A Thread For Red

[T_SP]

This is NOT a personal attack on RS2000, it's just that he is so prominent on this board his views are very clear on many subjects and I know I'll be digging up old shit here that RS2000 may not want to go over but maybe others will.

Life is one big learning curve then you hit old age and forget it all. So sorry for bringing up a well flogged horse but lets let this be the final one.


Okay, firstly I dug this up from RS2k's own website, which is very good by the way and well worth a butchers,


1. "Dialectics" is crap.
A very ininspired statement! What part of Dialectics is crap? The theory of Quantity->Quality? Negation of the Negation? Or is it the interpenetration of opposites? Is it all three? I find it strange that you reject the Dialectic but accept 'Historical materialism' which is in itself a Dialectic.


2. The labor theory of value requires fresh empirical evidence of its validity.
Why? What empirical evidence would convince you? Or what form of empirical evidence would convince you of it's validty?




3. The "transitional workers' state" is obsolete.
Why is it obsolete? Does this mean that all works prior to the Redstarpapers are obsolete, just because you say so? Why put others off with such outlandish statements when others could make there own minds on it?


4. Historical materialism is real.
In the same way the Dialectic isn't? I have outlined more above.


5. Classes exist and struggle for supremacy.
Yes true, does this not make clear why the dictatorship of the Proletariat i.e Proletariat rule is an inevitable stage following a revolution?


6. We don't really know yet whether communism is possible...but it's worth a try.
Absolutely comrade and trying to orate that to others can make Socialism/Communism sound very dicey and Utopian how can we avoid this if we offer no future to the working class?


In summary, I'm NOT expecting RS2000 to answer all or any of these Q's and I hope all will chip in when appropriate.
One more thing RS2000 and others please take time to look at this site before rejecting the Dialectic, it is an important revolutionary tool IMO.


What the Heck is Dialectics?? (http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/whatheck.htm)

[Osman Ghazi]

From that site:

1) Everything is made of opposites.

No object could hold together without an opposing force to keep it from flying apart.

Doesn't that kind of negate the possibility of classless society? I mean, without the ruling class, the proletariat will 'fly apart' right?

Just a thought.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 01:55 PM

One more thing RS2000 and others please take time to look at this site before rejecting the Dialectic, it is an important revolutionary tool IMO.

Can you give me a specific example of when you've found it to be a "useful revolutionary tool"?

[T_SP]

How'd you work that out in a classless society? If there are no classes how can one conflict the other?

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 09:06 PM
Can you give me a specific example of when you've found it to be a "useful revolutionary tool"?
Absolutely!
For instance the increase in Trade union struggles means that it is likely that as one TU succeeds in their battle for pay and conditions another will see that a strike is a good way to achieve their goals. It is possible that we may see a genral strike in the future! Quantity-> Quality

So ultimately it is a good tool for determining the mood of the working class, no?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 05:11 PM
Absolutely!
For instance the increase in Trade union struggles means that it is likely that as one TU succeeds in their battle for pay and conditions another will see that a strike is a good way to achieve their goals. It is possible that we may see a genral strike in the future! Quantity-> Quality

So ultimately it is a good tool for determining the mood of the working class, no?
There really isn't any way to know...unless this general strike actually happens. Even then, who's the say if it happened due to the dialectical reasoning you're using?

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I still am unsure if dialectics is useful. I don't reject it, bit I'm unconvinced.

[T_SP]

Look at it like this, if a man starts plucking hairs from his head, the first 10000 or so and nobody notices but by the time he's plucked half of em out there's a difference right? Quantity into Quality. A quantitative change leads to a qualitative change

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 08:11 PM
Absolutely!
For instance the increase in Trade union struggles means that it is likely that as one TU succeeds in their battle for pay and conditions another will see that a strike is a good way to achieve their goals. It is possible that we may see a genral strike in the future! Quantity-> Quality

So ultimately it is a good tool for determining the mood of the working class, no?
That could be figured out using ordinary the ordinary reasoning capacity of the ordinary person.

If a strike works, rational evidence supports the hypothesis that it might work again. The only way to know is to try it, though.

It makes sense that a general strike might work. I'd figured that out long before having ever heard of "dialects".

I really don't see what dialects has to do with it.

[redstar2000]

What part of Dialectics is crap?...I find it strange that you reject the Dialectic but accept 'Historical materialism' which is in itself a Dialectic.

All of it is crap. Specifically, it does not describe how the real world works.

You can make it "seem plausible" in words by recasting ordinary language into "dialectical" terminology.

But as soon as you try to replace the methods of science with "dialectics" in the real world, you come to grief.

If "dialectics" were "true", we'd cook our dinners in the freezer and store our ice cream in the oven.

"Quantity into quality" indeed. :lol:

Historical materialism, on the other hand, does not need the dialectic at all. You concentrate your attention on real things: the means of production (technology), the relations of production (classes) that derive from those means, the struggle between those classes for supremacy, etc.

Of course, if you want to "predict the future" and don't have a crystal ball to hand, you can always "use" "dialectics".

Or astrology. Or the tarot. Or the livers of ritually slaughtered mammals... :lol:


Why? What empirical evidence would convince you? Or what form of empirical evidence would convince you of its validity?

If the labor theory of value (in some form) is true, then the empirical (though indirect) evidence would be found in "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time".

But that is a bastard of a problem to research, for many reasons. My hope is that in the coming years some young and energetic Marxist economists will be able to do it...but until that happens, we are on "very thin ice".


Why is it obsolete? Does this mean that all works prior to the Redstarpapers are obsolete, just because you say so? Why put others off with such outlandish statements when others could make [up] their own minds on it?

The "transitional workers' state" is obsolete because the proletariat that makes "the next wave" of revolutions will be far more advanced than the proletariat of Marx's time or even Lenin's time.

They will not "need" a "vanguard party" to "teach them" how to "run things".

As to my "outlandish statements" putting people off...well, that can't be helped. People will "make up their own minds" whether I speak or remain silent.

I prefer to speak. :P


Yes true, does this not make clear why the dictatorship of the Proletariat i.e Proletariat rule is an inevitable stage following a revolution?

Not in the sense that I think you're using the phrase -- that is, a fully-formed centralized state apparatus under the rule of a "vanguard party".

All that phrase -- "the dictatorship of the proletariat" -- really means is any form of human society in which the proletariat, by one set of mechanisms or another, runs the show.

It can be through workers' councils, through trade unions, through demarchic function groups (which I rather like), through communes of varying sizes and federations thereof, etc.

What does not seem to be a useful option is the Leninist "workers' state". It has shown a most serious weakness wherever it's been attempted...namely a devolution back into capitalism.

Sensible people abandon methods that don't work.


Absolutely comrade and trying to orate that to others can make Socialism/Communism sound very dicey and Utopian how can we avoid this if we offer no future to the working class?

You mean like a warranty? A "money-back guarantee"? :lol:

Look, if you recruit someone to communism based on the "promise" that communism "is inevitable", then you're not really recruiting a new communist...you're recruiting a believer -- one who "has faith" that he's "on the winning side".

That's of little or no use.

What we need is not "faith" but rational convictions. We need real communists who constantly examine material reality with a critical eye.

That means a scientific attitude to all aspects of revolutionary theory.

It is Marx's hypothesis that the working class will end both capitalism and even the very idea of class society.

It was and is a brilliant hypothesis...and there's fragmentary evidence in its support.

But it hasn't happened yet. We have yet to see a viable communist society that works over the long term.

Given the options that we face (that is, more and more of the same old shit), I do indeed think communism is "worth a try".

But don't kid yourself (or others) that you have "history" in your back pocket or that you can win "just by showing up".

It's going to be a lot harder than that. And "inevitable victories" only achieve that status in hindsight.

