Do the ends justify the means in reaching communis

[Lardlad95]

I've often seen, much to my disgust, comrades who actualley hope that the situation for workers gets worse only to further the communist cause. I've seen comrades, also to my disgus, who wanted Bush to win only to further piss people off. But we come to a cross roads when we look at such actions, supporting the further denegration of workers rights, the further collapse of worker benefits, the relative decline in social programs, the fall of public education, and the complete and utter stagnation of wages, only to make the situation worse in the hopes that it will speed up the Marxist cause.

On the other hand you have people, my self included, who look at contemporary issues and fight for them with the resources at our disposal. The trouble is, and I've often been criticized for this, is that we are portraying an image of potsmoking crimanl lovers, who want to see gay's marry. Truth be told promoting contemporary issues often do put out an image of socialism and communism as far out radicals. On the one hand this somewhat hurts out image amongst "average" americans, but on the other hand it helps to end social injustice.

So I submit this question to you, is it better to hope for the situation to worsen in the hopes of speeding up a communist revolution, or to try to solve contemporary problems while at the same time delaying capitalism's collapse?

[BOZG]

Ideally, if workers' conditions are attacked in the short-term and the definite outcome of it is socialist revolution then yes, the end does justify the means but unfortunately, things don't work out ideally.

I agree with you that a lot of people do rub their hands with glee whenever we hear capitalism might be going through a rough patch. The anticipation of the inevitable proleteriat revolution is there for all to see. It's quite naïve and unproductive to be quite honest. If that was the case, we could all sit back and just wait for the inevitable. In reality, it's rejecting the subjective basis of revolutions.

As a Marxist, I recognise that the internal contradictions of capitalism will ultimately result in crises, that it cannot continue to maintain itself indefinately and that eventually the system will burst at its own seems. It does not mean that I want to see the economy collapse, I do not want to see massive cutbacks in working conditions and attacks on workers' rights though but that these situations will continue to rise. I also recognise that in the situation of crises' that the subjective conditions for socialism are more advanced, that workers' become more militant and more conscious and that these conditions must be used to our utmost advantage.

[Faceless]

I think you misunderstand the essence of marxism

The point is that the end is justified by the means, not that the means is justified by the end.


I've often seen, much to my disgust, comrades who actualley hope that the situation for workers gets worse only to further the communist cause.

Then Im sure you would have been satisfied if humanity had stayed stale in a state of feudalism. Lets face it, the relative gap between wealth in feudalism was smaller than that in capitalism. Capitalism and its hardships are essential to the formation of communism.


I agree with you that a lot of people do rub their hands with glee whenever we hear capitalism might be going through a rough patch. The anticipation of the inevitable proleteriat revolution is there for all to see. It's quite naïve and unproductive to be quite honest. If that was the case, we could all sit back and just wait for the inevitable. In reality, it's rejecting the subjective basis of revolutions.
But ultimately its irrelevant. If you see it as an opportunity rather than a push by historical inevitability then you may be more productive in such times of radicalism. But a person taking glee or misery from economic failure is an arbitrary basis for morality. Deeds are greater than words.

[ComradeChris]

I've often seen, much to my disgust, comrades who actualley hope that the situation for workers gets worse only to further the communist cause. I've seen comrades, also to my disgus, who wanted Bush to win only to further piss people off. But we come to a cross roads when we look at such actions, supporting the further denegration of workers rights, the further collapse of worker benefits, the relative decline in social programs, the fall of public education, and the complete and utter stagnation of wages, only to make the situation worse in the hopes that it will speed up the Marxist cause.

Since Bush did win (whether people liked it or not) there will probably be a deficit in jobs in the millions again. Worker's jobs are being outsourced, and I don't know the current working conditions (but can only assume since Bush is an advocate for the upper class) that the average worker's job satisfaction and environment will decline. Let's hope people down there smarten up and realize, we just made a big mistake. Did you know not a single net surplus job has been created between either Bush (Sr and Jr)? And that if they were in power throughout the history of the US, at the rate they dismantle jobs, not a single person in the US would be working? I just found that little tidbit of hypothetical knowledge quite interesting. Courtesy of Al Franken. But when it comes down to it the US elections is rediculous. And the only reason an idiot like Bush has power is because the people let him. Sometimes elections get you nowhere. I'm all for direct democracy. Representitive democracy is about rich people interested in their pockets, and maybe a long the way they'll do something for the average Joe to keep them pacified. Sorry end of rant.

[YKTMX]

It's long been believed that the "worse" things get, the more revolutionary people become. It's complete nonsense. Change happens because the workers feel confident, strong and "class conscious". Demoralisation is the road to Fascism and reaction.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 06:02 PM
It's long been believed that the "worse" things get, the more revolutionary people become. It's complete nonsense. Change happens because the workers feel confident, strong and "class conscious". Demoralisation is the road to Fascism and reaction.
Well why even consider revolting if the society you're living in is acceptable too you. You need to learn how bad your life CAN be, before you realize some people live their entire lives in poverty and horrible working conditions.

[Funky Monk]

I hate this phrase, it makes people stop thinking of other as humans.


British radicalism in the 19th Century would seem to suggest that depression does walk hand in hand with working class activism.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 16 2004, 07:00 PM
I hate this phrase, it makes people stop thinking of other as humans.


British radicalism in the 19th Century would seem to suggest that depression does walk hand in hand with working class activism.
The Depression is just one great example of why Capitalism should be ended.

[Funky Monk]

Actually, the advance of Capitalism actually limited the effects of depression. The 19th Century depression was typically cyclical and seasonal and varied a lot with harvest. In Britain the increase of Imperialism and the growing industrial revolution meant that work was available all year round and limited the effects of a bad harvest.



