Much Like The Bush Administration You Have No Plan

[Lardlad95]

Not to diminish the amazingly intelligent people of this board, but rarely do I see arguements that give birth to any new theory on the workingings of a post revolution world. The general concensus is that communism lies somewhere in humanities future. However the problem is you rarely hear any ideas on how a post revolution society would work. Granted most communist theorists described how it would work, however today's world is a bit different, so I'm curious as to how you plan on making it all work out.

So if anyone, anyone at all can give me a genreal outline of their plan that would be greatly appreciated, because frankly I just see criticisms of capitalism without providing a real alternative

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:40 AM
Not to diminish the amazingly intelligent people of this board, but rarely do I see arguements that give birth to any new theory on the workingings of a post revolution world. The general concensus is that communism lies somewhere in humanities future. However the problem is you rarely hear any ideas on how a post revolution society would work. Granted most communist theorists described how it would work, however today's world is a bit different, so I'm curious as to how you plan on making it all work out.

So if anyone, anyone at all can give me a genreal outline of their plan that would be greatly appreciated, because frankly I just see criticisms of capitalism without providing a real alternative
Before you go critiquing us about our lack of plan, why don't you tell me yours? You're like the Bush administration, announcing Kerry has no plan, while not outlining his own. :P

My beliefs are so vast in their scopes (read textbook size) that I can't make a "general" outline. That would be demeaning to my ideas, and I can only assume most of the other people here feel similarly.

Want a general outline of my views, read my posts, they are each a puzzle piece in the greater picture of my personally beliefs/outlooks.

[redstar2000]

Can We Ever Say How Communism Will "Work"? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083117353&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

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

[T_SP]

My Socialist Society Plan (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk)
No one can be sure how it will turn, we can only speculate and theorise but I imagine it will be vastly better than society is now!

[Lardlad95]

Before you go critiquing us about our lack of plan, why don't you tell me yours? You're like the Bush administration, announcing Kerry has no plan, while not outlining his own. :P

I think it's pretty damn obvious that you haven't been here for a long time. I've made several posts reffering to specific ideas for how to

-Build support
-gain resources
-set up a post revolutionary government.

Also I've been here alot longer than you so I'm well aware of how alot of the people on this board operate and my conclusions on their plans or lack there of are founded on observation.

That isn't to say that everyone here *****es all the time, but rarely do I see any positive ideas as opposed to simply saying why capitalism/America is wrong.


My beliefs are so vast in their scopes (read textbook size) that I can't make a "general" outline. That would be demeaning to my ideas, and I can only assume most of the other people here feel similarly.

Boy thats one hell of an ego you've got © "My cousin vinny"

How in the hell is a general outline demeaning? I mean honestly are you so incredibly smart that a brief description of your ideas on one or two subjects can't be posted on a messege board? You are obviously capable of engaging in the discussions on these boards, so I think you are also capable of giving an outline for I don't know how to set up a post revolutionary society? All that involves is government, economy, and a few small social aspects. YOu could outline that in three paragraphs and it would still be enough to stimulate discussion



Want a general outline of my views, read my posts, they are each a puzzle piece in the greater picture of my personally beliefs/outlooks.


I don't want a genreal outline of your views. If I did would read your posts on the different posts you respond to. What I want to know is your general concept of how a post revolutionary society would run factoring in modern variables.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:24 PM
Can We Ever Say How Communism Will "Work"? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083117353&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
A very goog article..though I don't like that cheap shot at socialists...

Any way I agree with your contention that specific plan would be obsolete as soon as it is written. That is why I'm suggesting people outline a general plan. Not detailed to the point that they describe create their own world. But a general idea of how the politics and economics would operate. I think it's obvious that the playing field has changed since marx's day as it will change from our world to the world of 2080. I don't want anyone to write an all encompassing manifesto, just their personal beliefs on the most effective structure they can think of.

All in all though I like your arguement.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 04:40 PM
My Socialist Society Plan (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk)
No one can be sure how it will turn, we can only speculate and theorise but I imagine it will be vastly better than society is now!
interesting site, I'll takea longer lok when I return home. I'm going to see Michael moore speak

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:37 PM

I think it's pretty damn obvious that you haven't been here for a long time. I've made several posts reffering to specific ideas for how to

-Build support
-gain resources
-set up a post revolutionary government.

Also I've been here alot longer than you so I'm well aware of how alot of the people on this board operate and my conclusions on their plans or lack there of are founded on observation.

That isn't to say that everyone here *****es all the time, but rarely do I see any positive ideas as opposed to simply saying why capitalism/America is wrong.



Boy thats one hell of an ego you've got © "My cousin vinny"

How in the hell is a general outline demeaning? I mean honestly are you so incredibly smart that a brief description of your ideas on one or two subjects can't be posted on a messege board? You are obviously capable of engaging in the discussions on these boards, so I think you are also capable of giving an outline for I don't know how to set up a post revolutionary society? All that involves is government, economy, and a few small social aspects. YOu could outline that in three paragraphs and it would still be enough to stimulate discussion





I don't want a genreal outline of your views. If I did would read your posts on the different posts you respond to. What I want to know is your general concept of how a post revolutionary society would run factoring in modern variables.
I've been here a long time too. This handle hasn't.