:redstar2000:

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

[Osman Ghazi]

How'd you work that out in a classless society? If there are no classes how can one conflict the other?

Exactly. According to dialectics, no forces, nor classes can remain unopposed, they will 'fly apart'. So, how can you even entertain the possibilty of a classless society, i.e. one that has no force opposing it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Exactly. According to dialectics, no forces, nor classes can remain unopposed, they will 'fly apart'. So, how can you even entertain the possibilty of a classless society, i.e. one that has no force opposing it.

Maybe that's because a truly classless society is impossble. There will always be opposition to socialism.We can't change that. Butonce socialism exists, the people will be able to wield power and protect their class intersetas a whole by protecting socialism from those who aspire to "steal" autonomy to gain power.

I don't really know, I'm just guessing here.

[Osman Ghazi]

I was just pointing out that in that respect, dialectics and communism seem incompatable.

[Hate Is Art]

The "transitional workers' state" is obsolete because the proletariat that makes "the next wave" of revolutions will be far more advanced than the proletariat of Marx's time or even Lenin's time.

They will not "need" a "vanguard party" to "teach them" how to "run things".

How will it be more advanced? Will we all be clever or just cleaner?

We may not need a vanguard to teach, we need it to organise, to give the working class a direction, you can only do so much before you have to implement a revolutionary party to keep things moving in the same direction.

A mob of people is never going to be able to take or even keep power. A group of people with clear, organised aims and objectives is what we need.

[NovelGentry]

We may not need a vanguard to teach, we need it to organise, to give the working class a direction, you can only do so much before you have to implement a revolutionary party to keep things moving in the same direction.

What the hell kind of statement is this? It's not a revolutionary party that has to keep things moving, it's the implementation of the state, which according ot Marx is the proletariat organized as a ruling class.

This is no different than the formation of the government (creation of the constitution et al) after the revolutionary war. There was no specification that a single party had to lead, the people elected their leaders -- who certainly were members of parties or were aligned as such based on their thought.

What you argue is like saying that our government could only be lead by a republican, not a democrat, not a green party candidate, or no other party but one. This is simply not the case. The state is organized independent of a party and allows for any party to come to certain power.

What makes this different from other situations is several points. The first is that only the proletariat has a say in this. The second is that from the point of the state's creation onward, only the proletariat has a say in it. It's restrictive democracy -- and instead of opening it up to all and assuming the bourgeoisie will have no power because they are a minority we forcibly disallow them to even take part in it. Hence why it is a dictatorship of the proletariat.


A mob of people is never going to be able to take or even keep power.

If you truly believe this then I suggest you give up on the idea of revolution right now. Certainly it comes down how you define "mob." Most mobs are a mob because they have the same goals and they are organized. Why do you think organized crime was called the mob? Not to mention the countless mobs from ages ago who would protest together. The reason they form a mob is because they already have the same goals in mind. If they didn't, they would just be a bunch of people rioting.


A group of people with clear, organised aims and objectives is what we need.

The proletariat would have this at the point of revolution and after, or else revolution would never occur. So I don't see why they can't decide on the issues and use the state simply as a means of organizing what they vote through.

[redstar2000]

How will it be more advanced? Will we all be clever or just cleaner?

We will know more...a lot more!

Consider the western European proletariat of Marx's time or the Russian proletariat of Lenin's time.

Semi-literate at best, saturated with superstition (religion), permeated with patriotism and racism, etc. Not to mention the marked propensity to seek redemption from "great leaders".

Consider the actual class structure of even the most advanced capitalist countries back then...they all (except England) had huge peasant populations steeped in "the muck of rural idiocy".

In my opinion, things have already changed dramatically since those days...and will change even more in the same direction.

The revolutionary proletariat will be very well-informed (thanks to the internet), will be almost entirely atheist, and will be consciously both anti-patriotic and egalitarian.

And there will be no peasantry of any consequence remaining.

The whole purpose of the "transitional workers' state" was to "develop" (both materially and ideologically) the necessary conditions for the establishment of communism.

Those things will already have taken place when the next wave of proletarian revolutions begin.

Thus the "transitional workers' state" is obsolete.

:redstar2000:

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Thus the "transitional workers' state" is obsolete.


I don't think so.
I think that you're misjudging the purpose of a transitional workers state. The final objective that we communist aspire to build can only be created as the result of a transitional workers' state. The transitional workers state will allow for the construction of the local and "federal" (or whatever you wanna call it) public organizations. You can't just skip the transitional worker's state and expect everything to fall in place! What are a bunch of completely autonomous local committees gonna accomplish in the ways of increasing the productive forces, creating equality among all localities, and protecting socialism?

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 12:24 AM

I don't think so.
I think that you're misjudging the purpose of a transitional workers state. The final objective that we communist aspire to build can only be created as the result of a transitional workers' state. The transitional workers state will allow for the construction of the local and "federal" (or whatever you wanna call it) public organizations. You can't just skip the transitional worker's state and expect everything to fall in place! What are a bunch of completely autonomous local committees gonna accomplish in the ways of increasing the productive forces, creating equality among all localities, and protecting socialism?
First of all - i think that a transitional worker's state is obsolete as well. And
why do i think it is? because why would we want a centralized state app
earatus in the first place - if we have just overthrew a capitalist governme
-nt? All we would be doing then is replacing the capitalist mode of product
-ion with the state capitalist mode of production (i.e. - The state "commun
-ist party controlling the mode of production instead of the workers. And
more to the point "Comrade" - it will carry all of the characteristics of a
capitalist economy.

A Socialist Government - in terms of material reality would claim to
be moving forward towards a real Communist society - but in reality -
we're just going back towards the fucking shithole of capitalism! Just
look at China - or Russia - or even more yet - VIETNAM!

A Real communist society will only be accomplished by the workers
themselves. No ONE ELSE IS GOING TO DO IT FOR THEM - NOT
EVEN A BUNCH OF LENINIST REFORMERS CLAIMING TO BE "SOCI
-ALIST" AND "COMMUNISTS" - BUT THE ENTIRE WORKING CLASS
ITSELF!!!!

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 09:24 PM

I don't think so.
I think that you're misjudging the purpose of a transitional workers state. The final objective that we communist aspire to build can only be created as the result of a transitional workers' state. The transitional workers state will allow for the construction of the local and "federal" (or whatever you wanna call it) public organizations. You can't just skip the transitional worker's state and expect everything to fall in place! What are a bunch of completely autonomous local committees gonna accomplish in the ways of increasing the productive forces, creating equality among all localities, and protecting socialism?
Centralization is not the same as coordination. We don't need a State to coordinate things. It's been a while since I've read it, but I remember Murray Bookchin's The Meaning of Confederalism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/gp/perspectives20.html) having some good insights on this issue.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

why would we want a centralized state app
earatus in the first place - if we have just overthrew a capitalist governme
-nt? All we would be doing then is replacing the capitalist mode of product
-ion with the state capitalist mode of production (i.e. - The state "commun
-ist party controlling the mode of production instead of the workers. And
more to the point "Comrade" - it will carry all of the characteristics of a
capitalist economy.

It wouldn't be state capitalist, because the power would rest in the hands of the workers themselves. The government would only wield power as a political arm of the working class, much like bourgeois governments wield power as a political arm of the capitalist class. The workers would indeed control the mode of production.


A Socialist Government - in terms of material reality would claim to
be moving forward towards a real Communist society - but in reality -
we're just going back towards the fucking shithole of capitalism! Just
look at China - or Russia - or even more yet - VIETNAM!

That's because socialism wasn't practiced at all. Revisionists gained power and state capitalism ensued. That doesn't mean that we have to give up on Marxism-Leninism, it means that we have to fight revisionism more.