Although i do agree that unemploymen will provoke anti-Capitalist feelings, people with a lot of time on their hands often turn to radicalism and look for excuses for their predicament whilst those who have jobs are more concerned with earning a wage.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

For the record, I was under the impression that Marxists generally believed that an improvement in the conditions of workers would lead to greater class consciousness and lay the foundations for the revolution that would topple capitalism. That is, one who is struggling to get by, living from hand to mouth, has little opportunity to consider their situation in context and develop an understanding of their conditions - which leads to reactionary politics. Only by winning victories can we hope to win more, and only by raising the common wo/man up can we hope to raise them higher.

Consider the last four years in the United States. The "Anybody But Bush" movement rose as a reaction against the Republican's attacks on previous victories - yes people did become involved, BUT during that four years, had it not been for Dubya and Co., we could have been on the offensive, demanding more instead of defending what we've already won.

[Guest1]

I'm not of the position that more hardship would lead to revolution, I'm of the position that more struggle would lead to revolution.

Consideringt hat John Kerry was in many ways the same as Bush, and in others worse, a defeat of the "Anybody But Bush" crowd at the polls was inevitable, and in some ways could be good.

Not because Bush will attack workers, because Kerry would ahve done that too, but because Bush will provoke response, whereas Kerry is the labour leadership's darling.

This defeat is already forcing a reconsideration of tactics.

It isn't that I think reforms along the way are bad, it's that I think winning them at the polls is. We need mass struggle, workers challenging the economic power of the bourgeoisie, and then we will begin to see real, meaningful reforms being implemented to stave off revolution.

It's a matter of method. Supporting Kerry would have gotten us nowhere, because he was proposing nothing meaningful. When we take up radical methods of resistance, they will be forced to give reforms and it will be reflected in the polls.

You can't start at the polls though. A good slap in the face is what those people needed to realize that.

[Lardlad95]

I think you misunderstand the essence of marxism

The point is that the end is justified by the means, not that the means is justified by the end.

I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying in the title. What I was saying was "are the ways inwhich we move towards communism justified because we are moving ourselves towards communism".

This has nothing to do with the justification of the ends, only the justification of how we reach these ends. In fact this has nothing to do with communism/socialism in and of themselves, but rather our actions in achieving these goals.




Then Im sure you would have been satisfied if humanity had stayed stale in a state of feudalism. Lets face it, the relative gap between wealth in feudalism was smaller than that in capitalism. Capitalism and its hardships are essential to the formation of communism.

That doesn't answer my question. Is it right for people to gleefully welcome a worsening situation because it will aid the cause of communism or is it better to try and help the workers out now?

I'm well aware of the fact that capitalism innevitably needs to collpase in order for communism to arise, but what I"m saying is, is it moral to sit by and be happy that people are suffering because it helps us, or should we do what we claim to and fight for the working class at the expense of prolonging a revolution.

Basically to simplify: What is more important, helping the workers now or furthering communism? So should we just sit by as people suffer, or help them?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 10:02 PM
It's long been believed that the "worse" things get, the more revolutionary people become. It's complete nonsense. Change happens because the workers feel confident, strong and "class conscious". Demoralisation is the road to Fascism and reaction.
Interesting take. But certainly history has proven that when conditions fall then the people feel it necassary to throw out their ruler?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:25 PM
I'm well aware of the fact that capitalism innevitably needs to collpase in order for communism to arise, but what I"m saying is, is it moral to sit by and be happy that people are suffering because it helps us, or should we do what we claim to and fight for the working class at the expense of prolonging a revolution.
I don't think fighting for the working class would be at the expense of the revolution.

Like I said, it's struggle and what kind of struggle that matters.

[Lardlad95]

For the record, I was under the impression that Marxists generally believed that an improvement in the conditions of workers would lead to greater class consciousness and lay the foundations for the revolution that would topple capitalism. That is, one who is struggling to get by, living from hand to mouth, has little opportunity to consider their situation in context and develop an understanding of their conditions - which leads to reactionary politics. Only by winning victories can we hope to win more, and only by raising the common wo/man up can we hope to raise them higher.

I can see the logic in this, historically the "leaders" of "marxist revolutions" were of the upper levels of society, or atleast they did not occupy the lower levels. Lennin, Castro, Che all came from good families, not necassarily rich but they had some prestiege. In fact most of the people on these boards are middle class or higher. The person who is struggling lacks the time or freedom to consider such ideas.


Consider the last four years in the United States. The "Anybody But Bush" movement rose as a reaction against the Republican's attacks on previous victories - yes people did become involved, BUT during that four years, had it not been for Dubya and Co., we could have been on the offensive, demanding more instead of defending what we've already won.


From the looks of things, it appears that we've done a relatively shitty job of defending them.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Nov 17 2004, 12:31 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Nov 17 2004, 12:31 AM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 08:25 PM
I'm well aware of the fact that capitalism innevitably needs to collpase in order for communism to arise, but what I"m saying is, is it moral to sit by and be happy that people are suffering because it helps us, or should we do what we claim to and fight for the working class at the expense of prolonging a revolution.
I don't think fighting for the working class would be at the expense of the revolution.

Like I said, it's struggle and what kind of struggle that matters. [/b]
I was simply going by what my critics have said of me, namely that by fighting for contemporary issues w better the situation and prolong revolution. IN addition fighting for more radical things puts people off to socialism and communism, which prolongs it even more.

The entire statement was simply to frame the question of welcoming hardships or fighting against them.


Oh and just so that everyone knows I wasn't saying those things about Bush because I support Kerry. I supported Walter Brown and Ralph Nader.

[Pawn Power]

So I submit this question to you, is it better to hope for the situation to worsen in the hopes of speeding up a communist revolution, or to try to solve contemporary problems while at the same time delaying capitalism's collapse?

All you can do is distribute your knowlage and organize. History does show that hard times do give rise to social change, but remember it is not always left (Hitler in Germany after the country was in desperate poverty from WWI). The only contemporary problem we should be solving is the problem of capitalism, wage slavery, and class; and I don't think struggling for those will delay revolution.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I refuse to fight for social betterment in capitalism. Because while the capitalists are in power, the only "improvements" will be those with the intent of appeasing the people. Social changes that occur during times of hardship take place in order to improve the capitalist economy, because even they know that complete laizes-faire capitalism will indirectly hurt even them.