To the admins on why I have two memberships. I was Nobody, if anyone remembers, however, my beliefs have changed rather radically, and so I wished to abandon all the misconception that were associated with that name, and start afresh. Hopefully, this name will be more, um, respectable.

I was also "The Man in the White Shirt", while I was banned. :rolleyes:

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 11:45 PM
interesting site, I'll takea longer lok when I return home. I'm going to see Michael moore speak
You lucky pigdog!!
Some good Moore speeches on this site under comedy :huh:

Micheal moore talks (http://www.mp3.internationalsocialists.org/)

Pm me with your thoughts chap. Are you U$??

[STI]

To the admins on why I have two memberships. I was Nobody, if anyone remembers, however, my beliefs have changed rather radically, and so I wished to abandon all the misconception that were associated with that name, and start afresh. Hopefully, this name will be more, um, respectable.


So, "what are you now"?

And, "what were you"?

I think "Nobody" got pretty innactive right after I joined, so this is all new to me.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:42 PM
I've been here a long time too. This handle hasn't.

To the admins on why I have two memberships. I was Nobody, if anyone remembers, however, my beliefs have changed rather radically, and so I wished to abandon all the misconception that were associated with that name, and start afresh. Hopefully, this name will be more, um, respectable.

I was also "The Man in the White Shirt", while I was banned. :rolleyes:
Oh I'm sorry, I honestly thought Nobody had just up and left...you know you really should have brought that up in the first place. I honestly wouldn't mind if you just up and changed positions, theres no rule saying your beliefs need to remain the same.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 06:10 PM
You lucky pigdog!!
Some good Moore speeches on this site under comedy :huh:

Micheal moore talks (http://www.mp3.internationalsocialists.org/)

Pm me with your thoughts chap. Are you U$??
I made a post about the show in chit chat, check it out

michael moore (http://http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29643)

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 02:53 AM
Oh I'm sorry, I honestly thought Nobody had just up and left...you know you really should have brought that up in the first place. I honestly wouldn't mind if you just up and changed positions, theres no rule saying your beliefs need to remain the same.
No need to apologize, sometimes I forget that I'm under a new alias.

And if anyone remembers my stances, which would be surprising, just move them two feet to the left. Now I consider myself a hardline Neo-Marxist (more on that when I have some spare time).

[Subversive Pessimist]

I'm interested hearing about this Neo-Marxism. :)

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:26 PM
No need to apologize, sometimes I forget that I'm under a new alias.

And if anyone remembers my stances, which would be surprising, just move them two feet to the left. Now I consider myself a hardline Neo-Marxist (more on that when I have some spare time).
and how does your new neo-marxism differ from your old regular marxism? I mean to you personally, not in general.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 11:35 PM
and how does your new neo-marxism differ from your old regular marxism? I mean to you personally, not in general.
When I left, I was on the brink of revamping my ideology, and as such felt I had little to offer the community, so I left. I became disillusioned with many of the causes I had initially supported, and saw as important.

I feel that the Communist parties, especially in the west, need to refocus on the workers. Fo the last twenty years many communist parties have attached themselves to movements that have very limited potential. A good example of this is the prevalence of a pro-drug policy in today's leftist/anarchist movements. I feel that this is a stance that only marginalizes the parties, as well as paint a picture to non-insiders (that we're a bunch of middle-class stoner kids). I feel this is unfair to the complex belief that is Marxism, and the true communists.

As such I believe we need to focus on the workers, and dump the drugs, anti-death penalty, gay marriage items and work towards Marx's beliefs. While I agree that before stated beliefs will be apart of a communist republic (with the exception of the anti-death penalty), I think such beliefs will evolve naturally out of study of various works of communist thinkers, therefore it redundant (and in many cases harmful) to bring them to the forefront of the leftist movement. People will get there on their own.

I also believe to move communism forward we need to get into the limelight, to spread our message. And the only way a tiny minority (which we should not be!) is to take action. We need to occupy government buildings, factories and carryout strikes on the far right. As speak I'm trying to organize groups to just that, but most people talk big, but when you call on their help, well they all of a sudden are rather small.

I also believe Marxism needs to be "distilled" down to its essential elements. Let's be honest, Das Kapital is nearly impossible to get through for a student like me. And for a worker, without lots of time to study the various works, truly impossible. I'm working on simplify the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, into simple, easily read pahampts that maintain the initial meaning. (I think Redstar would be good at this, but I worry about how well he would keep the message intact :P )

By reducing the message, I think a lot of people who had not looked at communism and Marxism, would read it and be like "wow, this really is the future!". And this idea is to me very exciting. But just look at this board, and if you remove the "who was Che/Lenin/Marx?" many of the topics are very thick, and even I have a hard time understanding the subtle nuances of the various arguments. Then go look at Marxism.org, you could literally read that website for the rest of your life. And we wonder why communism tends to attract middle-class kids, aka the people with lots of spare time to study such a complicated ideology.

So neo-marxism, or my variation of, is, in a nutshell, an attempt to simplify, while at the same time militantizing Marxism in order to move towards acceptance of the revolutionary ideal, in order to have an actual revolution.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Militant
For the last twenty years many communist parties have attached themselves to movements that have very limited potential. A good example of this is the prevalence of a pro-drug policy in today's leftist/anarchist movements. I feel that this is a stance that only marginalizes the parties, as well as paints a picture to non-insiders that we're a bunch of middle-class stoner kids. I feel this is unfair to the complex belief that is Marxism, and the true communists.