A Real communist society will only be accomplished by the workers
themselves. No ONE ELSE IS GOING TO DO IT FOR THEM - NOT
EVEN A BUNCH OF LENINIST REFORMERS CLAIMING TO BE "SOCI
-ALIST" AND "COMMUNISTS" - BUT THE ENTIRE WORKING CLASS
ITSELF!!!!

No shit. And thanks for the UNDERLINED CAPS, because otherwise I wouldn't have noticed the importance of every single word you wrote.



Centralization is not the same as coordination. We don't need a State to coordinate things. It's been a while since I've read it, but I remember Murray Bookchin's The Meaning of Confederalism having some good insights on this issue.


I reckon we do need a state to coordinate things, but I'll give you another chance to come up with some evidence of why that should not be so.

[redstar2000]

The final objective that we communist aspire to build can only be created as the result of a transitional workers' state.

Sez who?

And why should he be believed?


What are a bunch of completely autonomous local committees gonna accomplish in the ways of increasing the productive forces, creating equality among all localities, and protecting socialism?

It's possible that the "productive forces" may not need to be "increased". (gasp! :o) Stop thinking in terms of Russia in 1917!

Further, "equality among all localities" is a meaningless phrase unless you specify what you mean by it. The Leninist states certainly didn't have such a thing -- the city where the central state apparatus was located (Moscow, Peking, etc.) always had first crack at all the goodies. The very lack of a central "locus of power" will probably do more for "equality among all localities" than anything a centralized state has ever accomplished.

As to "protecting socialism", we all know what you mean by this: professional army (probably conscript), professional police force, prisons, labor camps, etc.

No thanks!


It wouldn't be state capitalist, because the power would rest in the hands of the workers themselves. The government would only wield power as a political arm of the working class, much like bourgeois governments wield power as a political arm of the capitalist class. The workers would indeed control the mode of production.

Well, that's not what happened. How do you propose to manage things differently should you get the chance?

When the centralized state apparatus tries to screw the workers, what will happen? A "free election" to "throw the rascals out"? :lol:


Revisionists gained power and state capitalism ensued. That doesn't mean that we have to give up on Marxism-Leninism, it means that we have to fight revisionism more.

And where did those "terrible revisionists" come from?

They came straight from the leadership of the Leninist parties themselves!


I reckon we do need a state to coordinate things, but I'll give you another chance to come up with some evidence of why that should not be so.

Sorry, but the 20th century is rich with examples of what's hiding behind that innocent word "co-ordination".

Once again, no thanks!

:redstar2000:

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Sez who?

And why should he be believed?

I already explained why a central government during the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary. You even quoted my explanation.


It's possible that the "productive forces" may not need to be "increased".

No, it's not possible.
What's your alternative? Decreasing the productive forces?


Further, "equality among all localities" is a meaningless phrase unless you specify what you mean by it. The Leninist states certainly didn't have such a thing -- the city where the central state apparatus was located (Moscow, Peking, etc.) always had first crack at all the goodies. The very lack of a central "locus of power" will probably do more for "equality among all localities" than anything a centralized state has ever accomplished.

How exactly do you think that these independent regions will be equal if there is no central bureaucracy to maintain living standard and if there is no central economy to redistribute the goods?


As to "protecting socialism", we all know what you mean by this: professional army (probably conscript), professional police force, prisons, labor camps, etc.

What do you suggest?
I guess you liked the result of the Paris Commune....


Well, that's not what happened. How do you propose to manage things differently should you get the chance?

When the centralized state apparatus tries to screw the workers, what will happen? A "free election" to "throw the rascals out"?

The central state apparatus would only "screw over" the people if the bourgeoisie somehow gains influence and overpowers the working class. That just means that we have to fight the bourgeoisie more next time.


And where did those "terrible revisionists" come from?

They came straight from the leadership of the Leninist parties themselves!

They're only politicians. They work in the interest of the ruling class, whether that's the working class or the bourgeoisie.

[NovelGentry]

No, it's not possible.
What's your alternative? Decreasing the productive forces?

Maybe his alternative is that they just stay the same? I think what he's trying to say is unlike the USSR, the majority of the world has now lived under capitalism, thus we've already had the time to industrialize and produce more goods then we really need. We have a surplus of most things.


How exactly do you think that these independent regions will be equal if there is no central bureaucracy to maintain living standard and if there is no central economy to redistribute the goods?

Assuming he's arguing against the transitional workers state, which he IS last I checked, then I think he's following the line that the people are to rule. Why would the people overthrow the means of protecting social injustice to replace it with more social injustice? I'm with many other people on this... I believe in a transitional workers state, but I don't think it has anything to do with centralized bureauocracy. Plain and simple, I take Marx for what it says, we're centralizing power in the hands of the proletariat, that doesn't mean that the proletariat has to be lead by centralized power.

While I do believe there has to be some form of state, I do not believe it HAS to be centralized. Simply organized post-revolution so that it is efficient. Whether it is a party that organizes this or not, I don't think really matters. It certainly might make things easier, but a party organizing the proletariat as a ruling class is a lot different than the party becoming the ruling class.


What do you suggest? I guess you liked the result of the Paris Commune....

Not too much different than the end result of any nation which has had these things. I think a balanced must be reached for the transitional state, which is why I believe in the transitional state. I don't think you can just shoot from one to the other and have it work. But I believe the people should be equally armed with any professional army. Furthermore, if the proletariat as a whole is in true power, then the army should not be listening to anything but their votes anyway. However, I do believe the people themselves should be equally armed, not just for policing purposes which I certainly believe should be communally based, but also to work with the army to protect against the case of outside capitalist/imperial forces taking any sort of control. This would be difficult or impossible in a situation where a near worldwide revolution was happening, so it would be a non-issue, but I don't think we should have to wait for such a situation to demand the destruction of capitalism, thus there must be a method for protecting such a communist willed nation surrounded by imperialism.

In the end I'm a firm believer that it will not succeed if other nations do not do the same, but it can certainly run it's due course and have a period of time in which other nations can progress that way. There's no need for it to happen at EXACTLY the same time. Just within a reasonable time frame.


The central state apparatus would only "screw over" the people if the bourgeoisie somehow gains influence and overpowers the working class. That just means that we have to fight the bourgeoisie more next time.

Precisely why a central state apparatus should not exist. The people as a whole should be the state apparatus. Such a decentralized "government" is not vulnerable to a single bourgeois thinking communist or bourgeoisie destroying the entire thing. You say it's a matter of "only if" I say it's a matter of "when." But in your situation if it does happen, then the whole thing is destroyed (unless the people revolt again immediately)... in the situation I'm talking about it's a non-issue as the people have the final word, and furthermore have a democratic means of destroying what little power an executive leader would have.

[VukBZ2005]

The Second reason i'm opposed to the "Transitional worker's state" is because
it would lead to the same thing again - and i don't think it would help our image
as we are trying to show people that Communism is not the control of a spe
-cial elite over them - but the abolition of class society and the dictatorship of
capital.

[redstar2000]

What's your alternative? Decreasing the productive forces?

We need to produce more of what people need and a great deal less of what people have been taught to want.

This shift in productive priorities might indeed involve an over-all decrease in total production and a significant increase in leisure time for the working class.

You have a problem with that?


How exactly do you think that these independent regions will be equal if there is no central bureaucracy to maintain living standard[s] and if there is no central economy to redistribute the goods?

You're not paying attention. When there were central bureaucracies, they did not "maintain living standards" or "redistribute the goods"...at least not equally.

What I expect is that "poor" localities will go to "rich" localities and say "give us what you don't actually need for your own use"...and I expect the "rich" localities to agree to this just request.

Why? Because if they don't, they risk, sooner or later, war. Being rational, I assume that's a risk they will decline to run.