You guys seem to be under the impression that there's something we can do to mold the actions of the ruling class to make our society more "ripe" for revolution.

All we can do is try to spread consciousness. We cannot "make" the capitalists decrease the conditions for the workers and we cannot "make" them improve the conditions for the workers. Unless we have any multi-billionaires here.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lardlad95
I've often seen, much to my disgust, comrades who actually hope that the situation for workers gets worse only to further the communist cause.

Why should it matter?

Things will get worse, whether one laughs or weeps. Real wages will decline, people will get laid off, there will be more imperialist wars, etc.

Furthermore, whether you "sit on your ass" or "work your ass off", those things will still happen.

(Also, it has nothing to do with who happens to occupy public office...it's a hard-wired progression in the capitalist system itself.)

What we want is for working people to resist the despotism of capitalism and eventually overthrow it. Historical experience suggests that it takes decades of struggle for that to happen. If the system really is "in crisis", then things do indeed become "worse and worse". And active revolutionaries are useful folks to have around; even more important is the widest possible circulation of revolutionary ideas.

But whether one is "privately" elated at the signs of forthcoming revolution or depressed at the prospect of human suffering really doesn't matter...history moves on without regard to our feelings about it.

One sees a lot of "moods" at Che-Lives...some folks get depressed, others get excited, etc. Whenever I see signs of working class resistance, it "lifts my spirits" and whenever I see some particularly outrageous behavior by the ruling class, it really pisses me off. (When I used to read daily newspapers, I got so furious that sometimes I'd wad the whole paper up and throw it across the room! :lol:)

People have their moods...but history rolls on regardless.

:redstar2000:

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

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I expect anarcho-syndicallist unions to play a great role in revolutions.

The theories can be put into practice and simultaneously it shows the a-political workingclass what our ideology is.

A local active anarcho-syndicallist union is a far more effecient means of attracting and organising the working class then books or pamflets will ever be.

Another nice feature of these unions is, that they already have a structure fitting our ideology. Thus in a post revolutionary status it gives us an important advantage against other groups, since we do not have to organise and built up everything from "scratch". This also prevents a strong man to come in place. Stalin and the such.

Now to come to your question. Yes, I do get "happier" when I hear about another economic measure against the working class, because it will force people to start searching for alternatives to capitalism.

Meanwhile, we have to start organising our massmovments for that glorious day

:D

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Lardlad95+Nov 17 2004, 12:39 AM--> (Lardlad95 @ Nov 17 2004, 12:39 AM)
Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 17 2004, 12:31 AM

[email protected] 16 2004, 08:25 PM
I'm well aware of the fact that capitalism innevitably needs to collpase in order for communism to arise, but what I"m saying is, is it moral to sit by and be happy that people are suffering because it helps us, or should we do what we claim to and fight for the working class at the expense of prolonging a revolution.
I don't think fighting for the working class would be at the expense of the revolution.

Like I said, it's struggle and what kind of struggle that matters.
I was simply going by what my critics have said of me, namely that by fighting for contemporary issues w better the situation and prolong revolution. IN addition fighting for more radical things puts people off to socialism and communism, which prolongs it even more. [/b]
I adamantly(I know I'm losing it in the spelling department) dissagree.

I have complete indifference to what are considered "issues" in our so-called democracy. I'm sure as hell not gonna get myself into a huff over whether gays can marry.

I believe not fighting for more radical issues, is what puts people off socialism. Wasn't it JFK who got them into Vietnam in the first place? Thereby boosting propaganda about the marxist cause?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 01:49 AM
I refuse to fight for social betterment in capitalism. Because while the capitalists are in power, the only "improvements" will be those with the intent of appeasing the people. Social changes that occur during times of hardship take place in order to improve the capitalist economy, because even they know that complete laizes-faire capitalism will indirectly hurt even them.

You guys seem to be under the impression that there's something we can do to mold the actions of the ruling class to make our society more "ripe" for revolution.

All we can do is try to spread consciousness. We cannot "make" the capitalists decrease the conditions for the workers and we cannot "make" them improve the conditions for the workers. Unless we have any multi-billionaires here.
So are you saying that every social reform in history has had little or no result? Were the labor and civil rights movements pointless?

Was it better to allow racism and worker opression to continue?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Nov 17 2004, 06:32 PM
Now to come to your question. Yes, I do get "happier" when I hear about another economic measure against the working class, because it will force people to start searching for alternatives to capitalism.

Meanwhile, we have to start organising our massmovments for that glorious day

:D
Isn't that a bit selfish though? Allowinng such things to continue simply because it will further your personal cause.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 17 2004, 02:20 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 17 2004, 02:20 AM)
Lardlad95
I've often seen, much to my disgust, comrades who actually hope that the situation for workers gets worse only to further the communist cause.

Why should it matter?

Things will get worse, whether one laughs or weeps. Real wages will decline, people will get laid off, there will be more imperialist wars, etc.

Furthermore, whether you "sit on your ass" or "work your ass off", those things will still happen.

(Also, it has nothing to do with who happens to occupy public office...it's a hard-wired progression in the capitalist system itself.)

What we want is for working people to resist the despotism of capitalism and eventually overthrow it. Historical experience suggests that it takes decades of struggle for that to happen. If the system really is "in crisis", then things do indeed become "worse and worse". And active revolutionaries are useful folks to have around; even more important is the widest possible circulation of revolutionary ideas.

But whether one is "privately" elated at the signs of forthcoming revolution or depressed at the prospect of human suffering really doesn't matter...history moves on without regard to our feelings about it.

One sees a lot of "moods" at Che-Lives...some folks get depressed, others get excited, etc. Whenever I see signs of working class resistance, it "lifts my spirits" and whenever I see some particularly outrageous behavior by the ruling class, it really pisses me off. (When I used to read daily newspapers, I got so furious that sometimes I'd wad the whole paper up and throw it across the room! :lol:)

People have their moods...but history rolls on regardless.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
But this isn't just about the emotions, it's about actions. Should we sit by and let people suffer or not? Granted suffering wil probably continue, but should we try to ease that suffering as much as possible?

iF we really are looking out for the working class, then should we try and help them through immediate actions, or are we helping them in the long run by letting things get worse?