Interesting.

The first person who ever offered me marijuana was a 25-year-old postal worker in Cincinnati.

That was a long time ago...now it seems to me that marijuana is a "working class drug"...almost as much as tobacco and beer.

Factory workers smoke weed, office workers smoke weed, teachers smoke weed...it's just everywhere.

And narcs are certainly among the most widely despised of all "law enforcement personnel".

It's the only time I've ever heard completely a-political people use the word gestapo with an exact knowledge of its meaning.

I think the "war on drugs" is really a war against the working class...and especially against working people of color.

It is well worthy of our attacks and resistance to it is worthy of our support.


I think Redstar would be good at this, but I worry about how well he would keep the message intact.

Your worries are not unjustified. A Marxist approach to Marxism itself requires that you "dump the crap" and "only keep the good stuff".

If you don't do that...then you're just a theologian working on an "up-to-date" Bible.

Not good.

:redstar2000:

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

[PRC-UTE]

Yes, the war on drugs and the 3 strikes yer out policies were implemented after the economic restructuring that occured after raygun. It's definitely aimed at the working class and especially workers of colour.

Just visit a suburban high school in america and see if they're arresting the doped up kids there. Not likely.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:25 AM

Your worries are not unjustified. A Marxist approach to Marxism itself requires that you "dump the crap" and "only keep the good stuff".

If you don't do that...then you're just a theologian working on an "up-to-date" Bible.

Not good.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I'm all for legalizing drugs, but lets not make it a key issue was all I was trying to say. In the long run it plays a minor part of most (not all) people's lives. I say focus on the big picture and those minor items will fall into line.

Would you like to see a revolution based around the right to consume drugs? I wouldn't.

And on the "Bible" discussion. I'm all for throwing out the crap. That's apart of simplification. I assumed it was understood.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 03:15 AM
Yes, the war on drugs and the 3 strikes yer out policies were implemented after the economic restructuring that occured after raygun. It's definitely aimed at the working class and especially workers of colour.

Just visit a suburban high school in america and see if they're arresting the doped up kids there. Not likely.
On another note, I find it very telling that the first two posts first concerns were my comment about legalizaton of drugs. It makes me feel somewhat validatated.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Militant
On another note, I find it very telling that the first two posts' first concerns were my comment about legalization of drugs. It makes me feel somewhat validated.

It was the first example that you gave of what you found to be objectionable.

As it happens, I'm not opposed to the death penalty in principle. However, you must have noticed that it is something almost always directed against people of color in our racist society. So there's a pretty damn good reason to oppose it as applied.

And I'm indifferent to "gay marriage" since I'm opposed to "legal marriage" across the board...I think getting the government mixed up in your personal relationships is a bad idea for everybody.

My real point is that you can't regard communists as simply "super-sized" trade unionists...we really do want an entirely new society which means we will inevitably concern ourselves with a broad range of struggles. There are revolutionary alternatives to just about everything that exists under capitalism...and communists have the duty to figure them out and publicize them widely.

:redstar2000:

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

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:07 AM
I'm all for legalizing drugs, but lets not make it a key issue was all I was trying to say. In the long run it plays a minor part of most (not all) people's lives. I say focus on the big picture and those minor items will fall into line.

Would you like to see a revolution based around the right to consume drugs? I wouldn't.

And on the "Bible" discussion. I'm all for throwing out the crap. That's apart of simplification. I assumed it was understood.
I see what you mean about our stance on drugs affecting outsiders' opinions to our movement. However like Redstar says, the war on drugs is a class struggle and therfore our fight. It should be made clear though, that cocaine, heroine, and such are very destructive, and while we need to support addicts, we should do all we can to disscourage their use.

It seems to me, that while you dissmiss the war on drugs, and anti-death penalty issues, you should look closer at other things you mentioned. The occupation of govenment buildings (at least in small groups like you're saying) will precisely lead to summary arrests, and will severely depleat your reasources (who pays the fines?). Not only that, but you will not stop anything.

Ofcourse on the other hand (like lardland was pointing out), if you're outlining a general plan for a large revolutionary movement. The occupation of government buildings and even whole neighborhoods, is definitely in the cards.

Baby steps brother.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 07:35 PM
I see what you mean about our stance on drugs affecting outsiders' opinions to our movement. However like Redstar says, the war on drugs is a class struggle and therfore our fight. It should be made clear though, that cocaine, heroine, and such are very destructive, and while we need to support addicts, we should do all we can to disscourage their use.

It seems to me, that while you dissmiss the war on drugs, and anti-death penalty issues, you should look closer at other things you mentioned. The occupation of govenment buildings (at least in small groups like you're saying) will precisely lead to summary arrests, and will severely depleat your reasources (who pays the fines?). Not only that, but you will not stop anything.

Ofcourse on the other hand (like lardland was pointing out), if you're outlining a general plan for a large revolutionary movement. The occupation of government buildings and even whole neighborhoods, is definitely in the cards.

Baby steps brother.
Currently, I'm in Canada (Kingston, Ontario to be percise), and feel we could "get away" with occupying factories, given th current lassiez-faire nature of the police system. We need to take adventage of the current break down!

And when we do occupy a goverment building, I feel that measures should be taken to destroy records and/or disrupt the goverment system. I feel if we can show how weak the system truly is, the facade of strenght and power will crumble. And when it does a lot of peole will wake up.