Another way, of course, is to just abandon the "poor localities" altogether and re-settle people (over a period of time) in the "rich" localities.

Still another way would be for the "rich localities" to build up the productive forces in the "poor localities" even while reducing their own productive forces.

There's lots of ways to handle the problem...and people, not being stupid, will figure them out.


What do you suggest?

I guess you liked the result of the Paris Commune....

Well, if you want to put it that way, it is better to be defeated than it is to defeat yourself.

If you are defeated by reaction, you can always hope for a re-match in the future. But if you embrace measures that essentially destroy your revolution from within, then the outcome of struggle against reactionaries becomes moot -- even if you "win", you lose. Even if you successfully defeat the external reactionaries, you become reactionary yourself!

What good does that do?


The central state apparatus would only "screw over" the people if the bourgeoisie somehow gains influence and overpowers the working class. That just means that we have to fight the bourgeoisie more next time. -- emphasis added

Somehow? You mean "by magic"?

My thesis is that your centralized state apparatus attracts the kind of people who will screw over the workers and will become a new bourgeoisie.

That's what happened in the USSR, China, etc.

Your "remedy" for this problem -- "fight harder" -- is meaningless. It's your own "great leaders" who are going to be the ones who screw you...and in a Leninist state, you can't any more "fight them" than you can fly to the moon by flapping your arms.


They're only politicians. They work in the interest of the ruling class, whether that's the working class or the bourgeoisie.

But if the old bourgeoisie is gone, why shouldn't they, over time, begin to think of themselves as a new ruling class? They "play that role"...why shouldn't their consciousness evolve accordingly?

There's nothing in the role of "politician" that excludes the idea of joining the ruling class itself (think Cheney)...or becoming a member of a new ruling class if you think you can get away with it.

It's been done before.

:redstar2000:

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

We need to produce more of what people need and a great deal less of what people have been taught to want.

This shift in productive priorities might indeed involve an over-all decrease in total production and a significant increase in leisure time for the working class.


You have a problem with that?

Have a problem with what? A shift in productive priority? Not really, but we're not really discussing that, are we?

I reckon the total productive force still needs to be improved to raise the standard of living, decrease unemployment, and ultimately end the decadence that will be present in the capitalist countries where revolution will occur.

That can't be done with no central state apparatus.


You're not paying attention. When there were central bureaucracies, they did not "maintain living standards" or "redistribute the goods"...at least not equally.

What I expect is that "poor" localities will go to "rich" localities and say "give us what you don't actually need for your own use"...and I expect the "rich" localities to agree to this just request.

Why? Because if they don't, they risk, sooner or later, war. Being rational, I assume that's a risk they will decline to run.

Another way, of course, is to just abandon the "poor localities" altogether and re-settle people (over a period of time) in the "rich" localities.

Still another way would be for the "rich localities" to build up the productive forces in the "poor localities" even while reducing their own productive forces.

There's lots of ways to handle the problem...and people, not being stupid, will figure them out.

Why do you think that the wealthy regions will necessarily horde the supplies from the poorer regions? The poorer regions probably lacked representation. But that can be fixed rather easily, no?

Leaving the poorer regions to fend for themselves in a completely un-centralized national structure is much more prone to result in a fuck up. How will the exchange the goods, with no federal currency? With no federal exchange rates? With no federal quality standards? With no federal transportation standards?

Increasing the productive forces of these "marginalized" areas is an excellent idea. And I don't think that this would necessarily jeopardize the productive forces of the wealthier, more prominent localities.


Well, if you want to put it that way, it is better to be defeated than it is to defeat yourself.

If you are defeated by reaction, you can always hope for a re-match in the future. But if you embrace measures that essentially destroy your revolution from within, then the outcome of struggle against reactionaries becomes moot -- even if you "win", you lose. Even if you successfully defeat the external reactionaries, you become reactionary yourself!

What good does that do?

Considering your advocacy for almost no military, how do you pretend to defend your post-revolutionary society? Will the unarmed workers just defend themselves, redstar?


Somehow? You mean "by magic"?

My thesis is that your centralized state apparatus attracts the kind of people who will screw over the workers and will become a new bourgeoisie.

That's what happened in the USSR, China, etc.

Your "remedy" for this problem -- "fight harder" -- is meaningless. It's your own "great leaders" who are going to be the ones who screw you...and in a Leninist state, you can't any more "fight them" than you can fly to the moon by flapping your arms.

But if the old bourgeoisie is gone, why shouldn't they, over time, begin to think of themselves as a new ruling class? They "play that role"...why shouldn't their consciousness evolve accordingly?

There's nothing in the role of "politician" that excludes the idea of joining the ruling class itself (think Cheney)...or becoming a member of a new ruling class if you think you can get away with it.

It's been done before.

They can't think of themselves as a new ruling class, because they're not a ruling class! They're the operatives of the ruling class. They don't (or shouldn't) have power to act against the socialist agenda of the working class.

You're missing the point the ruling class is the working class, redstar.

[Individual]

I winn!

[redstar2000]

Have a problem with what?

With this.


This shift in productive priorities might indeed involve an over-all decrease in total production and a significant increase in leisure time for the working class.

I think you do have a problem, because then you wrote this...


I reckon the total productive force still needs to be improved to raise the standard of living, decrease unemployment, and ultimately end the decadence that will be present in the capitalist countries where revolution will occur. -- emphasis added.

What "decadence" would you like to "end"?

Why is it that Leninists always want us to work even harder than we do under capitalism?

Guess.


How will the exchange the goods, with no federal currency? With no federal exchange rates? With no federal quality standards? With no federal transportation standards?

It's unlikely that there will be any kind of currency, "federal" or otherwise. Goods are exchanged between localities according to need. Standards are set by negotiations between localities.


Considering your advocacy for almost no military, how do you pretend to defend your post-revolutionary society? Will the unarmed workers just defend themselves, redstar?

Slingshots & snowballs! :lol:

RZ, how many times must it be explained to you that no one proposes that workers be unarmed and defenseless?

Why do you assume that workers are incapable of defending their revolution "unless" they have a gang of generals to order them around?


[Politicians] can't think of themselves as a new ruling class, because they're not a ruling class! They're the operatives of the ruling class. They don't (or shouldn't) have power to act against the socialist agenda of the working class.

They're "not" because they "shouldn't"... :lol:

That's not even remotely credible!

:redstar2000:

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think you do have a problem, because then you wrote this...

I seem to have not catched the bit about decreasing the productive forces. I was referring to the part about a shift in production. Decreasing our productive forces is something that I certainly don't condone.


What "decadence" would you like to "end"?

Why is it that Leninists always want us to work even harder than we do under capitalism?

Guess.

A period of prosperity always ends in economic and social decadence. Production tends to decrease and things tend to overall get worse. That's why, I assume, Marx mentioned that the productive forces need to be increased once the people acquire power: in order to reverse this decadence.

We don't want to work harder, we simply want to gain as much as possible from our collective labor.


It's unlikely that there will be any kind of currency, "federal" or otherwise. Goods are exchanged between localities according to need. Standards are set by negotiations between localities.

Why would two autonomous entities exchange goods with nothing in return some of the time? Who is gonna force them? And I do believe that many localities will have less to offer, and some will have more. Somebody needs to monitor the exchange of goods and make sure that everyone gets what they need.


Slingshots & snowballs!

RZ, how many times must it be explained to you that no one proposes that workers be unarmed and defenseless?

Why do you assume that workers are incapable of defending their revolution "unless" they have a gang of generals to order them around?

So you wanna give everyone guns and have them defend themselves? Bad idea. Are they supposed to form private militias? Will that really solve the problem of the "negative mentality" created by military training? Not really.



They're "not" because they "shouldn't"...

That's not even remotely credible!