What should our course of actions be regarding contemprorary problems?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 07:45 PM
So are you saying that every social reform in history has had little or no result? Were the labor and civil rights movements pointless?

Was it better to allow racism and worker opression to continue?
The white-male power structure still exists, doesn't it?
The capitalist class has still retained its power, hasn't it?

Labor rights and civil rights were granted, because it became possible for the bourgeoisie to maintain hold of its power while appeasing the people with these liberties.

In the case of the civil rights and labor rights struggles, reform may have been the right thing to fight for, but nowadays, the only improvements will come about through a removal of the bourgeoisie, methinks

But I could be wrong.

Marx did say that only when all of the mean of oppression of the bourgeoisie are exhausted, can revolution be a viable alternative. Not in those exact words, of course.

It's always seemed like no matter how hard the oppressed have tried to make gains in class society, nothing would ever improve. And often it hasn't, but sometimes it has. But in none of the instances where we made gains, have the bourgeoisie ever given up their own power.

For real change to come about, that must take place. And without revolution, that will never take place.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lardlad95
Should we sit by and let people suffer or not? Granted suffering will probably continue, but should we try to ease that suffering as much as possible?

Doesn't really matter.

The system as a whole "rolls on" -- and if indeed we have reached the beginning of its end, then all efforts to "ease suffering" will prove fruitless. (Specifically, they will have a positive effect too small to measure.)


What should our course of actions be regarding contemporary problems?

That would depend on the specific problem, our analysis of it, our resources, etc.

Basically, I think we should try to aggravate the problems of capitalism whenever we can.

The imperialists are having a tough time in Iraq? Then we should try to make it even tougher on them...by emphasizing our desire to see the U.S. driven out of Iraq and doing whatever we can to demoralize the American troops.

Is there a "crisis of confidence" in the economy? Then our job is to spread "gloom and doom" -- to pound away on the theme that those bastards will make things even worse.

Is there a "political scandal" in the making? We add to it by saying that they're all like that...and always have been!

In other words, the guiding principle for revolutionaries is that we should "fan the flames of discontent" until people are ready to "go all the way" and smash the capitalist system into rubble.

Of course, not everyone here is a revolutionary or even wants to be one.

Fair enough...go ahead and try to "fix" a system that's breaking down or will start breaking down in the not-too-distant future.

Vote for the "lesser evil". Try to find some "reform" that the ruling class will accept. Feed the homeless. Whatever.

IF the revolutionary point of view is correct, then none of that stuff will amount to a puddle of warm spit.

Of course, if we're wrong, then perhaps a "great new day" will dawn -- capitalism "with a human face" or "compassionate fascism".

Either way, history -- like "Old Man River" -- just keeps rolling along.

:redstar2000:

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

[Guest1]

Like I said before agitating is the only way to get any short term gains too. Fight for revlution, radically threaten the basis of power the bourgeoisie has, and you become a force to be reckoned with. Social Democrats step in to save Capitalism from you, by offering you those reforms.

It'll be our duty to refuse, they'll implement them and we'll continue on, pushing for everything.

This is a question of collective bargaining, ask for nothing, and you'll receive less than nothing. Ask for all, and you'll receive most. Don't ask, and you can take, while they throw you concessions begging you to stop.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Lardlad95+Nov 18 2004, 01:47 AM--> (Lardlad95 @ Nov 18 2004, 01:47 AM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Nov 17 2004, 06:32 PM
Now to come to your question. Yes, I do get "happier" when I hear about another economic measure against the working class, because it will force people to start searching for alternatives to capitalism.

Meanwhile, we have to start organising our massmovments for that glorious day

:D
Isn't that a bit selfish though? Allowinng such things to continue simply because it will further your personal cause. [/b]
No, because I believe that it's better for all of us. It's not my personal cause.Yes on the short term we will have to suffer, but it brings our cause closer to realisation.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!+Nov 18 2004, 08:34 AM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard! @ Nov 18 2004, 08:34 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 01:47 AM

Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Nov 17 2004, 06:32 PM
Now to come to your question. Yes, I do get "happier" when I hear about another economic measure against the working class, because it will force people to start searching for alternatives to capitalism.

Meanwhile, we have to start organising our massmovments for that glorious day

:D
Isn't that a bit selfish though? Allowinng such things to continue simply because it will further your personal cause.
No, because I believe that it's better for all of us. It's not my personal cause.Yes on the short term we will have to suffer, but it brings our cause closer to realisation. [/b]
How is it the people's cause if the people aren't themselves struggling for it? THe people are, however, struggling for contemporary changes.

That isn't to say that socialism/communism wont benefit them in the long run, but unless the masses want it (which at the moment they do not appear to) is it really "their cause"?

[Eastside Revolt]

I don't look at it so much as our cause, more like our childeren's childeren's cause. Ofcourse things are gonna suck.

If you look at the 3rd world right now, the slums are growing daily, the only current way to get to those people and help them, are religious movements. If we, in our current time, support these religious movements, we will be allowing theocracies to form in the future, making things even worse in the future.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Nov 18 2004, 01:43 AM--> (RedZeppelin @ Nov 18 2004, 01:43 AM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 07:45 PM
So are you saying that every social reform in history has had little or no result? Were the labor and civil rights movements pointless?

Was it better to allow racism and worker opression to continue?
The white-male power structure still exists, doesn't it?
The capitalist class has still retained its power, hasn't it?

Labor rights and civil rights were granted, because it became possible for the bourgeoisie to maintain hold of its power while appeasing the people with these liberties.

In the case of the civil rights and labor rights struggles, reform may have been the right thing to fight for, but nowadays, the only improvements will come about through a removal of the bourgeoisie, methinks

But I could be wrong.

