themselves with out a higher power or ruler?

wouldnt it be rather lawless? what im asking is what happens in communism like what is the goverment? is there something like parliment? or the senate?

like what keeps the communist nation from going into all out anarchy (chaos without a goverment)?

[redstar2000]

You truly need one leader to defend you.

This rather graphically illustrates a problem that all people who are new to the left encounter.

You find yourself distressed, for one reason or another, by capitalist reality...but your habits of thinking, your basic assumptions, are still largely conditioned by what you learned was "true" as told by the capitalists themselves.

Consider your initial statement above: what makes you think a "leader" ever defends anyone but himself?

Indeed, doesn't history show the exact opposite? The "leader" expects everyone to defend him! :o

Who needs that?


If any country were to follow anarchism and go straight towards communism, then they would be crushed by themselves and by other countries.

Sez who? And why?

Isn't it the case that the people who say this stuff are always people who want to sit on a throne themselves?

And isn't it the same kind of people who presided over the catastrophic defeat of 20th century communism?

In other words, the people who we know as Leninists (Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc.) all agree that a "leader" is "required" to "avoid defeat".

But their "great leaders" all lost anyway!


Can people truly rule themselves without a higher power or ruler?

That's the key question of our era!

Almost every source you consult today will shout "NO!"

Politicians and preachers, corporate CEOs and generals, schoolteachers and cops, socialists and Leninists, agree that the working class "cannot rule itself".

Only a small number of real communists and anarchists say yes, the working class can and should rule itself!

That may seem to you an "outrageous" idea. Certainly most people, even most workers, find it "pretty far out".

Yet, if Marx was right, then the time will come when it will not seem "far out" at all...but will instead be received as plain common sense.

As it seems to me now: after all, on what grounds should a few rule and the rest obey?

What is Communism? A Brief Definition (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

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

[Essential Insignificance]

Redstar2000 has answered your enquires already, but I'll add my little bit; perhaps just for clarification.


is that the view of marxism? that the dictatorship is there to protect the (forgot the name ) class?

The proletarian class.

The proletarian class, is one of the most historically influential social classes in modern day capitalist society, distinguished by the class struggle: wage laborers are hired and exploited by capital

Yes, between the transformation from a capitalist "based" society to a communist "based" society, there lies a stage of the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat".

According to Marx, the forceful use of the newly gained state power by the working class, would be used against class "enemies" during the passage from capitalism to communism


ok, when the "stages" are done and the dictatorship has dissolved, what happens? the people rule themselves?

Yes. But they would not exactly "rule" themselves, instead organize, produce and distribute equally the commonly owned and managed produce.

Planning and production would be determined by the communities "wants and needs"; where each individual would be allocated generated "goods", that they each personally desire.

[redstarshining]

I don't know how class consciousness is supposed to develop in a country whose media and whose educational institutions are in the hands of the ruling elite. As long as this is the case, and as long as the economic situation doesn't change dramatically I think a direct transition from capitalism to communism is totally unthinkable.

[Essential Insignificance]

I don't know how class consciousness is supposed to develop in a country whose media and whose educational institutions are in the hands of the ruling elite.

That's the conundrum... and one of the chief reasons why true working class-consciousness is taking a great deal of time to develop, beyond the current false-consciousness.

The working classes, in all Western nations, are continually "pumped" with bogus and ostentatious misinformations and propaganda, about there economical position, and when they naturally go on to compare themselves to those other "poor fools" living in underdeveloped nations -- things turn out to be "pretty good".

It's up to us to get out there and "spread the word", to fasten develops up!! :lol:


As long as this is the case, and as long as the economic situation doesn't change dramatically I think a direct transition from capitalism to communism is totally unthinkable.

How very pessimistic of you... I think.

So, your not saying that communism is beyond reality, but instead that a "direct transition" from capitalism to communism is "totally unthinkable".

So you think that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is fundamental to the transition to communism?

[Abadali_the_Scholar]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 4 2004, 03:55 AM
Yes. But they would not exactly "rule" themselves, instead organize, produce and distribute equally the commonly owned and managed produce.

Planning and production would be determined by the communities "wants and needs"; where each individual would be allocated generated "goods", that they each personally desire.



ok but how would this get done? who would get it done?
i know people can get together and get stuff done. but WILL they? even if they have a common goal alloted to them, they will still bicker against each other.

sorry if i have so many questions but im trying to understand communism fully, so dont hate me or call me dumb because i do not understand it.. :lol: thanks

[Abadali_the_Scholar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:41 AM
I don't know how class consciousness is supposed to develop in a country whose media and whose educational institutions are in the hands of the ruling elite. As long as this is the case, and as long as the economic situation doesn't change dramatically I think a direct transition from capitalism to communism is totally unthinkable.
I do believe this is why Revolutions start. No capitalist goverment is going to just turn its views over.