When I say that they shouldn't I mean that if that happens, the bourgeoisie has gained power, overpowered the working class, and acquired influence over the government. This shouldn't happen. It doesn't happen as a result of the vanguard party becoming currupt or anything like that, but as a result of the bourgeoisie attaining power. I'd also like to point out that fellas like Lenin were never subdued by the powers of the bourgeoisie, as you seem to be implying.

[redstar2000]

Decreasing our productive forces is something that I certainly don't condone.

I didn't imagine you would.


That's why, I assume, Marx mentioned that the productive forces need to be increased once the people acquire power: in order to reverse this decadence.

Yes, Marx "mentioned" it...in 1847!

Things have changed a lot since then.

A small country like Taiwan probably now outproduces all of the capitalist world of 1847.

And by a large margin at that.


Why would two autonomous entities exchange goods with nothing in return some of the time?

1. Because they're communists and it's the right thing to do.

2. Because not doing it risks violent conflict...a bad thing.


Somebody needs to monitor the exchange of goods and make sure that everyone gets what they need.

There's nothing in what I've said that would rule out a "central data bank" that would record production and distribution of all goods and services -- card-swipe technology makes this possible now -- and make real-time data available to anyone who wants to see it.

But it would be a "reporting" agency...not a "center of command". People would still have to work out their responses on a local level.


So you wanna give everyone guns and have them defend themselves? Bad idea.

That's what phrases like "armed workers' militias" and "the armed working class" mean.

That Leninists would think this a "bad idea" is understandable...for the same reason that the present ruling class doesn't like the idea.

They might shoot their "masters".

Or their master-wannabes.


Will that really solve the problem of the "negative mentality" created by military training? Not really.

Well, no one knows until we try it. But we are well familiar with the mind-set of the professional military and conscript armies are little improvement on that...since they are inevitably shaped by a professional officer corps.

So we'll see.


It doesn't happen as a result of the vanguard party becoming corrupt or anything like that, but as a result of the bourgeoisie attaining power.

Without firing a shot?

True, Bloody Boris did massacre a parliament and the Chinese party murdered all those kids in that big square. (And there's your "professional army" in action!)

But Yeltsin rose to prominence as a Communist Party official, as did his supporters. Most of the leaders of the reaction in China were actual veterans of "the Long March".

So how can you say that "it doesn't happen as a result of the vanguard party becoming corrupt"?

That's how it did happen!

You can't seriously argue that the old bourgeoisie in Russia or China staged an uprising and returned to power. These were entirely new capitalist classes...created by your so-called "transitional workers' state".


I'd also like to point out that fellas like Lenin were never subdued by the powers of the bourgeoisie, as you seem to be implying.

No? As soon as the civil war ended, Lenin introduced the "New Economic Policy"...the restoration of capitalist production in the USSR. In addition, he went whoring after foreign investments like a madman...it wasn't his fault that capitalism wasn't fully restored by 1935 or sooner.

Had he lived, it would have been.

:redstar2000:

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

1. Because they're communists and it's the right thing to do.

This doesn't make any sense, redstar.
Couldn't they just say that their own people need those 5,000 daily calories? Even if the neighboring district is on the brink of famine?


2. Because not doing it risks violent conflict...a bad thing.

It's been proven countless times that oppression and lack of necessities doesn't necessarily result in an uprising. Every third world nation today suffers from both of those and I don't see many successful popular uprisings that actually threaten the ruling class? Do you? There are a few, but nobody's worried, because they're not gonna accomplish much.


There's nothing in what I've said that would rule out a "central data bank" that would record production and distribution of all goods and services -- card-swipe technology makes this possible now -- and make real-time data available to anyone who wants to see it.

But it would be a "reporting" agency...not a "center of command". People would still have to work out their responses on a local level.

How exactly can a public organization have economic power, but not social power? How does that work out, redstar?


That's what phrases like "armed workers' militias" and "the armed working class" mean.

That Leninists would think this a "bad idea" is understandable...for the same reason that the present ruling class doesn't like the idea.

They might shoot their "masters".

Or their master-wannabes.

So do you think that Cuba could have protected itself from American aggression with only some voluntary militias?

Please tell me you're kidding.

[NovelGentry]

This doesn't make any sense, redstar.
Couldn't they just say that their own people need those 5,000 daily calories? Even if the neighboring district is on the brink of famine?

It makes sense because they're communist. We're communist, would you not do this? Do you know any other communist who WOULDN'T do this? If you're going to ignore that people living under communism will have communist ideals and a communist way of thinking then, yes, it will not work, and it won't make sense.

In terms of how this works during the transitional workers state. Well quite simply I don't agree that it does. At least not immediately. I think this idea of communal organization must be reserved for advanced socialism during this transitonal state. Early on I think it'd be best to keep things just the way it is, and as I said, I argue for a state apparatus, but I argue that it shold be democratically controlled by the proletariat.

The revolution would more than likely occur in a single generation, thus there is a generation who still, no matter what reasons they revolted, have bourgeois thoughts. It's something ingrown to them, and it would take time and further education to destroy. This is why I believe in the transitonal workers state. Even if you have a majority of the proletariat, which would still be a majority of the people (like here in the states), the minority in the proletariat may not understand -- and even the majority proletariat may not FULLY understand. Thus, in order to keep things in smooth operationg I think an executive state is necessary, but once again, their power should be directly placed in the hands of the people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Early on I think it'd be best to keep things just the way it is, and as I said, I argue for a state apparatus, but I argue that it shold be democratically controlled by the proletariat. -- Emphasis added

The point of revolution is to destroy the old order, not to preserve it! And no, the current state apparatus cannot be 'democratically controlled' for the quite simple reason that those in power, whether they be bourgeois politicians or Leninist despots, will never allow it.


The revolution would more than likely occur in a single generation, thus there is a generation who still, no matter what reasons they revolted, have bourgeois thoughts. It's something ingrown to them, and it would take time and further education to destroy.

Correct identification of problem...


This is why I believe in the transitonal workers state.

...Incorrect conclusion. Why should a state be more capable than the entire working class at education and destroying bourgeois thought?


Even if you have a majority of the proletariat, which would still be a majority of the people (like here in the states), the minority in the proletariat may not understand -- and even the majority proletariat may not FULLY understand. Thus, in order to keep things in smooth operationg I think an executive state is necessary, but once again, their power should be directly placed in the hands of the people.

Again, why should a self-appointed elite be more qualified than the entire revolutionary working class, who have actually been through the shit wrought by capitalism?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 10:28 PM
This doesn't make any sense, redstar.
Couldn't they just say that their own people need those 5,000 daily calories? Even if the neighboring district is on the brink of famine?
There are countless other collectives working with them and providing them with what they need. If they began to be "stingey" with their goods, they could suddenly find themselves without essentials provided by those collectives.


It's been proven countless times that oppression and lack of necessities doesn't necessarily result in an uprising. Every third world nation today suffers from both of those and I don't see many successful popular uprisings that actually threaten the ruling class? Do you? There are a few, but nobody's worried, because they're not gonna accomplish much.
See above, but ask yourself why those uprisings are so hard to come by. Because for any real change to occur, the critical mass required is very high. The reason for that is, very large swaths of territory are dominated by centralized political figures. An uprising in one region would quickly find that for any real change it would need the support of many more regions perhaps unaffected by their plight. The decentralization of worker's organizations ensures that change is quick, easy, and affects only those regions that implement it. This gives the opportunities for collectives to deal with their own unique needs much more efficiently than a government in Washington or Moscow ever could. It also makes it much easier for those people to resist and eliminate threats to power, because what positions of limited power may develop in one or two collectives are isolated to those collectives only. A counterrevolution can never seizes power through the grassroots, opting always for the quickest and easiest method, seizing major structures that already have it. The more centralized, the less they need to take to complete their victory.