Marx did say that only when all of the mean of oppression of the bourgeoisie are exhausted, can revolution be a viable alternative. Not in those exact words, of course.

It's always seemed like no matter how hard the oppressed have tried to make gains in class society, nothing would ever improve. And often it hasn't, but sometimes it has. But in none of the instances where we made gains, have the bourgeoisie ever given up their own power.

For real change to come about, that must take place. And without revolution, that will never take place. [/b]
But you never answered the underlying question. Was it better to allow these things to continue? Granted real permanent change only occurs after revolution, violent, democratic, or otherwise. But what should we have done? Was impermanent or temporary change not worth the fight?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

A child that out of curiousity wants to plug his fingers in the socket. He doesn't want to listen or read up on the subject. The only way for him to become aware is by feeling a bit of electricity. Does his unawarenss make "the cause" less of him?

Eventually all proles will feel that "electric shock", no matter if they become aware through reading or by actually getting shocked. It's just a matter of time, so'd rather have it sooner.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 07:37 PM
But you never answered the underlying question. Was it better to allow these things to continue? Granted real permanent change only occurs after revolution, violent, democratic, or otherwise. But what should we have done? Was impermanent or temporary change not worth the fight?
(emphasis added)

You're referring to the past, so I assume you're talking about the labor rights and civil righst movements.

As I said, In the case of the civil rights and labor rights struggles, reform may have been the right thing to fight for, but nowadays, the only improvements will come about through a removal of the bourgeoisie, methinks.

[Lardlad95]

Doesn't really matter.

The system as a whole "rolls on" -- and if indeed we have reached the beginning of its end, then all efforts to "ease suffering" will prove fruitless. (Specifically, they will have a positive effect too small to measure.)

But since we can't gauge how long the "end" will take, what do we do about the problems?


That would depend on the specific problem, our analysis of it, our resources, etc.

Basically, I think we should try to aggravate the problems of capitalism whenever we can.....

....In other words, the guiding principle for revolutionaries is that we should "fan the flames of discontent" until people are ready to "go all the way" and smash the capitalist system into rubble....


I would tend to agree, it is in the people's best interest to expose the failings of capitalism. However how far should we fight? History has shown us Capitalism's ability to incorporate perverted socialist ideas in order to survive. Capitalism is like HIV, no matter what drugs we throw at them, they find a way to adapt. When we do aggravate, and try to create class consciousness of a problem the cappies fight back by taking the stinger out of the movement.


The imperialists are having a tough time in Iraq? Then we should try to make it even tougher on them...by emphasizing our desire to see the U.S. driven out of Iraq and doing whatever we can to demoralize the American troops.


Shouldn't we try to lessen support for the war at home as opposed to demoralizing the troops? If we demoralize them then they aren't going to do their jobs in a dangerous situation? I mean I don't like the war either, but I don't like seeing troops die. If we knock out support for the war at home, then wont it be more sucessful than doing it amongst the troops?


Of course, not everyone here is a revolutionary or even wants to be one.

Fair enough...go ahead and try to "fix" a system that's breaking down or will start breaking down in the not-too-distant future.

Vote for the "lesser evil". Try to find some "reform" that the ruling class will accept. Feed the homeless. Whatever.

IF the revolutionary point of view is correct, then none of that stuff will amount to a puddle of warm spit.

Of course, if we're wrong, then perhaps a "great new day" will dawn -- capitalism "with a human face" or "compassionate fascism".

Either way, history -- like "Old Man River" -- just keeps rolling along.


But it isn't trying to fix the system. It's trying to better the situation for the workers. I don't support the whole "lesser of two evils" thing, but as far as reforms go, it isn't an attempt to put a human face on capitalism, but rather to stop the capitalists from doing more harm.

You are wrong however in regards to these things not mattering. IF we get reforms that better society, it allows them to be made permanent all the more easily in a communist society.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Nov 19 2004, 12:51 AM--> (RedZeppelin @ Nov 19 2004, 12:51 AM)
[email protected] 18 2004, 07:37 PM
But you never answered the underlying question. Was it better to allow these things to continue? Granted real permanent change only occurs after revolution, violent, democratic, or otherwise. But what should we have done? Was impermanent or temporary change not worth the fight?
(emphasis added)

You're referring to the past, so I assume you're talking about the labor rights and civil righst movements.

As I said, In the case of the civil rights and labor rights struggles, reform may have been the right thing to fight for, but nowadays, the only improvements will come about through a removal of the bourgeoisie, methinks. [/b]
Sorry, I over looked that statement, I apologize.

If it was right to fight for civil rights and labor then, what makes fighting for things different now? You say that " nowadays, the only improvements will come about through a removal of the bourgeoisie" WHy do you ay this? What makes movements then different from the ones today?

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 01:09 AM
If it was right to fight for civil rights and labor then, what makes fighting for things different now? You say that " nowadays, the only improvements will come about through a removal of the bourgeoisie" WHy do you ay this? What makes movements then different from the ones today?
I would take a different route than Redzeppelin.

At the time it may have at least seemed worth fighting for. In retrospect, they weren't at all.

Since the labour movement, what has happened? Companies and governments have done all they can to strangle unions. Every labour contract has a "right to manage" clause in it, leaving unions with no bargaining tools, except the bodies of their members. Decades upon decades of this scenario have left unions with a bad reputation, and many have no worth to the employees at all. This is bound to continue.

Since the civil rights movement, what has happened? Well..... black people can vote, ofcourse we now know how much this matters :lol: . Southern black people can piss in the same toilets as white people, halla fucking luyah! We have affirmative action, a small improvement (which has whithered daily) with huge consequences. Now you've got every poor ignorant white person screaming foul! You've got Colin Powell singing war cries to the ghetto. This too, is bound to continue.

I understand how I probably sound like a cold piece of shit, but you do understand my facetiousness, yeah?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lardlad95
Shouldn't we try to lessen support for the war at home as opposed to demoralizing the troops? If we demoralize them then they aren't going to do their jobs in a dangerous situation? I mean I don't like the war either, but I don't like seeing troops die. If we knock out support for the war at home, then won't it be more successful than doing it amongst the troops?