[redstarshining]

No, I do not think that communism is beyond reality, I just doubt that the proletariat will liberate itself anytime in the near future.
I think that what the media does to people is more than just misinformation or indoctrination, its a much more subtle form of manipulation that is present in almost any show you watch on TV, in almost any newspaper, the schoolbooks are full of it, and its extremely difficult to get out of peoples heads.
It will take a special effort to offer people another perspective, that's why I think that some kind of transitional period is needed.

[redstarshining]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:43 PM
I do believe this is why Revolutions start. No capitalist goverment is going to just turn its views over.
Of course not, I'm just saying it is not enough to just wait for people to become conscious, it's not going to happen all by itself. It's a long and hard process that has to be organized by someone, in whichever form.

[Essential Insignificance]

ok but how would this get done? who would get it done?

i know people can get together and get stuff done. but WILL they? even if they have a common goal alloted to them, they will still bicker against each other.

I think that the answers are extraordinarily straight forward.

Who does all of the real, "authentic" manual labor in capitalist society, that is, who constructs the products and who in fact distributes the products, thus manufactured -- the proletarians.

Now you might ask, "but the means of production are the possessions of, and managed by the capitalist."

This need not concern us at the present enquiry. As we can presuppose that the "means of production" would have been seized by the proletarian class and now would be under their combined, total control; that is, it would be now communally owned and put to use for the betterment of society.

The proletariat class would now, after this process, cease to be a class.

Now, you may question, "but the capitalist determines how much society is to produce, if we didn't have his crystal ball insight we would go to hell".

The market determines how much is going to be manufactured and regulated -- not the voracious capitalist. Supply and demand are a big playing factor on what is going to be produced and how much of it. Of course "over-production" is a eventual occurrence of newly founded capitalist based societies, and pre-established societies.

What does the capitalist do -- absolutely nothing!

He pays the wage-laborers a "fair" wage -- rubbish!

The wage-laborer pays the capitalist his grandiose salary!

The capitalist sells the manufactured articles that the proletarians produce, at a surplus-price, which the capitalist has come to acquire thought the "surplus-time" of labor, which the proletariat has embodied into the article. The proletarian pays for his own wage through the "necessary-labor" time of the working day, week, and/or month. He reproduces and keeps in existences himself -- not the capitalist.

But you might ask, "but he owns the means of production", to which I retort -- how did he come to acquire his large-scale machinery -- through the labor of the proletarian class.

As I have, hopefully shown; the capitalist class is redundant. What social purpose do they offer?

And that the proletariat class does already all of the real work in capitalist society, why do you think that they would have any trouble continuing with the process... I know I don't.


I think that what the media does to people is more than just misinformation or indoctrination, its a much more subtle form of manipulation that is present in almost any show you watch on TV, in almost any newspaper, the schoolbooks are full of it, and its extremely difficult to get out of peoples heads.

Agreed, they are terribly devious, deceitful and "Machiavellian". :lol:

But look at us two, look at all of the members on Che-lives; we are all (or most) living in Western, highly developed capitalist nations, and we've come to realize the factual motives, intentions, meanings and operations of capitalist society... what's to say that others, in large numbers, wont in time to come.

Who knows what's around the historical corner.


It will take a special effort to offer people another perspective, that's why I think that some kind of transitional period is needed.

So do I. But it's a extremely problematic situation.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 01:51 AM
I see communism in idea a great thing, and i also lean towards marxism. you truly need one leader to defend you.

is that the view of marxism? that the dictatorship is there to protect the (forgot the name :ph34r: ) class?



ok, when the "stages" are done and the dictatorship has dissolved, what happens? the people rule themselves?

can people truly rule themselves with out a higher power or ruler?

wouldnt it be rather lawless? what im asking is what happens in communism like what is the goverment? is there something like parliment? or the senate?

like what keeps the communist nation from going into all out anarchy (chaos without a goverment)?
I see communism in idea a great thing, and i also lean towards marxism. you truly need one leader to defend you.

Thats NOT marxism at all, thats more like stalinism or fascism.
Marxism is rather the opposite.

is that the view of marxism? that the dictatorship is there to protect the (forgot the name :ph34r: ) class?

The dicatorship of the proletarians is not i dictatorship over the proletarians in order to "protect" them. The dictatorship of the proletarians is a class dictatorship, by the proletarians. It is not a state ruled by a dictator, nor a party.
It is the proletarians organized defence of the revolution. It is the proletarians themselfs that organized this class dictatorship, not some elite of any kind.


ok, when the "stages" are done and the dictatorship has dissolved, what happens? the people rule themselves?