I hope. And thats all I can do for the moment.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 07:44 PM
Currently, I'm in Canada (Kingston, Ontario to be percise), and feel we could "get away" with occupying factories, given th current lassiez-faire nature of the police system. We need to take adventage of the current break down!

And when we do occupy a goverment building, I feel that measures should be taken to destroy records and/or disrupt the goverment system. I feel if we can show how weak the system truly is, the facade of strenght and power will crumble. And when it does a lot of peole will wake up.

I hope. And thats all I can do for the moment.
That's interesting, by what exactly do you mean lassiez faire, when it comes to the police system?

I'm sorry but in Vancouver, whether it's the RCMP or the VPD, they are itching for any reason to break out the riot gear and beat on anybody, that dissagrees.

Nevertheless it's beautiful to hear. :)

[Red Star Rising]

Friends, as much as I support the struggles of the working class, many drugs are bad bad ****. Now I enjoy an occasional joint as much as the next guy, but the drug trade is a super-capitolist problem. It's one of the greatest capitolist evils in my mind. Dealers sell harmfull substances for the sole purpose of making a profit. Meanwhile they undermine the working class, causing addiction which further saps the resources of our workers, making their plight even more harrowing. It's a huge problem for minorities who have enough problems facing rampart racism. Just wanted to throw out my theroy on that.

[apathy maybe]

The problem with providing a plan for a post revolutionary post capitalism post state society is the vast number of people who ideas on it.

For instance I probably would like something completely different to someone else. What we are doing now is fighting for the opportunity to fight for what we want. This is why I support groups such as Socialist Alliance. Most of them are Marxists, and I’m not. But in the meantime we agree on the first initial steps towards a post capitalist society.

The other major problem with having a plan is implementing it. Unless you are one of the "leadership" who is going to listen to you? Besides who knows what conditions are going to be like?

But my ideal world would be an http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28053 Anarchist one. I don’t know how it would be organised; probably the largest grouping of decision makers would be city and its surrounds. Except that things such as pollution and environment may well need to be discussed at a global level. The Internet is a tool which makes discussion easily accessed across the world and it needs to be expanded to all parts of the globe.
I don’t think that there will be too much travel via aircraft or petrol consuming boats either. That is not to say they wouldn’t exist, but other forms of transport are more efficient. They would probably be used to cart food or medical supplies or similar to places where they are needed. Not for mass transport.

And if you aren’t talking about post capitalism, etc. Well my plan is education and co-ops and lots of other things. Yay for Socialists and Unions.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 01:14 AM
When I left, I was on the brink of revamping my ideology, and as such felt I had little to offer the community, so I left. I became disillusioned with many of the causes I had initially supported, and saw as important.

I feel that the Communist parties, especially in the west, need to refocus on the workers. Fo the last twenty years many communist parties have attached themselves to movements that have very limited potential. A good example of this is the prevalence of a pro-drug policy in today's leftist/anarchist movements. I feel that this is a stance that only marginalizes the parties, as well as paint a picture to non-insiders (that we're a bunch of middle-class stoner kids). I feel this is unfair to the complex belief that is Marxism, and the true communists.

As such I believe we need to focus on the workers, and dump the drugs, anti-death penalty, gay marriage items and work towards Marx's beliefs. While I agree that before stated beliefs will be apart of a communist republic (with the exception of the anti-death penalty), I think such beliefs will evolve naturally out of study of various works of communist thinkers, therefore it redundant (and in many cases harmful) to bring them to the forefront of the leftist movement. People will get there on their own.

I also believe to move communism forward we need to get into the limelight, to spread our message. And the only way a tiny minority (which we should not be!) is to take action. We need to occupy government buildings, factories and carryout strikes on the far right. As speak I'm trying to organize groups to just that, but most people talk big, but when you call on their help, well they all of a sudden are rather small.

I also believe Marxism needs to be "distilled" down to its essential elements. Let's be honest, Das Kapital is nearly impossible to get through for a student like me. And for a worker, without lots of time to study the various works, truly impossible. I'm working on simplify the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, into simple, easily read pahampts that maintain the initial meaning. (I think Redstar would be good at this, but I worry about how well he would keep the message intact :P )

By reducing the message, I think a lot of people who had not looked at communism and Marxism, would read it and be like "wow, this really is the future!". And this idea is to me very exciting. But just look at this board, and if you remove the "who was Che/Lenin/Marx?" many of the topics are very thick, and even I have a hard time understanding the subtle nuances of the various arguments. Then go look at Marxism.org, you could literally read that website for the rest of your life. And we wonder why communism tends to attract middle-class kids, aka the people with lots of spare time to study such a complicated ideology.

So neo-marxism, or my variation of, is, in a nutshell, an attempt to simplify, while at the same time militantizing Marxism in order to move towards acceptance of the revolutionary ideal, in order to have an actual revolution.
I agree with you to an extent. I like most of your ideas and have often come to the same conclusions as your self. Focusing more on the working class, etc. However I don't feel it's necassary to dump our pushing for small time measures, only we need to stop letting these things be the defining issues for us. We never come out in the public eye unless it's about fringe issues.

But for the most part i agree

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:09 AM
On another note, I find it very telling that the first two posts first concerns were my comment about legalizaton of drugs. It makes me feel somewhat validatated.
ha!