I don't want them to "do their jobs" -- I want them to huddle in their bunkers, refuse to engage the enemy, get strung out on heroin, desert, frag their officers, go over into outright mutiny...whatever it takes to make imperialism lose.

When people "back home" see imperialism losing, that's a very serious blow to the whole legitimacy of the existing system.

And it is when a regime loses its psychological legitimacy among the people that revolution becomes a realistic possibility.


I don't support the whole "lesser of two evils" thing, but as far as reforms go, it isn't an attempt to put a human face on capitalism, but rather to stop the capitalists from doing more harm.

I don't see this distinction but, in any event, people who feel that way should go ahead and try it out.

I am convinced that the era of "reform" in advanced capitalist countries is over...and that the only choice will be between an ever more reactionary and war-like capitalism and the kinds of massive popular resistance that lead towards proletarian revolution.

I know those are "harsh" choices; it would be so much more "pleasant" if there were some kind of "middle way" where we could make steady progress without going through all the "bad stuff".

As late as 1975, "reform" still looked "possible" (though unlikely). Now, whenever you hear the word "reform", you should know that it's just another ruling class assault on the historic gains of the working class.

And the professional "left" reformists will agree to it, provided the "pace" is a little slower.

Sad but true.

:redstar2000:

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 08:09 PM
If it was right to fight for civil rights and labor then, what makes fighting for things different now? You say that " nowadays, the only improvements will come about through a removal of the bourgeoisie" WHy do you ay this? What makes movements then different from the ones today?
Most likely, folks will continue to fight for "betterment" within capitalism for another many decades of little improvement. I suspect that it'll take about that long for folks to realize that what the bourgeoisie can afford to give us without forfeiting their own power has already been given to us.

The next logical step is to overthrow them.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Nov 20 2004, 12:33 AM--> (RedZeppelin @ Nov 20 2004, 12:33 AM)
[email protected] 18 2004, 08:09 PM
If it was right to fight for civil rights and labor then, what makes fighting for things different now? You say that " nowadays, the only improvements will come about through a removal of the bourgeoisie" WHy do you ay this? What makes movements then different from the ones today?
Most likely, folks will continue to fight for "betterment" within capitalism for another many decades of little improvement. I suspect that it'll take about that long for folks to realize that what the bourgeoisie can afford to give us without forfeiting their own power has already been given to us.

The next logical step is to overthrow them. [/b]
That is an interesting take and very close to how I see the progression of western societyplaying out. Though I tend to give more weight to these small battles

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by redcanada+Nov 19 2004, 08:49 PM--> (redcanada @ Nov 19 2004, 08:49 PM)
[email protected] 19 2004, 01:09 AM
If it was right to fight for civil rights and labor then, what makes fighting for things different now? You say that " nowadays, the only improvements will come about through a removal of the bourgeoisie" WHy do you ay this? What makes movements then different from the ones today?
I would take a different route than Redzeppelin.

At the time it may have at least seemed worth fighting for. In retrospect, they weren't at all.

Since the labour movement, what has happened? Companies and governments have done all they can to strangle unions. Every labour contract has a "right to manage" clause in it, leaving unions with no bargaining tools, except the bodies of their members. Decades upon decades of this scenario have left unions with a bad reputation, and many have no worth to the employees at all. This is bound to continue.

Since the civil rights movement, what has happened? Well..... black people can vote, ofcourse we now know how much this matters :lol: . Southern black people can piss in the same toilets as white people, halla fucking luyah! We have affirmative action, a small improvement (which has whithered daily) with huge consequences. Now you've got every poor ignorant white person screaming foul! You've got Colin Powell singing war cries to the ghetto. This too, is bound to continue.

I understand how I probably sound like a cold piece of shit, but you do understand my facetiousness, yeah? [/b]
I see where you are coming from and to a certain extent I agree. Alot of what has been gained was gained in a way that restricts further progression and is being taken away both by the capitalist and seen in a bad light by the people it was meant to benefit.

However in regards to civil rights, as a black man I"m happier that we do have the ability to piss in the same toilets. It may not be much but I know that I'd be hanging from a tree right now if I lived in a world where blacks were still 3rd class citizens. Because I don't play that shit, I"M no one's "boy". If some guy treats me like a dog then I'ma fuckin bite him like one. So atleast we've saved alot more people from being lynched. ANd while blacks still haven't attianed a totally equal level, we are on our way to being equal with the white working class.

My mother told me about the social restrictions that pre-civil rights society put on people. Blacks had/have alot of self hatred, and even though it isn't completely gone, the fact that we have some more freedom has done alot to wither away some of that hatred.

THe work is by no means done, but we are better off with what we've got now then what he had before.

As far as the labor movement goes, FDR and other cappies fucked it up because they "gave in" to demands, when in reality they simply through the people a bone and the people gobbled the bone up. Every social program is just a band-aid program that does nothing to actually help people.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 09:04 PM
That is an interesting take and very close to how I see the progression of western societyplaying out. Though I tend to give more weight to these small battles
But tell me, in the past 50 years what direction have things "progressed" towards? Do the small battles that you hope to win actually involve substantial gains for the working class or simply the slowing down of the regression towards complete and unchallenged corporate tyranny?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Nov 21 2004, 02:41 AM--> (RedZeppelin @ Nov 21 2004, 02:41 AM)
[email protected] 20 2004, 09:04 PM
That is an interesting take and very close to how I see the progression of western societyplaying out. Though I tend to give more weight to these small battles
But tell me, in the past 50 years what direction have things "progressed" towards? Do the small battles that you hope to win actually involve substantial gains for the working class or simply the slowing down of the regression towards complete and unchallenged corporate tyranny? [/b]
I'd say not having to fear being lynched is a substantial gain. Everything is relative, sure in the grand scheme of things it is a small battle, but like I said these gains have done good for people.