Yes, basicly. Ofcource i dont know exactly what form the communist society will take, just the basic essence so to speak.

The DotP is as I said the organized defence of the revolution, by the proletarians.
Their class dictatorship, their state. When the *****oisie, ehrmm bourgeoisie contrarevolution have been defeated, and the proletarians have ceased being proletarians, and then also the bourgeoisie have ceased being bourgeoise, and thus capitalism has ceased. Well, then the need for the proletarian state (DotP) is gone, how can there be a proletarian state without proletarians? And what need is there for a defence against the bourgeoisie when there are no bourgeosie?


can people truly rule themselves with out a higher power or ruler?

According to Marx, yes. In a communist society they can and will.
Ofcource people who know a great deal of removing cancer and stuff will still have authority in that area, etc but there wont be any accually "humans ruling over humans"-relationship.


wouldnt it be rather lawless? what im asking is what happens in communism like what is the goverment? is there something like parliment? or the senate?

As i said, no one can now exacly how the communist society will manifest itselfs,
the means of organization in the communist society will be developed in the communist process, in the class struggle, and might ofcource be changed if so wished later. We form our own means of organization. Maybe councils?

But I dont believe we would have parlaments or any structures like that. I guess that decisions will be made as close to those who are affected as possible.


like what keeps the communist nation from going into all out anarchy (chaos without a goverment)?


If we dont want any goverment, i dont see the problem. If so, let it be.
I think that humanity in a communist society is perfecly fit to decide its own future.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:41 AM
I don't know how class consciousness is supposed to develop in a country whose media and whose educational institutions are in the hands of the ruling elite. As long as this is the case, and as long as the economic situation doesn't change dramatically I think a direct transition from capitalism to communism is totally unthinkable.
Class consiousness is developed in the class struggle.

[redstarshining]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:10 PM
Class consiousness is developed in the class struggle.
Yes, but it doesn't develop all by itself, that was my point. Members of the working class can very well be aware of the fact that they are being oppressed, while still not being able to properly analyze their situation. Most people who work 10 hours/day or more for minimum wage have better things to do in their spare time than reading and educating themselves. Somebody has to teach them, and this is what I'm worrying about: how do you effectively communicate with the MASSES (not long time members of an communist or anarchist movement), in a country whose educational system (and the media) is to the most part hostile to progressive ideas? I wouldn't argue that you necessarily need some kind of vanguard, but you most certainly need some period in which society is transformed by oppression of certain minorities.

EDIT: err, just realized that I'm kind of argueing with myself here, since nobody really seems to disagree with me on this

Btw: A return to reprasentitve democracy wouldn't be really needed in classless society, I think we can safely rule that form of organization out.

[Guest1]

What you need is to organize to get that out there. Go into the unions and try to radicalize them, communicate with the working class on a face to face level. Working class consciousness cannot come in a transition after revolution, working class consciousness must be developed now, to spark the revolution.

We are in the transitionary period! :lol:

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:45 PM
Yes, but it doesn't develop all by itself, that was my point. Members of the working class can very well be aware of the fact that they are being oppressed, while still not being able to properly analyze their situation. Most people who work 10 hours/day or more for minimum wage have better things to do in their spare time than reading and educating themselves. Somebody has to teach them, and this is what I'm worrying about: how do you effectively communicate with the MASSES (not long time members of an communist or anarchist movement), in a country whose educational system (and the media) is to the most part hostile to progressive ideas? I wouldn't argue that you necessarily need some kind of vanguard, but you most certainly need some period in which society is transformed by oppression of certain minorities.

EDIT: err, just realized that I'm kind of argueing with myself here, since nobody really seems to disagree with me on this

Btw: A return to reprasentitve democracy wouldn't be really needed in classless society, I think we can safely rule that form of organization out.
I dont think that class counciousness is to have read alot of 19th century beards.
You dont need to be a communist, or even now what the hell dialectics is, and who the fuck that guy trotsky was to be class concious. I dont thinkt that outspoken opinons are the best way to measure class counciousness, but rather to study how he/she/it acts. For example, in the USA, sometime at the end of WW2 the union of the carfactory held a vote about extending a treaty that said that the workers will not strike. Most workers voted yes to the proposal, but at the same time almost every single one of them went out in wild strike. Its not what they say, or even think that is important, but how they act. I know communists who in no way acts communistic in class struggles, and anti-communists that does so, etc.

Very well, I agree with much of what you have said anyway. By the way, read "the revolt in Torino", "we want everything!", or something...I have no idea of the english title of the book. The author is Nanni Balestrini anyway, and the book is totaly damn GREAT. It is a roman about an italien worker, and it is much about class counciousness. And, there is cool riots in it to. :)
Read it everyone!