[Lardlad95]

I'd like to touch on something Apathy maybe said about the Socialist Alliance.

One of the points in my 7 point plan for socialism(there aren't really 7 points, but it sounds better than my list of grievances with modern socialism and my list to fix them) was the formation of a marxist coalition.

Right now we are factioned into so many different parties that our numbers have dwindled to near nothingness. WHile we may disagree on thesmall details we generally agree on the same destination. With a coalition of marxist parties we could share resources and prove a more effective power than we could by ourselves.

The parties would not unify into one, but would operate under the same umbrella that is led by representatives from each party.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:51 AM
I'd like to touch on something Apathy maybe said about the Socialist Alliance.

One of the points in my 7 point plan for socialism(there aren't really 7 points, but it sounds better than my list of grievances with modern socialism and my list to fix them) was the formation of a marxist coalition.

Right now we are factioned into so many different parties that our numbers have dwindled to near nothingness. WHile we may disagree on thesmall details we generally agree on the same destination. With a coalition of marxist parties we could share resources and prove a more effective power than we could by ourselves.

The parties would not unify into one, but would operate under the same umbrella that is led by representatives from each party.
While I like that idea, and strive for such a setup (a Communist bloc if you will), with leftists it never seems to work.

Just so we're all on the same page, I'll flesh out my idea. I'm in Canada for the record. The CPC and CPC-ML, along with smaller socialist parties that wish to join would unite under the flag of the communist bloc for such events such as protests or possibly elections elections. One front would be perceived by outsiders, and one choice provided to communists on the ballot, along with the capitalist choices. That way we are given the maximum appearance of power/numbers.

I have given this suggestion at party meetings and it has only been met with lukewarm support at most. Why? I blame the over-intelluctualization of the far left. Everyone wants to be a leader, and have their ideas put into place. Its like the classic saying "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians".

CPUSA and CPC did not start out as Leninist or Trotskyist or Maoist party. To the best of my knowledge they started as communist parties from which a wing of membership chose to leave. Case in point, in the 1960's fifty Trots left the CPUSA to form their own party. Why? What could they possible think they were going to accomplish of their own?

The cure? One party has to become ridiculously large then the others. And then be magnanimous enough to welcome the others into an alliance. But the only way to gain serious membership is to already have membership. Most normal (:D) don't wants to join a fringe movement, they want to join a popular, established party. Catch-22.

Solution? Merge with unions. Most unions already have a support base and we need to tap into that. Union leadership is seen as weak and impotent against management. We need to tap into that anger and throw out the old white men (yes, I'm generalizing) and replace them with true radical workers, supported by those communist intellectuals I mentioned earlier. Then, we have a chance.

But I think its important not to use the workers. Their union leaders are already doing that, we just need to help them relieze they can change that situation.

There's hope yet.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Militant+Nov 9 2004, 03:42 AM--> (Militant @ Nov 9 2004, 03:42 AM)
[email protected] 9 2004, 01:51 AM
I'd like to touch on something Apathy maybe said about the Socialist Alliance.

One of the points in my 7 point plan for socialism(there aren't really 7 points, but it sounds better than my list of grievances with modern socialism and my list to fix them) was the formation of a marxist coalition.

Right now we are factioned into so many different parties that our numbers have dwindled to near nothingness. WHile we may disagree on thesmall details we generally agree on the same destination. With a coalition of marxist parties we could share resources and prove a more effective power than we could by ourselves.

The parties would not unify into one, but would operate under the same umbrella that is led by representatives from each party.
While I like that idea, and strive for such a setup (a Communist bloc if you will), with leftists it never seems to work.

Just so we're all on the same page, I'll flesh out my idea. I'm in Canada for the record. The CPC and CPC-ML, along with smaller socialist parties that wish to join would unite under the flag of the communist bloc for such events such as protests or possibly elections elections. One front would be perceived by outsiders, and one choice provided to communists on the ballot, along with the capitalist choices. That way we are given the maximum appearance of power/numbers.

I have given this suggestion at party meetings and it has only been met with lukewarm support at most. Why? I blame the over-intelluctualization of the far left. Everyone wants to be a leader, and have their ideas put into place. Its like the classic saying "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians".

CPUSA and CPC did not start out as Leninist or Trotskyist or Maoist party. To the best of my knowledge they started as communist parties from which a wing of membership chose to leave. Case in point, in the 1960's fifty Trots left the CPUSA to form their own party. Why? What could they possible think they were going to accomplish of their own?

The cure? One party has to become ridiculously large then the others. And then be magnanimous enough to welcome the others into an alliance. But the only way to gain serious membership is to already have membership. Most normal (:D) don't wants to join a fringe movement, they want to join a popular, established party. Catch-22.

Solution? Merge with unions. Most unions already have a support base and we need to tap into that. Union leadership is seen as weak and impotent against management. We need to tap into that anger and throw out the old white men (yes, I'm generalizing) and replace them with true radical workers, supported by those communist intellectuals I mentioned earlier. Then, we have a chance.

But I think its important not to use the workers. Their union leaders are already doing that, we just need to help them relieze they can change that situation.

There's hope yet. [/b]
Just to follow up have you tried anymore to spread this idea to party members?

[Lardlad95]

I just want to see if anyone has come up with a decent plan in the past couple of months...so if anyone has go right ahead.