[Lardlad95]

I don't want them to "do their jobs" -- I want them to huddle in their bunkers, refuse to engage the enemy, get strung out on heroin, desert, frag their officers, go over into outright mutiny...whatever it takes to make imperialism lose.

When people "back home" see imperialism losing, that's a very serious blow to the whole legitimacy of the existing system.

And it is when a regime loses its psychological legitimacy among the people that revolution becomes a realistic possibility.


All I'm saying is I don't want them to die. I have no problem with your outlook, I just don't want them to get killed.


I don't see this distinction but, in any event, people who feel that way should go ahead and try it out.

What do you mean no distinction? These reforms are for the benefit of the workers, not the image of the elite.


I am convinced that the era of "reform" in advanced capitalist countries is over...and that the only choice will be between an ever more reactionary and war-like capitalism and the kinds of massive popular resistance that lead towards proletarian revolution.

I know those are "harsh" choices; it would be so much more "pleasant" if there were some kind of "middle way" where we could make steady progress without going through all the "bad stuff".

As late as 1975, "reform" still looked "possible" (though unlikely). Now, whenever you hear the word "reform", you should know that it's just another ruling class assault on the historic gains of the working class.

And the professional "left" reformists will agree to it, provided the "pace" is a little slower.


if that is true then alot of the blame lies on people of your generation and the generation prior. Instead of keeping the pressure on, most of the people in these movements let up when the cappies passed some reforms.

However I still don't see why you assume that revolution is the only possible way to change society? Popular resistance is popular resistance whether it's through a bullet or through a ballot. Simply because the reformers of the early and mid 1900's gave in doesn't mean that a new generation will. Many revolutions have gone awry, as have reform movements. Yet you still bevlieve in revolution and i still believe in democratic reform.

[Eastside Revolt]

Let’s get back to the original issue.

“So I submit this question to you, is it better to hope for the situation to worsen in the hopes of speeding up a communist revolution, or to try to solve contemporary problems while at the same time delaying capitalism's collapse?”

Like Redstar says, it doesn’t really matter what we do or don’t hope for, the fact is that these things will happen. The only way to truly solve these “contemporary problems”, is through radical action.

"I've often seen, much to my disgust, comrades who actually hope that the situation for workers gets worse only to further the communist cause. I've seen comrades, also to my disgust, who wanted Bush to win only to further piss people off. But we come to a cross roads when we look at such actions, supporting the further denegration of workers rights, the further collapse of worker benefits, the relative decline in social programs, the fall of public education, and the complete and utter stagnation of wages, only to make the situation worse in the hopes that it will speed up the Marxist cause.

On the other hand you have people, my self-included, who look at contemporary issues and fight for them with the resources at our disposal. The trouble is, and I've often been criticized for this, is that we are portraying an image of pot smoking criminal lovers, who want to see gay's marry. Truth be told promoting contemporary issues often do put out an image of socialism and communism as far out radicals. On the one hand this somewhat hurts out image amongst "average" Americans, but on the other hand it helps to end social injustice."

Again all these things are bound to happen, the most important role we can play is: educator. As more and more individuals are marginalized, it will be easier for us to show that far-out pot smoking radicals are really in the right.

A lot of what has been gained was gained in a way that restricts further progression and is being taken away both by the capitalist and seen in a bad light by the people it was meant to benefit.

The work is by no means done, but we are better off with what we've got now then what he had before.

Yes we are somewhat better off, but if all we can do is focus on the fact that we are better off, then we are feeding into the restriction of further progression.

As far as the labor movement goes, FDR and other cappies fucked it up because they "gave in" to demands, when in reality they simply through the people a bone and the people gobbled the bone up. Every social program is just a band-aid program that does nothing to actually help people.

The union leaders helped them destroy it themselves. Junior union members should be occupying union head offices until they re-examine, their stances on the “right to manage”.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lardlad95
However I still don't see why you assume that revolution is the only possible way to change society? Popular resistance is popular resistance whether it's through a bullet or through a ballot.

Yes, if "popular resistance" were possible "through a ballot", then you'd have a legitimate alternative to offer.

And one that would be all the more appealing because it wouldn't be violent or messy.

My response to this has been consistent: the ruling class is not going to let you do that.

The electoral "process" is their turf and they are no more going to allow "popular resistance" to take it over and use it against them then they are going to hand you or me the numbers and passwords to their offshore bank accounts.

If you think I'm wrong, fine. Go ahead and try for yourself.


Many revolutions have gone awry, as have reform movements. Yet you still believe in revolution and I still believe in democratic reform.

True, but I have a materialist explanation for the failures of past revolutions -- they were not revolutionary enough because material conditions had not developed far enough. The possibilities of a revolutionary society are steadily expanding with every technological innovation.

I also have a materialist explanation for the failure of reformism to make any serious inroads against class society -- reformists are ridiculously easy to corrupt.

Right now, you could probably purchase the Green Party for a few hundred thousand dollars; should they ever become really noticeable, the price would go up to a few million.

Petty cash to the ruling class.

Only people who are seriously committed to a revolutionary perspective are "not for sale".

Or "lease". :D

:redstar2000:

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

[PRC-UTE]

Right now, you could probably purchase the Green Party for a few hundred thousand dollars; should they ever become really noticeable, the price would go up to a few million.


Already happened in Germany. There was a social-democrat Green alliance that took part in the war against Yugoslavia.

[Comrade BNS]

in response to the title argument of the topic alone. To me NO. The ends never justifies the means. The pure achievement of an end goal by any means completely negates the idea of any sort of ideology or moral belief system. it is purely the drive fo something of personal/group desire. a Succeed mentality and nothing else. If you achieve classless society through mass killings and cencorship of 'bourgeois' voices, is it really that worthwhile?

Comrade BNS

and to Redstar, i agree the rich own the ballot box. But guns are not the only 'other' option for achieving equality. Think outside the box (no pun intended), anarchy without violence maybe? who knows; the possibilities are endless, and they don't HAVE to be violent. Don't speak in absolutes, because nothing is so pure as to be absolute. Even the greed of the ruling classes is not absolute.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade BNS
And to Redstar, I agree the rich own the ballot box. But guns are not the only 'other' option for achieving equality. Think outside the box (no pun intended), anarchy without violence maybe? Who knows; the possibilities are endless, and they don't HAVE to be violent.