Eliminate the structures they use, and that threat is almost non-existent.


How exactly can a public organization have economic power, but not social power? How does that work out, redstar?
No, that organization has no power, it's merely a statistical agency of sorts. Most likely using the internet and smart card technology to provide information to all the collectives about production and distribution trends on a weekly basis perhaps. Collectives discuss together, and amongst themselves, how best to respond to those details. Such information could range from consumption and production statistics and rankings for collectives (per capita perhaps), which would work as an honour and shame list of sorts to keep such things in check, to statistics of what kinds of products are in demand or short supply.


So do you think that Cuba could have protected itself from American aggression with only some voluntary militias?
You must admit guerrilla warfare is a clearly decentralized tactic which is the best way to fight more numerous and/or better equipped enemies. Centralized armies would mean suicide.

The voluntary militias in Spain managed to hold off 3 better equipped armies for 4 years in a war that should have ended in 12 hours. The evidence is there to show that when workers know what they are fighting for and are living it day to day, they don't need an officer class to keep them in line. Even the "Communist" party's official in Spain admitted that once his party's plans of crushing the autonomous worker's movement there where complete, the newly established regular army would fall for lack of morale and a general sense of defeat.

[NovelGentry]

The point of revolution is to destroy the old order, not to preserve it!

Here you show your black and white perspective of the world. You make it clear that you think the proletariat is rising to destroy the state, NOT so. The proletariat is rising to destroy a state which is not representative of them, a state which exploits them because they only represent the class with the most money. Not EVERY proletarian is revolting for communism.... not every single one interprets communism the same. So to assume that they magically somehow "fall into communism" post revolution is insane.

I think you're misinterpretting what I said, by "keeping things just the way they are" I meant not breaking economic organization into communes. The transitional workers state (if you do believe one should exist) has to focus on stability and bringing people, who may or may not have any idea what communism is supposed to be, to communism. In order to do that you can't just rapidly change things and destroy any semblance of the normal way of life. You have to introduce these ideas as positive change.

The stipulation that most people against the transitional workers state seem to argue is that the people wouldn't have overthrown the capitalist government if their aim was not something better. And I agree, but peoples idea of "better" does not necessarily have to be communism. So whether you like to think so or NOT, the proletariat will become fractured in what they believe should happen. There's two ways to combat this (once again, assuming you believe in transitional workers state as a method to do so). The first is to employ a centralized government with almost totalitarian control by a single person or single party. This might be OK if we didn't already discuss the flaws in this. The only other method to do it is to organize that state just the same, but keep the power within the hands of the entire proletariat. Outside of that you're looking at anarchism (which some argue is a good thing.) But if you ask me anarchism would be prone to being destroyed by more powerful outside imperialist forces, or by internal forces in which various groups of people do not agree with the way things are running.


And no, the current state apparatus cannot be 'democratically controlled' for the quite simple reason that those in power, whether they be bourgeois politicians or Leninist despots, will never allow it.

I agree, the state apparatus in it's CURRENT FORM cannot be democratically controlled, this is why a new state apparatus must be created. What you seem to think is that every state apparatus has to be the same, that it cannot somehow ensure that the people remain in power. I disagree, because unlike you I don't so rigidly define a state as "control." The state itself most certainly exists for control, but it's control is in the hands of the class it represents not in the state itself. In bourgeois government, it represents whoever has the most money. In a dictatorship of the proletariat the state is little more than a low powered executive force that is able to, like a foreman on a construction site, make sure the building doesn't collapse. Executive power is not legislative power, and furthermore it would be EXTREMELY limited executive power. Legislatively speaking, it is the proletariat who makes the laws. Much like advanced executive decisions would come down to the proletariat. There is a balance which must be stricken, for example, if a state sponsored and supported military IS to exist then there is to be no "supreme" commander other than the people. They would be deciding that military's purpose, assuming they decide it should exist at all -- thus the military becomes nothing more than the official protector of the peoples will. This contrasts the executive and legislative combination powers of an government like say, the United States'. Under the system I propose legislative and at least a portion of executive power is put within the hands of the people through direct democracy. This means that the only way you're gonna pass an "article 58" under what I propose is if the people want it. Furthermore, the only way you're going to see to it that communal organization takes place, is if the people want it. The power of the state would go little beyond a) organizing said votes *not to be confused with controlling the voiting procedure as a whole* b) representing the people to foreign nations c) economic coordination.

If you want more about the idea of economic coordination, wait a bit. I think I'm gonna be writing a paper on my this later today.

Once again, you strike a balance, as I said, the people themselves would be equally armed. Once again, the problem is that the revolutionary generation would still have bourgeois line of thought. They obviously are fed up with the existing system enough to revolt, but that does not mean they agree completely on what the post-revolutionary system should look like. This idea that we "arm the people" alone or do not try to organize the people into anything even slightly representative of a state is ludacris. You'd have groups who side together and it would be mass civil war amongst god knows how many ideologies.


...Incorrect conclusion. Why should a state be more capable than the entire working class at education and destroying bourgeois thought?

It's not that the state itself is more capable, it's that the state can be organized to ensure such things. Take an example of education. Under a proposed system without a transitional workers state there is nothing that stops people from self-educating children, or groups from educating children to their ideology. As I said, you have to remember that you're going to have a split among people. They all revolted to overthrow the same thing, but they didn't revolt necessarily because they wanted the same thing to replace it. So if your education is strictly in the hands of the people, then the leninists will educate according to leninist ideals, the anarchists according to anarchists, etc..etc... and you just perpetuation the fragmentation and the liklihood of civil war. The only way anarchism makes sense is if only anarchists survive, and that still assumes every person you pin as an anarchist understands it properly. Much like the only way leninism can work is if only leninists survive. What I propose is a system where the proletariat as a whole, regardless of it's fragmentation, has the final word. Through this you are at least ensured to represent the majority (assuming something like IRV is in place). But even still, checks and balances are in place -- for example, it would be ILLEGAL to propose a bill that would modify the direct democratic form of the government. It woul be ILLEGAL to give a president or whatever represents the executive decisions of the people any more power than they already have. It, however, would not be illegal for the people to propose something that would take some of that executive power away.

The question of legality is easily enforced when you understand that the people control the military, and are equally armed as the military. This ensures two things. First, because the people outnumber the military and are equally armed they have a means to protect themselves in the event some sort of military loyalty formed to a specific party/group. However, this should NOT be the case if the military is made to understand there position as protectors of the people. As I said, under the current US system you see that legislative brance + executive branch hold complete control over the military. Under my system the legislative brance and a portion of the executive branch is the people -- thus there is no totalitarian control of the military. But the military makes sense to exist to protect against external imperialist forces, it makes sense to protect internal counter-revolutionary forces. Why should the people be constantly fighting revolution? What point do they put down their guns and begin to rebuild? The military ensures protection against all counter-revolutionary forces, internal and external, but being that it is completely controlled by the people stops it from becoming that force itself -- and in doing this allows the people to begin to return to some normal example of a society rather than constantly having to be toting guns around to shoot anyone they deem "counter revolutionary." Their arms are there, and they are there in the even they need them, but they do not have to become a normal accessory.


Again, why should a self-appointed elite be more qualified than the entire revolutionary working class, who have actually been through the shit wrought by capitalism?

AGAIN, this is not a self-appointed elite. It is a limited executive power controlled and appointed by the proletariat as a whole. Then you go on to make the assumption that those appointed by the proletarait would not understand the revolutionary working class or would not be members of them. I'm not sure where I ever said this. In fact, I've said that as a dictatorship of the proletariat is is ONLY the proletariat who is to hold such positions, and it is ONLY the proletariat who is to vote on such positions.