[rice349]

recently there was a thread on government and how one envisioned it (if they believed in government) in a post-revolutionary era. Here's the gist of what i wrote...

While this is completely hypothetical and subjective to each person, i'm going to at least lay down my vision of what i beleive a socialist government should be in a post revolutionary era:

First and foremost, the government and the party would be synonymous with each other. If one wants a say in governmental procedures, one has to join the party. The congress of the party would in turn act as congress of the state. The basic structure of the government would be bureaucratic for the sake of efficiency only. Upper-level party members and leaders however will not be compensated any more or less for their efforts at directing society. Thus, from here on out i will use the terms "party" and "state" interchangably.

THe government itself would be totalitarian in strength and accinompanied with strict, unquestionable control of the economy. The purpose for this would be for seizure of all private property, businesses, assets, bank accounts, etc. The state would be comprised of a number of departments that report to an official legislating body (a central committee) in which policy will be voted upon by all members and afterwards will require strict adherance to.

Regardiing opposition to the worker's government, the rights of counter-revolutionaries (bourgeois, capitalists, reactionaries, etc.) will be suspended indefinitely until further notice and will be subject to either exile, re-education programs, or (for their safety) internment.

With regards to the lives' of the general public, the state will institute a campaign of cultural restructuring in which the abolishment and destruction of pre-revolutionary icons and institutions will take place. This includes the nationalization of all churches and church property to be immediately turned into public works' stations as housing for the many homeless and under-sheltered people as to address the problem as quickly as possible.

The state shall also have control of the media and press to prevent counter-revolutionary propaganda from tainting the workers' liberation with lies and bourgeois misinformation.

Elections will be non-existant for their will be one and only one party. Political suppression of capitalists and the likes will be necessary in preserving the workers' movement from those who wish to return to the status quo.

The government will play a significant role in people's lives by preparing them for the ultimate shift to true communism. However, this does not mean in the same sense in which the Bush admin. is trying to control the people's lives with christian fascism. Instead, the government will do its best to reverse this type of reactionary behavior by establish a campaign of re-education. This means the resurgance of scientific and logical thought to replace religion, and rigorous education in marxism, leninism, macro-economics, science, etc. As far as personal freedoms, workers will have the right to speak their minds freely and openly discuss what they beleive the government should do to make things better.

Some of the programs that will be included in the state would be Re-Education programs for helping to introduce marxist-leninist thought to those who were at one time opposed to it to help bring about a new mindset for workers who originalyl took counter-revolutionary opinions; National Health programs that would institute complete free healthcare for every individual within the nation; Wealth Redistribution programs that would take it upon themselves to seize private property away from the bourgeois and ruling castes; Education Departments (separate from Re-Education) which institute brand new public school programs which will be completely free for all all the way to the university level; Public WOrks programs whose job it would be to provide sufficient work for all members of society so each individual is guaranteed work to contribute to building socialism and prosperity for the workers, these are only a few there would be of course numerous others.

In turn for their hardwork and cooperation, the workers will be provided with everything they could possibly need by the state. The state would provide them with food, shelter, health care (including state-sponsored abortions), child-care (children would actually be raised by governmental institutions rather than by individual parents), communal transportation, clothing, entertainment, information, work-assignments, education, amongst many more things.

In the essence of bureaucracy, the party would be headed by the General Secretary of the Party and a Premeir. The General Secretary would serve as Head of Government, while Premeir serves as Head of State. Their powers would be designated to them by the central committee and politburo with regards to their respective duties and to what limit their powers are. It would be possible for one to assume the powers and responsibilities of both if deemed competent enough by the central committee.

The purpose of such a centralized, strong government will simply exist for the sole purpose of aiding society in the transition from capitalism to socialism. The workers will be inclined to give their utter and complete loyalty to the party because the party will be comprised of those who it wishes to benefit--the workers.

There's a lot more i'll have to add at a later time which i eventually will do but that's the gist of it!

To see the rest, here's the link While this is completely hypothetical and subjective to each person, i'm going to at least lay down my vision of what i beleive a socialist government should be in a post revolutionary era:

First and foremost, the government and the party would be synonymous with each other. If one wants a say in governmental procedures, one has to join the party. The congress of the party would in turn act as congress of the state. The basic structure of the government would be bureaucratic for the sake of efficiency only. Upper-level party members and leaders however will not be compensated any more or less for their efforts at directing society. Thus, from here on out i will use the terms "party" and "state" interchangably.

THe government itself would be totalitarian in strength and accinompanied with strict, unquestionable control of the economy. The purpose for this would be for seizure of all private property, businesses, assets, bank accounts, etc. The state would be comprised of a number of departments that report to an official legislating body (a central committee) in which policy will be voted upon by all members and afterwards will require strict adherance to.

Regardiing opposition to the worker's government, the rights of counter-revolutionaries (bourgeois, capitalists, reactionaries, etc.) will be suspended indefinitely until further notice and will be subject to either exile, re-education programs, or (for their safety) internment.

With regards to the lives' of the general public, the state will institute a campaign of cultural restructuring in which the abolishment and destruction of pre-revolutionary icons and institutions will take place. This includes the nationalization of all churches and church property to be immediately turned into public works' stations as housing for the many homeless and under-sheltered people as to address the problem as quickly as possible.

The state shall also have control of the media and press to prevent counter-revolutionary propaganda from tainting the workers' liberation with lies and bourgeois misinformation.