I think perhaps that you've misunderstood my remarks; I am not a "believer" in "violence" for its own sake.

History rather strongly suggests that significant social change is usually accompanied by a fair amount of violence...almost always initiated by the privileged in defense of their privileges.

Exceptions to this are very rare.

Should it happen that some altogether new form of struggle would emerge, then it would have to be evaluated just like we evaluate existing methods of struggle.

The most important question would be: will this work?

It would be both argued in theoretical terms and actually attempted in practice...with many watching closely to see how things turned out.

Non-violent civil disobedience, for example, has proven to be a useful tactic of protest in situations where insurrection does not seem immediately possible. On a sufficiently massive scale, it can even "bring down a government".

But what it has so far proven incapable of is changing a society's class relationships.

Should that ever actually happen, then a whole re-examination of the "possibilities" would obviously be in order.

Until then, it makes sense to choose "the best bet" of the existing alternatives.

Resistance leading to proletarian revolution is, in my view, clearly "the best bet".

:redstar2000:

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

[Comrade BNS]

Glad to hear that you don't just jump straight to the old guard line of armed revolt when faced with challenge Redstar!


History rather strongly suggests that significant social change is usually accompanied by a fair amount of violence...almost always initiated by the privileged in defense of their privileges.


History should never be used as a justification for present of planned future actions! dynamics, ideals and moral concepts change, and to simply rely on history for all the 'possible' solutions and 'trends' denies us a hopeful and possibly innovative, and dare I say it PEACEFUL future! forget what history says! sure there always HAS been violence. Does that mean there always SHOULD be? we need to start looking for an alternative now!

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade BNS
History should never be used as a justification for present or planned future actions!

What we learn from history is what actually happened in circumstances that were "more or less" like our own.

The "lessons of history" are really suggestions of greater or lesser strength.

If they are very strong suggestions then to ignore them would be perilous.

We should not be "imprisoned" by history but to "dismiss" it would be a very foolish thing to do.


Sure there always HAS been violence. Does that mean there always SHOULD be? We need to start looking for an alternative now!

I'm afraid I can't offer you much encouragement in your quest...at this point what you seek does not seem to me to be even possible.

If you do indeed go on in your life and actually discover a non-violent "method" that actually works, then you will be a very famous guy, to say the least.

But if your search is fruitless, then a large number of people are going to say "I told you so." :)

:redstar2000:

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

[flyby]

redstar wrote: "What we learn from history is what actually happened in circumstances that were "more or less" like our own."

Well, this approach has some problems.

After all, revolution involves doing unprecedented things!

Can we learn from attempts at revolution in imperialist countries? Well, yeah, shure. But there have been very fucking few, and they were defeated.

So we can learn somethings. But how do we learn the strategic approach for something unprecedented?!

Not by narrow empirical methods.

For example, Mao did something unprecendented. He made revolution in the world's poorest country (China in 1949).

Now, if we were narrow empiricists we would say "There is nothing to learn here. china 1949 is worlds away from the U.S. 2004." And it is, of course.

But we can learn from Mao's method of breaking with old dogmas in the communist movement.

We can learn his method of doing clear-eyed scientific analysis of his society (from the point of view of the oppressed) and his method of inventing a new path to revolution.

We can't adopt his particular path (rural guerilla warfare rooted in agrarian revolution etc.) -- but we can learn a great deal about what it takes to make a revolutionary analysis of our own!

There is a method and an approach we can learn.

His link between theory and practice!

His fresh and fearless approach to controviersial issues!

His refusal to accept ready-made solutions offered by sterile dogmatists!

His daring to oppose exisitng authorities (even within his own movement).

His sense of the world as a dyanmic whirl of contradiction and change.

His profound grasp of the "mass line" -- the fact that the masses make history and that nothing is possible without them.

and so on.

We can learn from experiences very removed from our own -- because we are not trying to learn just "case histories" and "scenarios (as empiricism does.) We want to apply revolutionary methods and ideology -- to unique and unprecedented conditions (that don't HAVE case histories or close analogies.)

Dare to dream! Dare to make revolution!

[Eastside Revolt]

^^^^^^^

That's interesting...

If we were to use Mao's link between theory and practise we would need to use empirical methonds. No?

Didn't Mao base his revolution on the peasants, seeing as all previous major uprisings and power changes came at the hands of peasants?

So then seeing as most revolutions in the west have come at the hands of the boregiosie, we would be looking for more revision in the future?

I know this is an extremely simplistic way of looking at it. And no I don't actually feel that revisionism is the way to go. But I'm just trying to see this from your logic.

You are probably right in terms of needing truely radical solutions to deal with radical problems. But I guess I'm just saying that Mao was a bad example. :P

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Cm'n people. Don't stretch out the posts more then needed.

flyby

You could have said that in 3 sentences.

Don't be dogmatic on Marxism. Look to Mao who managed to conduct a revolution. This gives hope for the US 2004.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
But how do we learn the strategic approach for something unprecedented?!

Not by narrow empirical methods.

That which is undiscoverable by "narrow empirical methods" may not exist at all.

A lot has to do with what you really mean by the phrase "strategic approach".

I don't wish to "put words in your mouth" on this question...but it suggests to me that you think a revolution can, in some sense, be "planned" ahead of time.

That seems very unrealistic to me. Because revolutions (in the west) have been spontaneous uprisings of the masses, I'm not sure in what sense one can speak of a "strategic approach".

We communists can encourage resistance to the despotism of capital -- and we can warn the masses against the various traps that the ruling class sets.

But I don't think that's what you really mean by "strategy" in this context.

:redstar2000:

PS: I wouldn't want anyone in the Theory forum to feel constrained by any kind of "word limit" on their posts -- people should feel free to develop their position as fully as they wish.

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