[Essential Insignificance]

dont think that class counciousness is to have read alot of 19th century beards.
You dont need to be a communist, or even now what the hell dialectics is, and who the fuck that guy trotsky was to be class concious.

That's exactly right.

I think that a lot of members on Che-lives and for that matter, "radical socialists" in active movements, are under the impression that to have "class-consciousness" -- is to have a demand on Marxism, dialectics, history and economics... it's garbage!

But that's not to say that it wouldn't make "things" a lot more unambiguous and unproblematic to comprehend.

Marxism does illuminate a lot of the questions, which would be beyond "normal" intellects.

Marx did do a lot of the "hard work" for us.

[redstarshining]

I believe that there are different levels of "class consciousness". First of all, there is awareness of class divisions, which I believe is indeed a basic prerequisite for change, but still worlds away from fully developed class consciousness. Maybe "class awareness" would be a better suited term. This awareness of ones own socio-economical role in society is certainly something that _can_ develop all by itself in a society. If it does, it can adopt the strangest forms, depending on which influences the particular group of people is exposed to. Many people from the middle east for example are very well aware of the role Israel and the US play in the conflict and have therefore developed very anti-imperialist views, they are also aware of the relationship between burgeois and proletarian (they just don't call it that), yet they project their hatred on phantasies they call the "world jewery" or the "yankee".
Why? Because that's what they have been tought from the day they were born, because they were led to believe it.
To analyze ones own situation is one thing, to draw the right conclusions is something totally different, and requires actual study of the subject, using the tools of science (and, in this case, so do I believe, marxism). That's why I think that this "higher level" of class-consciousness can only develope when the right conditions have been established. Not because the people are stupid, or need a strong hand, but because they don't have access to some significant information. Once people have reached this level of consciousness so that a revolution takes places, they need to defend their collective knowledge against those who have an interest in restoring the old order.

That's what I meant when I said that I believe a transitional period is necessary.

EDIT #2: Sorry if this is hard to read, please understand that english is not my first language.

[Essential Insignificance]

I believe that there are different levels of "class consciousness".

I agree; revolutionary "socialist" would be indubitably the most theoretically, and in most cases, practically advanced, or all wage-laborers.


First of all, there is awareness of class divisions, which I believe is indeed a basic prerequisite for change, but still worlds away from fully developed class consciousness. Maybe "class awareness" would be a better suited term.

Perhaps, but I don't think that the "common" wage-laborer would look at his economical and social position in capitalist society, as a "class struggle" or even see a (real) class distinction between himself and the bourgeoisie.

Rather, I think, he would look at himself much more simply -- himself the "lesser" and "poorer" and the "boss" the "better" and "richer". It really doesn't matter, I suppose; they would still arrive at the same conclusion -- just free of Marxian magniloquence.


This awareness of ones own socio-economical role in society is certainly something that _can_ develop all by itself in a society. If it does, it can adopt the strangest forms, depending on which influences the particular group of people is exposed to.

Most certainly.

And, of course, it does!

Marx thought that working class consciousness would develop, advance and accumulate each successive year; and year by year each generation of proletarians would become more and more revolutionary in opposition to their oppressive conditions, until a revolutionary "bang".

Many different socio-economical develops can speed these developments up (i.e. imperialist invasion, pay cuts)... but it seems "palpable" to say, that revolutionary consciousness is constantly escalating and then (to our repugnance) plummeting. But, in due course, I think, along with Marx -- class-consciousness will "spread" globally... and the rest will be history! :lol:


To analyze ones own situation is one thing, to draw the right conclusions is something totally different, and requires actual study of the subject, using the tools of science (and, in this case, so do I believe, marxism).

Sure, but people can, and they do, draw their own conclusions, and their "right" -- a lot of the time!

Marxism is a marvelous "tool"; it makes things a lot more understandable, quicker.

Keep in mind, that the vast majority of proletarian's don't have the time, to sit down and actually study, in depth, Marxism. Some, even in highly developed countries, are semi-illiterate or worse -- totally illiterate.

The great "paradox" -- Marxism is a "tool" for proletarians, but the majority of them don't understand it's "balderdash"!



That's why I think that this "higher level" of class-consciousness can only develope when the right conditions have been established. Not because the people are stupid, or need a strong hand, but because they don't have access to some significant information. Once people have reached this level of consciousness so that a revolution takes places, they need to defend their collective knowledge against those who have an interest in restoring the old order

Capitalism, itself, has created the "right conditions" for class-consciousness to develop!

It's just a matter of time.

--------------------------------
By the way, your English is first-class. :)