Elections will be non-existant for their will be one and only one party. Political suppression of capitalists and the likes will be necessary in preserving the workers' movement from those who wish to return to the status quo.

The government will play a significant role in people's lives by preparing them for the ultimate shift to true communism. However, this does not mean in the same sense in which the Bush admin. is trying to control the people's lives with christian fascism. Instead, the government will do its best to reverse this type of reactionary behavior by establish a campaign of re-education. This means the resurgance of scientific and logical thought to replace religion, and rigorous education in marxism, leninism, macro-economics, science, etc. As far as personal freedoms, workers will have the right to speak their minds freely and openly discuss what they beleive the government should do to make things better.

Some of the programs that will be included in the state would be Re-Education programs for helping to introduce marxist-leninist thought to those who were at one time opposed to it to help bring about a new mindset for workers who originalyl took counter-revolutionary opinions; National Health programs that would institute complete free healthcare for every individual within the nation; Wealth Redistribution programs that would take it upon themselves to seize private property away from the bourgeois and ruling castes; Education Departments (separate from Re-Education) which institute brand new public school programs which will be completely free for all all the way to the university level; Public WOrks programs whose job it would be to provide sufficient work for all members of society so each individual is guaranteed work to contribute to building socialism and prosperity for the workers, these are only a few there would be of course numerous others.

In turn for their hardwork and cooperation, the workers will be provided with everything they could possibly need by the state. The state would provide them with food, shelter, health care (including state-sponsored abortions), child-care (children would actually be raised by governmental institutions rather than by individual parents), communal transportation, clothing, entertainment, information, work-assignments, education, amongst many more things.

In the essence of bureaucracy, the party would be headed by the General Secretary of the Party and a Premeir. The General Secretary would serve as Head of Government, while Premeir serves as Head of State. Their powers would be designated to them by the central committee and politburo with regards to their respective duties and to what limit their powers are. It would be possible for one to assume the powers and responsibilities of both if deemed competent enough by the central committee.

The purpose of such a centralized, strong government will simply exist for the sole purpose of aiding society in the transition from capitalism to socialism. The workers will be inclined to give their utter and complete loyalty to the party because the party will be comprised of those who it wishes to benefit--the workers.

There's a lot more i'll have to add at a later time which i eventually will do but that's the gist of it! http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=34241&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34241&hl=)

[Lardlad95]

Rice, your proposal sounds unecassarily harsh and rather stereotypical.

First of all without elections how are officials determined? You say the state does this and the state does that...but who checks the state? Who puts the people that do all these things in power?

In addition your abolishment of "pre-revolutionary" culture and comandeering of the media seems as if it is something that is forced. I don't really see alot of democracy in your plan.

Also in a one party state how is any change supposed to occur? The leadership of the party wont allow any drastic changes to it's platform, even if these changes aren't capitalist or reactionary. You appear to be centralizing power in the part leadership. Sure they wont be compensated more but they will still have power.

"totalitarian in strength" and unquestionable control over the economy? And where do the workers fit into all of this? You claim it is the worker's government but I see very little decision making on the part of the workers.

Your education plan amounts to little more than indoctrination. you can not present one side and call that education..that is what capitalists do.

Also you claim people will be able to speak their minds about what the government does...but then how will they apply these opinions?


My biggest concern with your concept is that it seeks to provide the workers with this and that yet there appears to be little input from the workers themselves. As if you are telling people that you know what is best for them instead of them determining what is best from them. Now I agree that capitalism has lied to many people about how things should be. But people must be educated to teh point where they can make a decision for themselves. The workers must be the one doing these things, not some artificial "state party" that lacks public elections.

[aberos]

plan for communist society: see cuba

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:05 AM
plan for communist society: see cuba
...........................I think we can do better

[aberos]

that is right, we could do better. we could do better if in enacting the plans of cuba we do not have a brutal, oppressive superpower covertly attempting to destroy us. or if in enacting the plans of cuba we are not privy to our comrades turning their backs on us due to the pressures placed upon them by the brutal, oppressive superpower. yes, we could do better.

[Black Dagger]

that is right, we could do better. we could do better if in enacting the plans of cuba we do not have a brutal, oppressive superpower covertly attempting to destroy us. or if in enacting the plans of cuba we are not privy to our comrades turning their backs on us due to the pressures placed upon them by the brutal, oppressive superpower. yes, we could do better.

I don't live in Cuba though, transplanting a system that has debateable vitality (in Cuba itself), to 'advanced' capitalist country, of say, W. Europe, N. America and so forth is a little different. Historical conditions, social conditions, economic conditions all help shape the political character and composition of any revolutionary movement. Applying 'models' that may (or may not) have worked from country to country is simplistic, and ignores the massive differences between Cuba and 'the west'. And if there is to be a revolution in the 'west', there will be a capitalist super-power seeking to undermine it, the only way around this is if somehow, revolutionary movements take root, one after the other or whatever, and you have a REAL (!) communist 'domino' theory in action :P

[Severian]

In response to the last post:
There is no Cuban "model" which could be "transplanted", but there is a Cuban example...that it is possible for working people to take and hold political power.

That's more useful to point to, IMO, than any "plan" or "blueprint" anyone could work out.