What you asusme here is that the proletariat is completely unified in the struggle. That the majority proletariat who made the revolution is all in favor of communism. Simply not the case. This is no worse than a leninist&#39;s idea that a minority proletariat or a (party) can represent the entire proletariat. You think the majority proletariat is all working towards communism? No.... they were certainly all working for the overthrow of capitalism, or else the revolution never would have happened. But the overthrow of capitalism does NOT automatically mean it&#39;s replacement with communism. You have Leninists, Democratic Socialists, Anarchists, <people like me>, and yes, some bourgeoisie still exist too. So how exactly is it again that you think they&#39;re all going to just magically agree on communism and make it work as it would within it&#39;s final stages from a transitional workers state? Is every person in the world/nation going to gather into a single building to discuss how to do this? Are they just going to magically do it all the same way and not trample on each others toes? No.... The fact is you&#39;re going to see civil war, and a bloody one at that. And the revolution that kills off the bourgeoisie is soon going to become a revolution to kill off the bourgeoisie aswell as any proletariat who disagrees with the system of the victor of that new revolution. If your leninists are a majority they are going to fight for the transitional workers state, and they&#39;re going to fight for it in a leninists form, thus they will attack anarchists, people like me, and anyone else who disagrees. The anarchists will probably be the most passive, in they&#39;re not really fighting for anything, as they would just much rather see it automagically happen, but this does not happen, so they will be forced to fight either in defense or to destroy the elements of society who are making this unable to happen.

Now this presents a strange contradiction. Because you might be saying to yourself "why wouldn&#39;t this happen anyway?" The fact is IT would, unless of course you have a situation where the revolution is distinctly lead by one of these fractions. This is why Leninist revolution can lead to a Leninist transitional workers state. Or why an anarchist revolution could lead to an anarchist-communist society as a post-revolution society. But how can you indeed argue that a revolution of the entire proletariat, or even a majority proletariat, is not going to have internally conflicting goals post-revolution? There HAS to be a winning ideology, whether it is won through pre-revolutionary education and rise to consciousness or a post-revolutionary blood bath DOES NOT MATTER to the majority of these factions.

Thus I cannot argue that my ideology is right... to do so would be to contradict many of the arguments I just made, as I am simply another one of those factions who would be fighting post-revolution for the ideology which I think would work. What I can argue, however, is that my ideology remains the most representative that would ensure a positive revolution and not one that would collapse under it&#39;s own Leninist style bureaucrocy or Anarchist civil war.

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s been proven countless times that oppression and lack of necessities doesn&#39;t necessarily result in an uprising.

I&#39;m finding it increasingly difficult to follow your train of thought, RZ.

We&#39;re not talking about imperialism here. We talking about hypothetical "rich" and "poor" localities under communism.

I&#39;m suggesting that if "rich" localities were so hoggishly stupid as to deny necessities to "poor" localities, the "poor" localities would make war to get what they needed...or at least threaten that.

Thus, it is in the self-interest of the "rich" localities to provide generous assistance to the "poor" localities...they do not need a state apparatus to "command" them not to be stupid.


How exactly can a public organization have economic power, but not social power? How does that work out, redstar?

The "centralized data-base" does not have either economic or social "power". It reports what&#39;s happening, that&#39;s all.

Based on that data, freely available to anyone who asks for it, people (and localities) will argue and decide what to do next or what to stop doing, etc.


So do you think that Cuba could have protected itself from American aggression with only some voluntary militias?

That&#39;s what&#39;s protecting Cuba now. The Cuban army is down to about 60,000; their "advanced" weaponry is obsolete; their old Russian fighter jets wouldn&#39;t last three days against an American invasion, etc.

What they really have going for them are neighborhood "Committees for the Defense of the Revolution" which saturate the island; every committee has a stockpile of small arms and ammunition, a list of who has had some training in their use, and, most importantly, a list of who can be counted on to defend the revolution against an American invasion.

Against this, the U.S. would probably need half a million ground soldiers to occupy Cuba...and it would still be worse than Iraq is now.


Please tell me you&#39;re kidding.

I&#39;m not kidding.

:redstar2000:

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

[redstar2000]

What you assume here is that the proletariat is completely unified in the struggle. That the majority proletariat who made the revolution is all in favor of communism. Simply not the case.

Well, we have no way of knowing what the various strengths of various left groups will be on "the day after".

Personally, I don&#39;t think the Leninists will be significant. That, in a sense, is what threads like this one do...assist the historical process of discrediting obsolete options.

There may be many who, "out of habit", will want a "state"...they&#39;re just not capable of thinking in terms of a stateless society at that point.

And they may want to retain other aspects of the old order; money, commodity circulation through buying and selling, etc. Not because they "like" those things but because they&#39;ve never considered any alternatives.

One can imagine them thinking "ok, the capitalist tyrants and their lackeys are dead or exiled, now let&#39;s go back to normal life."

It would be the task of the communist/anarchist majority (if there was one) to convince those people that a return to what they think of as "normal life" would mean the return of capitalism.

And maybe that wouldn&#39;t be easy and would generate many heated struggles and furious controversies.

I don&#39;t think it would generate civil war...though the possibility can&#39;t be ruled out.

But "conceding the issue" -- deciding in advance that we "will" go ahead with the idea of a "transitional state" -- would be, in my opinion, a grave error.

Why? Because as I noted with regard to the Leninist state, when everyone knows that "a new state" is "the first goal" of the post-revolutionary society, you attract careerists the way a corpse attracts flies.

There will always be people "in and around" revolutionary movements because their own personal ambitions are "blocked" by the old order...that doesn&#39;t exclude altruistic motives, it just means that if a way had been open for them to advance themselves in the old order, they would have done so while sincerely believing that they&#39;d use their accrued power "for good".

Such folks will descend on the "transitional state" in hordes...and in the due course of events will begin to act and to see themselves acting as a new ruling class -- "benevolent" to be sure.

By advocating a stateless society from the beginning, we may be able to abort that process before it ever gets under way.

And that would be a very good thing.

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

It would be the task of the communist/anarchist majority (if there was one) to convince those people that a return to what they think of as "normal life" would mean the return of capitalism.

And in what form of society do we exist while this "convincing" is taking place? By what means do we convince an entire nation of such? These things should all be happening BEFORE the revolution -- which I agree is entirely possible. But it is not my position to be a passive revolutionary -- one who supports revolution but only once we are ensured the methods of post-revolutionary society. This would lead us to an educational campaign that would take eons to fulfill, and is not logically possible as people do not live infinitely. We are left to assume that so long as capitalism exists, we cannot completely saturate the majority with this revolutionary thought. Communists will die off, and give birth to other communists, but also other capitalists, and other anarchists, and other <insert ideology here>. If this was not the case we would already see a lot more conscious members of the proletariat than we do, as this ideology would have been spreading since Marx&#39;s day. It has not spread indefinitely, however, it has risen, dwindled, and risen back again... as such it will dwindle again, and there is no way to ensure it&#39;s indefinite growth while we are NOT the ruling class.


Why? Because as I noted with regard to the Leninist state, when everyone knows that "a new state" is "the first goal" of the post-revolutionary society, you attract careerists the way a corpse attracts flies.

I agree, and it is the position of the entire proletariat not to let these careerists gain power.


By advocating a stateless society from the beginning, we may be able to abort that process before it ever gets under way.

You make a very GOOD point, however, the flaws of such a society may be far graver than this. If we have this fragmentation of the proletariat over all these ideologies it will only create fragmentation in us as a single "class." You will replace social classes with ideological ones, and ideological classes will fight just the same to be in power, or to remain in power (if a majority existed that "took the cake" so to speak from the start).

The only way we can hope to battle the pitfalls of the state is to create a high enough class consciousness so that people are aware not only of the existing classes, but the possibility for a newly forming ruling class. By doing as I have said and arguing for a state, but limiting it&#39;s actual power to little more the coordination, we concede that all ideological classes will have a say in what happens, and leave that execution to the hands of the state, thus relieving the burden of such coordination from the people as a whole. Such a burden would only serve to dampen the actual productivity of the working class to build this new society.

Che has said, "Where the government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted."

If you ask me, this can and SHOULD be broadened not ot just guerilla outbreak, but revolution in general. No matter what the level of consciousness, the majority of the proletariat will not use force if they still perceive reform as possible. And if this is true (not saying it is, but I do believe it to be), then a state apparatus would only help to ensure that secondary revolutions would not break out to destroy ideological classes. Maybe with the exception of the Lenninists, since they&#39;d be willing to take down that state without the support of the rest of the people -- but it&#39;s easier for a state representing the entire proletariat to suppress a single ideological faction than it would be for each separate ideological faction to defend itself against all the others.

Anyway, I&#39;m writing a paper on this right now, I&#39;ll post it in the theory thread after. It should be good.

[redstar2000]

And in what form of society do we exist while this "convincing" is taking place? By what means do we convince an entire nation of such?

Well, again on the assumption that a majority of the working class supports some form of classless and stateless society, then we just go ahead and "do it"...and mostly "lead by example".

And we publicize those examples and the theoretical arguments that support them to the "unconvinced" as best we can.

There&#39;s no way to predict how "convincing" we will be...and things may be so "raggedy" that even our hypothetical "majority" will evaporate. People will generally conclude that "we need some kind of state after all".

Then, our "fall-back" position would be "let&#39;s keep it as weak as we can."

People in positions of state authority cannot so much as use the bathroom without advance approval of some general assembly. Anything more important than the color of the official stationary goes to a popular referendum. Strict and short term limits on all "officials"...who may also be recalled at any time for any reason.

Meanwhile, as a minority, we continue to agitate for the removal of this large pimple on the face of the revolution...before it has a chance to become cancerous.

Thus the revolution might be able to "get away with" a temporary state apparatus if it is not prolonged and "institutionalized".

But it&#39;s a huge risk...and one that I&#39;d much prefer to avoid.

Thus I agree with you...most of the "convincing" should and probably must take place before the revolution actually happens.

The working class needs a pretty clear vision of what it is fighting for. Just throwing out the old bastards is not going to work.

:redstar2000:

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

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 09:17 PM
There really isn&#39;t any way to know...unless this general strike actually happens. Even then, who&#39;s the say if it happened due to the dialectical reasoning you&#39;re using?

I&#39;m trying to keep an open mind, but I still am unsure if dialectics is useful. I don&#39;t reject it, bit I&#39;m unconvinced.
Have you reasearched it? Did you have a look at the link I posted? Do you understand the theory?

[T_SP]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 1 2004, 01:43 AM
Exactly. According to dialectics, no forces, nor classes can remain unopposed, they will &#39;fly apart&#39;. So, how can you even entertain the possibilty of a classless society, i.e. one that has no force opposing it.
If there is equality then how can you have an opposing force to it? 0 is 0
0x1=0
0x2=0
0x3=0
This is the very reason that equality (0) needs to be achieved&#33;

[Faceless]

Redstar,
Historical Materialism is the dialectical method applied to society and history. Stop trying to seperate them into different entities.

You are right that dialectics isnt good for everything. Only things considered in change. Formal logic has many applications. But dialectics holds true where it is applied. You want, I suspect, to apply formal logic to dynamic systems. It aint gonna work. Why do I think this?

And the "real" sciences are riddled with it&#33;&#33;

From chaos theory to evolutionary theory; the writting&#39;s on the wall.

Now, dont get me wrong RedStar, dialectics has been misapplied many times by the very people claiming to be its protectors (Leninist scumbags, eh?) and dialectics can also be negative. I once heard an example of "negation of the negation" that went:
a person is depressed, so they drink which negates the depression but begets stronger depression later and thus the person needs more drink.

No one is talking about inevitability here. If many are right, we can look forward to a future of more terrible oppression, a stronger capitalism; a downward spiral.

[redstar2000]

Historical Materialism is the dialectical method applied to society and history. Stop trying to separate them into different entities.

Well, I&#39;m afraid the real world is not like a philosophy class. In class, I would have to carefully conform to Marx&#39;s original definition in order to get a good grade.

In the real world, I and all of us are completely free to appropriate ideas which we find useful and to discard those ideas which we find useless.

Historical materialism without the "dialectic" is useful -- it explains a remarkable amount of history and current events.

The "dialectic" doesn&#39;t explain squat&#33; So why would I want to keep it around?


You want, I suspect, to apply formal logic to dynamic systems. It ain&#39;t gonna work. Why do I think this?

Good question. Why shouldn&#39;t "formal logic" work with dynamic systems?

Better still, show me a "dynamic system" that can&#39;t be explained by "formal logic" plus empirical evidence.

If you "line up" your "dialectical" explanation, I&#39;ll bet you I can line up an ordinary logical explanation that is simpler and explains the phenomenon better.


And the "real" sciences are riddled with it&#33;&#33;

From chaos theory to evolutionary theory; the writing&#39;s on the wall.

I do not see how chaos theory has anything to do with "dialectics" at all...beyond the rather obvious and not terribly helpful observation that "everything affects everything else".

As I understand it, chaos theory suggests that all "stable systems" are actually meta-stable...and that small changes can have very large effects -- occasionally.

But your remark about evolution is really interesting...because I&#39;ve had "dialecticians" throw up at me the example of Stephen J. Gould&#39;s theory of "punctuated equilibrium" as an example of "dialectics" in "action".

Gould asserted that when a new species evolves, natural selection results only in very small changes over millions of years. (Species are "meta-stable".)

But if a small population of this species is, by chance, effectively separated from most of the other members of the species, then natural selection has "something to work with"...a small gene pool where the chances of reproductively successful variations increase enormously. Over a short period of time -- a few thousand years -- that small population can "evolve" so rapidly that it becomes effectively a new species...it will no longer mate with members of the species from which it originated.

The "dialecticians" assert that Gould would "never" have figured this out with only "formal logic" and evidence. Gould was raised in a "Marxist" family and learned about "dialectics" at a young age, "therefore" he was in a position to "apply" it to this problem.

What problem?

Oh, the problem of the "incompleteness" of the fossil record. You see, even though more and more fossils are discovered with every passing year, there seems to be a real "shortage" of "transitional forms". Gould&#39;s "punctuated equilibrium" explains this shortage...most fossils come from species that had been stable for millions of years and only a few are "transitional" because that actually reflects the true numerical distribution. The reason we find only a few transitional forms is that only a few ever existed.

Now, suppose a bright young scientist who had never heard of "dialectics" were to have been the one to examine this problem seriously.

All it would have taken is a very simple and "logical" question: suppose the fossil record is NOT incomplete?

Suppose the evidence is actually telling us what really happened?

I think it&#39;s likely that a great many scientific "break-throughs" have something like this at their point of origin: instead of our "precious" theory, what is the evidence actually saying?

Of course, you can re-state punctuated equilibrium in "dialectical terminology" (Engels filled a whole book with such pointless exercises)...but it&#39;s not necessary to do that in order to understand the theory.

In fact, you don&#39;t need "dialectics" to understand any theory about the real world that derives from evidence of how the real world acts. Marx didn&#39;t need "dialectics" to formulate his "laws" of capitalist development...he could have done the whole thing with ordinary scientific logic and evidence.

If only he had...it would have spared us a titanic load of utter nonsense and the outrageous pretensions of those who&#39;ve claimed to "master dialectics".

As it happens, Gould constantly stressed the role of chance in evolution. It plays a rather large role in "intellectual evolution" as well.

:redstar2000:

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