In response to the first post:
Anybody can all speculate, but I think it'd be a serious error to get too committed in advance to any "plan" of how post-capitalist society oughta work. This is one of those Marxism vs. utopian socialism things.

Here's some speculation which wasn't bad in its time anyway, by James P. Cannon:
America Under the Workers' Rule (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1953/workersrule.htm)
What a Socialist America will look like (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1953/socialistamer.htm)

Incidentally, I don't think, "Like the Bush administration you have no plan" is such a bad indictment, and it's revealing you think it is.

The Bush administration is the serious representative of a basic social class. In that, yes, revolutionary Marxists are like the Bush administration.

And IMO Bush has done pretty well for that class, at least if you keep in mind that the U.S. empire is ultimately doomed no moatter what policy it chooses. Considering he got reelected, apparently most of that ruling class thinks so too - and for all their short-sighted greed, they have a firm grip on their class interests. More class-conscious than anybody else, really.

The liberal imperialists carp and criticize but have no basically different policy to propose. They even complain when Rumsfeld says "you go to war with the army you have." WTF do they want him to do, go to war using an imaginary army? Do nothing until the perfect moment arrives, i.e. never? Fiddle while their empire burns?

So, yeah, there is a certain parallel there. Between the serious representatives of basic social classes, who go into the fight as best they can, not waiting for perfection which never comes. And between the petty-bourgeois sideline critics, who can't even make up their minds which side they're on, but make tactical criticisms of both. Ahem. Actually that second one's not even a comparison, it's often the same people.

[Lardlad95]

Anybody can all speculate, but I think it'd be a serious error to get too committed in advance to any "plan" of how post-capitalist society oughta work. This is one of those Marxism vs. utopian socialism things.

I'm not looking for a concrete step-by-step lay out of what needs to be done. But I do think that we need to be serious about considering the possibilities of what lies ahead. There have been flaws in every so called "communist" movement and I think we need to look critically at past experiments so we can ensure that the mistakes won't be repeated.

Incidentally, I don't think, "Like the Bush administration you have no plan" is such a bad indictment, and it's revealing you think it is.

The Bush administration is the serious representative of a basic social class. In that, yes, revolutionary Marxists are like the Bush administration.

That comparison was to note that the Bush administration too often operates in situations where a mistake is made due to lack of foresight. They do not sit down and consider all forseeable outcomes before acting. Granted there are times when things just surprise you. But I see alot of instances in their policy where the results were likely and they didn't prepare for them.

And IMO Bush has done pretty well for that class, at least if you keep in mind that the U.S. empire is ultimately doomed no moatter what policy it chooses. Considering he got reelected, apparently most of that ruling class thinks so too - and for all their short-sighted greed, they have a firm grip on their class interests. More class-conscious than anybody else, really.

In domestic policy yes, but my comparison had more to do with their lack of foresight on international issues.

The liberal imperialists carp and criticize but have no basically different policy to propose. They even complain when Rumsfeld says "you go to war with the army you have." WTF do they want him to do, go to war using an imaginary army? Do nothing until the perfect moment arrives, i.e. never? Fiddle while their empire burns?

I agree that often liberals do not propose alternatives...however as far as criticizing rumsfeld they had just cause. The situation with Rumsfeld involved a lack of armored vehicles. The military had every oppurtunity to increase the number of armored vehicles before the war and they didn't. Instead they went to war with inferior vehicles when it would have been easy to increase the numbers.

So, yeah, there is a certain parallel there. Between the serious representatives of basic social classes, who go into the fight as best they can, not waiting for perfection which never comes. And between the petty-bourgeois sideline critics, who can't even make up their minds which side they're on, but make tactical criticisms of both. Ahem. Actually that second one's not even a comparison, it's often the same people.

Thats right you go into the fight as best you can. The American government didn't do that. We don't do that and we need to wise up before they do.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:03 PM
That comparison was to note that the Bush administration too often operates in situations where a mistake is made due to lack of foresight.
The ruling class is shortsighted by nature; they operate empirically and without any theory equivalent to Marxism.

The Bush administration did have a plan for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion though...it's just that plan didn't work so well, since it turned out their pet exiles had little support.

On the other hand, who knows if any of the alternatives woulda worked better...for example, if they hadn't disbanded the army and done so much de-Baathification, would they have successfully placated the Sunni Arab minority and ex-regime elements....only to alienate the Shi'a majority and maybe the Kurds too, leading to a bigger insurgency supported by most of Iraq's population.


The situation with Rumsfeld involved a lack of armored vehicles. The military had every oppurtunity to increase the number of armored vehicles before the war and they didn't. Instead they went to war with inferior vehicles when it would have been easy to increase the numbers.

On the contrary, the shortage is not of armored vehicles generally....they have plenty of great tanks suitable for fighting the Soviet army somewhere in Germany. Did ya know the Abrams doesn't even have an antipersonnel (HE) shell? Just antitank (DU). And its almost invulnerable to other tanks...but some kid with an RPG can take one out if he gets close enough.

What they don't have is enough light armored vehicles suitable for fighting a "counterinsurgency" war where there is no secure rear area. They don't have every humvee and truck armed and armored to survive that kind of situation.

From when he first took office, Rumsfeld has been pushing a transformation in that direction - lighter, faster, more easily deployed - for the kind of irregular wars he figures the empire's gonna be fighting more of. No more massive prolonged land wars in Eurasia which Uncle Sam can't possibly win.